HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 85-2020 (20-319)City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,
400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City Council
Resolution: RES 85-2020
File Number: 20-319 Enactment Number: RES 85-2020
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND
DETERMINING THAT THE 233 EAST GRAND/
328-340 ROEBLING PROJECT IS FULLY WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS IN
THE 2012 RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THAT
THE 2020 ADDENDUM TO THE RECIRCULATED
IS/MND IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT FOR THE PROJECT.
WHEREAS, in 2012 the City of South San Francisco ("City") adopted (1) Resolution No. 94-2012
certifying the 2012 Recirculated Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration ("2012 Recirculated
IS/MND") (State Clearinghouse No. 2009022013), (2) Resolution No. 93-2012 approving a use permit,
parcel map, master sign permit, preliminary transportation demand management (TDM) plan, and design
review, and (3) Ordinance No. 1460-2012 approving a development agreement with Bayside Area
Development, LLC, for the construction of two new 2 -story office/ R&D buildings totaling 105,536
square feet, with a combination of at -grade and subterranean parking at a ratio of 2.7 spaces per 1,000
square feet ("Entitled Project") on an approximately 2.97 -acre site located at 233 East Grand Avenue /
328-340 Roebling Road ("Project Site") in the City of South San Francisco; and
WHEREAS, Bayside Area Development LLC ("Owner" or "Applicant") submitted an application
requesting approval of a Design Review Modification and Development Agreement Amendment to
increase the entitled square footage to 129,919 square feet of office/R&D space, increasing the density of
development on the site from a Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") of 0.81 to a 1.0 FAR, and revise the site plan
to have a five -story stand -along office/R&D building with a three-story parking structure ("Revised
Project"); and
WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant's Revised Project is considered a "project" for purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was certified in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and CEQA
Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, an addendum to the 2012
Recirculated IS/MND was prepared for the Project ("2020 Addendum") which evaluates whether
preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required; and
City of South San Francisco Page 1
File Number. 20-319 Enactment Number. RES 85-2020
WHEREAS, the 2020 Addendum concludes that in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21166 and
CEQA Guidelines § 15162, the implementation of the Revised Project will not cause significant impacts,
that it will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the previously certified 2012
Recirculated IS/MND, that no substantial changes in the project or circumstances justifying major
revisions to the previous MND have occurred, and that no new information of substantial importance
has come to light since the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND was certified that shows new or more severe
significant impacts nor shows new, different or more feasible mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2020, at which time
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to consider the Project and the 2020 Addendum, as
well as supporting documents, at the conclusion of which the Planning Commission recommended that
the City Council find that the 2020 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document and to
approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 24, 2020, and has reviewed and
carefully considered the information in the 2020 Addendum, and makes the findings contained in this
Resolution, and approves the 2020 Addendum as an objective and accurate document that reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Revised Project's environmental
impacts.
NOW THEREFORE, 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 Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; 2012
Recirculated IS/MND, and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; 2020 Addendum
to the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND; the Project applications; the 233 East Grand/ 328-340 Roebling
Project Plans, as prepared by Flad Architects, dated March 23, 2020; all site plans, and all reports,
minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed June 4, 2020
meeting; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City
Council's duly noticed June 24, 2020 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public
Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby
finds as follows:
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 2012 Recirculated IS/MND (Exhibit A) and
the 2020 Addendum (attached as Exhibit B) are each incorporated by reference as if they were each
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.
City of South San Francisco Page 2
File Number. 20-319
B. General Plan Consistency Findings
Enactment Number. RES 85-2020
The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan because the
land use, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures proposed
continue to be compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations established in the
General Plan (see Gov't Code, § 65860). The Project site is located in the Business and Technology
Park land use category and zoning district, and is part of the "East of 101" Planning Sub -Area as
defined by the City of South San Francisco's General Plan. The Project is consistent with the guiding
and implementing policies in the General Plan as it has been designed to promote campus -style uses,
such as biotechnology, high-technology and research and development uses. The site layout and
overall architecture would help shape the urban character of the East of 101 Area. The proposed
modifications would not result in any substantive changes, and the overall project would remain
consistent with the intent and purpose of the General Plan land use designation and comply with all
development standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
C. CEQA Findings
The City Council, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164, subsection (d), has
considered the 2020 Addendum prepared for the Project including the related environmental
analysis, along with the previously certified 2012 Recirculated IS/MND.
2. Upon consideration of the 2020 Addendum, the City Council finds that the proposed Project will not
result in any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 that would require
further environmental review through preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
The Project will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as
compared to those already identified and analyzed in the 2012 Recirculated IS/MND. Further, the
City Council finds that there is no new information of substantial importance that demonstrates new
or substantially more severe significant effects, as compared to those identified in the prior CEQA
documents. Nor are any new, additional, or more feasible mitigation measures required to mitigate
any impacts of the Project.
4. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence
in the record supporting a fair argument that approval of the Project will result in a significant
environmental effect.
5. Accordingly, the City Council finds that CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not require any
further CEQA review, and that the 2020 Addendum, prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15164, is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project.
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 adopts a resolution making a
determination that the 2020 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the
Project and no subsequent environmental analysis is required.
City of South San Francisco Page 3
File Number., 20-319
Enactment Number. RES 85-2020
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and adoption.
At a meeting of the City Council on 6/24/2020, a motion was made by Councilmember Nicolas, seconded by
Councilmember Matsumoto, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed.
Yes: 5 Mayor Garbarino, Vice Mayor Addiego, Councilmember Nagales, Councilmember
Nicolas, and Councilmember Matsumoto
Attest by
sa Govea Acosta, City Clerk
City of South San Francisco Page 4
RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY/MND
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2009022013
328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3)
PREPARED FOR:
City of South San Francisco
Originally Circulated: February 2009
Revised and Recirculated: July 2009
Revised and Recirculated: February 2012
Prepared by
Lamphier – Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page i
Table of Contents
Page
RECIRCULATION .....................................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................3
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ........................................................................................................19
INITIAL STUDY .......................................................................................................................................................33
AESTHETICS ..................................................................................................................................................... 36
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................. 39
AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................................. 40
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 47
CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................... 50
GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..................................................................................................................................... 53
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 64
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................................................................ 69
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................... 79
LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................................................................. 92
MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................................... 95
NOISE ............................................................................................................................................................. 96
POPULATION AND HOUSING .......................................................................................................................... 99
PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................... 102
RECREATION ................................................................................................................................................. 105
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ........................................................................................................................... 106
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................... 117
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................... 123
328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3)
Page ii Recirculated IS/MND
Figures
Figure 1: Site Location and Vicinity ......................................................................................................................5
Figure 2: Existing Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................9
Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan ................................................................................................................................11
Figure 4: Proposed Building Elevations, Building A (Building B is Similar) .....................................................13
Figure 5: Proposed Landscape Plan .....................................................................................................................15
Figure 6: Proposed Grading and Drainage Plan ...................................................................................................17
Figure 7: Colma Creek Flood Protection Zone ....................................................................................................81
Tables
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................19
Table 2: Air Quality Data Summary for Closest Monitoring Sites, 2007-2009 ...................................................41
Table 3: Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions for Project Operations ........................................................................44
Table 4: Nearest Active Faults .............................................................................................................................58
Table 5: Annual Operational GHG Emissions .....................................................................................................67
Table 6: Potential Pollutants From Industrial Activities ......................................................................................86
Table 7: Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions for the 10-Year Design Storm .........................................89
Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Modeling
Appendix B: Traffic Study
328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 1
RECIRCULATION
RECIRCULATION
On January 28, 2009, the City of South San Francisco published an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) for the 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Project in the East of 101
Area of South San Francisco. That document concluded that, although the proposed Project could have a
significant effect on the environment, the potentially significant effect could be reduced to less than
significant levels through incorporation of mitigation measures.
A Recirculated IS/MND was subsequently circulated on July 2009. This document had been revised in
response to comments received from public agencies and recirculated per California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15073.5(b)(1) because a new potentially significant effect was
identified (vehicle queuing at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue U.S. 101 off-ramp) along with
mitigation to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Neither the original January 2009 IS/MND, nor the July 2009 Recirculated IS/MND were adopted by the
Lead Agency. During the intervening time, the area-wide East of 101 traffic was re-modeled and the East
of 101 Traffic Improvement Program was revised, changing some of the assumptions used in the previous
traffic analyses. Additionally, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has published thresholds
and guidelines for analyzing GHG emissions, which had not previously been in place, and revised
threshold levels for criteria air pollutants. Because of the time that has gone by and the magnitude of
traffic, air quality and GHG emissions impacts that have changed, the Lead Agency decided to recirculate
this document.
Additional minor clarifying revisions have been made to other discussions and/or mitigation measures to
be consistent with current documents, regulations and policies. However, these other minor clarifying
revisions are not considered “substantial revisions” that would otherwise have necessitated recirculation
of this document.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 2 Recirculated IS/MND
This page intentionally left blank
328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 3
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCUMENT
This document serves as the IS/MND for the 328 Roebling Road Project. Per CEQA Guidelines (Section
15070), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be prepared to meet the requirements of CEQA review
when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant environmental effects, but revisions in the project
would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur.
This document is organized in three sections as follows:
Introduction and Project Description. This section introduces the document and discussed the project
description including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and contacts.
Mitigated Negative Declaration. This section lists the impacts and mitigation measures identified in
the Initial Study and proposes findings that would allow adoption of this document as the CEQA
review document for the proposed Project.
Initial Study. This section discusses the CEQA environmental topics and checklist questions and
identifies the potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures to avoid these impacts.
PUBLIC REVIEW
The IS/MND will be circulated for a 30-day public review period. Written comments may be submitted to
the following address:
Linda Ajello, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Telephone: 650-877-8535
Fax: 650-829-6639
Linda.Ajello@ssf.net
Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not constitute approval of the Project itself, which is
a separate action to be taken by the Planning Commission. Approval of the Project can take place only
after the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 4 Recirculated IS/MND
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
Development of the Project as proposed would require a Lot Consolidation, Conditional Use Permit,
Design Review, and Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan.
LEAD AGENCY
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
CONTACT PERSON
Linda Ajello, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco Planning Department
P.O. Box 711/315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
650-877-8535
Linda.Ajello@ssf.net
PROJECT SPONSOR
HCP, Inc.
400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 409
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Contact: Jonathan M. Bergschneider, Vice President
PROJECT LOCATION
The approximately 3 acre Project site is located at 328 Roebling Road, in South San Francisco’s East of
101 Area, in San Mateo County. The Project would occupy three adjacent parcels that are currently
occupied by warehouse, office, and industrial uses. The assessor’s parcel numbers (APNs) are
015041290, 015041250, and 015041110. Figure 1 shows the Project location.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Business and Technology Park
ZONING
Business Technology Park (BTP)
328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 5
FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 6 Recirculated IS/MND
This page intentionally left blank.
328 ROEBLING ROAD (BRITANNIA MODULAR LABS 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 7
EXISTING USES
Three office/warehouse buildings currently occupy the Project site as shown in Figure 2 and described as
follows:
233 East Grand Avenue
APN: 015-041-290
Site Area: 1.18 acres
Overall Building Square Footage: 40,423 square feet
Office Use Square Footage: 1,287 square feet
Warehouse Use Square Footage: 39,136 square feet
Tenant(s): United Cold Storage (Warehouse)
328 Roebling Road
APN: 015-041-250
Site Area: 1.1 acres
Overall Building Square Footage: 18,636 square feet
Office Use Square Footage: 1,340 square feet
Warehouse Use Square Footage: 17,296 square feet
Tenant(s): Slakey Brothers (Warehouse)
340 Roebling Road
APN: 015-041-110
Site Area: 0.7 acres
Overall Building Square Footage: 20,442 square feet
Office Use Square Footage: 5,088 square feet
Warehouse Use Square Footage: 15,354 square feet
Tenant(s): William Tuck (Attorney), Melon’s Catering, Atlas Heating
The site is currently industrial in design with buildings and paved areas covering the majority of the site.
The leases currently in place will extend for no more than 1 year from January 2012.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The Project site is located on Roebling Road, a cul-de-sac off of East Grand Avenue, in the “East of 101
Area”, the traditional and continued core of South San Francisco’s industrial and technology businesses,
including Research and Development (R&D) offices. The site is in a Business and Technology Park area,
with Business Commercial and Mixed Industrial uses nearby.
The East of 101 Area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the
east side, Highway 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, and San
Francisco International Airport on the south. The area has a mix of land uses, including industry,
warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development facilities. The area
is separated from the majority of residential uses by U.S. 101, though some houseboats are permitted at
the nearby Oyster Point. While the East of 101 Area is almost completely built out, redevelopment
remains extremely active as existing facilities are upgraded as industry continues to evolve toward high-
technology and research and development uses.
Adjacent and to the east of the Project site is the location of a recently developed office R&D project at
249 East Grand Avenue. The property to the west of the Project site, across Roebling Road, includes a
number of buildings housing light industrial/warehousing/office uses, the majority of which is the site of
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 8 Recirculated IS/MND
the 213 – 221 East Grand Avenue office and R&D redevelopment project, which obtained its entitlements
from the City of South San Francisco in late 2008, including the approval of a 10 year development
agreement.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes the removal of 3 existing office/warehouse buildings containing 79,501 square feet
total on an approximately 3 acre site at 328 Roebling Road, and the construction in their place of two 2-
story office/R&D buildings each containing 52,768 square feet (105,536 square feet total) of
office/laboratory space over a basement garage. The Project would also entail the development of at-
grade and subterranean parking at a ratio of 2.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The site plan is included as
Figure 3.
Proposed Aesthetics
The applicants have stated that this Project is intended to help diversify the office/research and
development inventory in the East of 101 Area and provide a place for young life-sciences companies to
grow. With a target of younger-stage companies, the Project includes smaller, more modest buildings (see
Figure 4) than seen in other recent campus-style developments. The landscaping plan includes perimeter
and frontage trees, additional parking lot trees for accent and shading, and a vegetated swale (see Figure
5). Usable outdoor open space is provided for each building in the form of first and second floor balconies
along the northeastern side of each building.
Proposed Phasing
The Project is intended to be implemented in two phases. Phase 1 would involve demolition of the two
buildings at 328 and 340 Roebling Road and grading and construction of Building A on that back
(northeast) portion of the site. Phase 2 would complete the Project with demolition of the building at 233
Grand Avenue and grading and construction of Building B on that front (southwest) portion of the site.
Proposed Grading
The rear of the site is approximately 23 feet higher than the frontage along East Grand Avenue. The
proposed grading plan shows a vegetated swale taking advantage of this existing elevation change to treat
stormwater as it runs downward along the grade toward East Grand Avenue. The proposed grading would
be generally similar to what it is now, with grades varying between 1% and 4.4% from northeast to
southwest. From east to west, the site currently drains to Roebling Road. The grading of the site will be
changed to allow drainage to the swale that is proposed to be installed along the site’s eastern boundary.
The proposed grading plan is included as Figure 6.
Proposed Circulation and Access
As proposed, the Project site would be accessed through three entrances, two on Roebling Road and one
on East Grand Avenue (See Figure 2). The main entrance on Roebling Road is in the middle of the site
between Building A and Building B. The second Roebling Road entrance is to the east of Building A.
Due to a median on East Grand Avenue that would prevent left turns into the site, this entrance could only
be accessed via a right turn from northbound East Grand Avenue, and vehicles exiting the site could only
make a right turn. There is a left turn lane for southbound vehicles on East Grand Avenue directing
vehicles onto Roebling Road.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 9 FIGURE 2. EXISTING SITE PLAN Source: DES Architects/Engineers for HCP, Inc. (Applicants)
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 10 Recirculated IS/MND This page intentionally left blank
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 11 FIGURE 3. PROPOSED SITE PLAN Source: DES Architects/Engineers for HCP, Inc. (Applicants), dated 11/24/09
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 12 Recirculated IS/MND This page intentionally left blank
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 13 FIGURE 4. PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS, BUILDING A (BUILDING B IS SIMILAR) Source: DES Architects/Engineers for HCP, Inc. (Applicants), dated 11/24/09
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 14 Recirculated IS/MND This page intentionally left blank
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 15 FIGURE 5. PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN Source: DES Architects/Engineers for HCP, Inc. (Applicants), dated 11/24/09
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 16 Recirculated IS/MND This page intentionally left blank
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Recirculated IS/MND Page 17 FIGURE 6. PROPOSED GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN Source: Wilsey Ham for HCP, Inc. (Applicants), undated
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3) Page 18 Recirculated IS/MND This page intentionally left blank
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 19
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND SETTING
This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the 328 Roebling Road Project. See the
Introduction and Project Description section of this document for details of the Project.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING
MITIGATION
The following is a list of potential Project impacts and the mitigation measures recommended to reduce
these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist section of this document
for a more detailed discussion.
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level
Impact Air-1: Construction Dust and Exhaust.
Construction activities would generate exhaust
emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive dust
particles that could affect local air quality. This impact
is considered to be potentially significant.
Air-1: Basic Construction Best Management Practices.
The Project shall demonstrate proposed compliance with
all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior
to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits,
including implementation of the following BAAQMD
“Basic Construction Mitigation Measures”.
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose
material off-site shall be covered.
c. 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.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited
to 15 mph.
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved
shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 20 Recirculated IS/MND
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level
shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by
the California airborne toxics control measure Title
13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations
[CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a
certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone
number and person to contact at the Lead Agency
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond
and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air
District’s phone number shall also be visible to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Impact Bio-1: Disturbance of Nesting Birds.
Construction activities could adversely affect nesting
birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or
Fish and Game Code of California. This is a potentially
significant impact.
Bio-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Pre-
construction surveys for nesting birds protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and
Game Code of California within 100 feet of a
development site in the Project area shall be conducted
within 30 days of initiation of construction activities. If
active nests are found, the Project shall follow
recommendations of a qualified biologist regarding the
appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of
nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction
activity. The buffer shall be maintained until after the
nestlings have fledged and left the nest. If there is a
complete stoppage in construction activities for 30 days
or more, a new nesting-survey shall be completed prior
to re-initiation of construction activities.
Impact Geo-1: Seismic Ground Shaking. Buildings and
occupants of the Project site would be subject to ground
shaking in the event of a seismic event, which could be
high intensity (Mercalli intensity level of IX, violent).
Development of the Project would increase the number
of structures and people potentially exposed to hazards
associated with a major earthquake in the region. This
is a potentially significant impact.
Geo-1a: Compliance with California Building Code.
Project development shall meet requirements of the
California Building Code as modified by the
amendments, additions and deletions adopted by the
City of South San Francisco. Incorporation of seismic
construction standards would reduce the potential for
catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete
structural failure.
Geo-1b: Compliance with a design level Geotechnical
Investigation report and with Structural Design Plans.
Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be
performed in accordance with the recommendations of a
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 21
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level
Registered Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer
experienced in geotechnical design and a Registered
Structural Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in
structural design.
The structural engineering design shall incorporate
seismic parameters as outlined in the California Building
Code. The Project Geotechnical Investigation shall
establish the seismic design parameters, as determined
by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with
requirements of the California Building Code.
Geo-1c: Obtain a building permit and complete final
plan review. The Project applicant shall obtain a
building permit through the City of South San Francisco
Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings
and structures shall be completed by the Building
Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for
planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of
101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According
to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety
Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic
collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will
allow egress of occupants in the event of damage
following a strong earthquake.
Impact Geo-2: Liquefaction, Densification, and Ground
Surface Settlement. Due to the site’s location at the
border between the competent bedrock of Oyster Point
to the north, and artificial fill placed over tidal flats to
the south, the southern portion of the Project area is
identified as an area of high hazard for liquefaction.
The northern portion is identified as having a very low
hazard for liquefaction. Liquefaction or densification of
soils underlying the site could result in settlement and
differential settlement of site improvements including
buildings, pavements, and utilities and pose a threat to
human health. The potential for liquefaction of site soils
is considered a potentially significant impact.
Geo-2a: Compliance with recommendations of a
Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance with
Structural Design Plans. A Design Level Geotechnical
Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the
direction of a California Registered Geotechnical
Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical
engineering, and shall include analysis for liquefaction
potential of the underlying sediments. Proper foundation
engineering and construction shall be performed in
accordance with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical
Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the
City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City
Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer, or civil
engineer experienced in structural engineering shall
prepare Project structural design plans. Structures shall
be designed to minimize the effects of anticipated
seismic settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer shall
review the Structural Design Plans and provide approval
for the geotechnical elements of the plans. The design
plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to
reduce the liquefaction potential of surface soils.
Mitigation measures may include excavation and
replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation
loading, and ground improvement by methods such as
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 22 Recirculated IS/MND
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level
stone columns or pressure grouting.
Geo-2b: Obtain a building permit and complete plan
review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building
permit through the City of South San Francisco Building
Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and
structures shall be completed by the Building Division
for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned
commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area
of the City of South San Francisco. According to the
East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element,
buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse
under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress
of occupants in the event of damage following a strong
earthquake.
Impact Geo-3: Landslides and Slope Stability. A
landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced
down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. The site is
located on gently sloping ground, and as such natural
slope stability is not expected to be an issue. However,
cuts currently exist in the northern part of the site, and
more cuts will be necessary to provide level building
pads. These cuts will require construction of retaining
walls, which could fail if improperly designed. The
impacts of slope stability and landslides are potentially
significant.
Geo-3: Compliance with recommendations of a
Geotechnical Investigation. A Design Level
Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site
under the direction of a California Registered
Geotechnical Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering, and shall include analysis of
the site slope stability. Proper foundation engineering
and retaining wall design shall be performed in
accordance with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical
Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the
City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City
Engineer.
Impact Geo-4: Soil Erosion. The Project would involve
mass grading at the site. Excavation of soil for
construction of new buildings and pavement sections
would also be performed and temporary stockpiles of
loose soil will be created. Soils exposed during
construction activities would be subject to erosion
during storm events. This would be a potentially
significant impact during and following site construction
activities.
Geo-4: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). In accordance with the Clean Water Act and
the State Water Resources Control Board, the Applicant
shall file a SWPPP prior to the start of construction. The
SWPPP shall include specific best management
practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to
obtain coverage under the General Permit for
Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity.
Impact Geo-5: Unstable Soils and Bay Mud.
Undocumented fill soils are present on portions of the
subject site. Fill soils may settle due to new building
loads. Bay Mud and alluvial soil deposits are present on
adjacent sites and also constitute areas of potentially
unstable soils. Bay Mud may be present under the
southern portion of the Project site and may settle under
design loading conditions resulting in differential
settlement of structures. The presence of unstable fill
soil and Bay Mud is a potentially significant impact.
Geo-5: Investigate unstable fill soils and Bay Mud. A
Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be
performed to determine the depth and extent of
potentially unstable fill soil and Bay Mud. Based on
results of this study, the Geotechnical Engineer shall
determine appropriate measures to stabilize the
potentially unstable site soils. Consolidation testing of
any Bay Mud soils present shall be performed, as part of
the Design Level Geotechnical Investigation, and
estimates of settlement for the site shall be developed.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 23
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level
Methods of unstable soil stabilization may include
construction of driven pile foundations that support
structures on materials located below fill soils and Bay
Mud, and other methods as recommended by the
Geotechnical Engineer.
Impact Geo-6: Expansive Soils. Expansive soils are
present in the existing fill on the site and in Bay Mud
sediments that underlie the site. The presence of
expansive soils could cause damage to proposed
improvements but are unlikely to create substantial risk
of life. The impact of expansive soil is potentially
significant.
Geo-6: Compliance with recommendations of a
Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance with
Structural Design Plans. A Design Level Geotechnical
Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the
direction of a California Registered Geotechnical
Engineer and shall include analysis for expansion
potential of the site soils. Proper foundation engineering
and construction shall be performed in accordance with
the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation.
The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and
approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by
the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer
shall prepare Project structural design plans. The design
plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to
reduce the effects of expansive surface soils.
Mitigations measures may include the following:
Excavate expansive soils and replace with at least one
foot of non-expansive fill. Design and construct
structures to withstand expected stresses by the
implementation of the following: minimize use of slab-
on-grade floors; support buildings and slabs on non-
expansive materials; chemically treat expansive
materials to reduce expansion potential; avoid siting
structures across soil materials of substantially different
expansive properties; extend foundations below the zone
of seasonal moisture change; utilize pier-and-grade-
beam foundation systems where appropriate; utilize
special bending resistant design; and prevent
accumulation of surface water adjacent to buildings.
Impact Haz-1: Routine Use of Hazardous Materials. The
proposed development includes construction of Class-A
office and laboratory buildings. Class A refers to a
research laboratory, not merely an instructional
laboratory. Depending upon the nature of research
planned at the proposed facilities, for which detailed
information is not currently available, there are likely to
be both hazardous and potentially hazardous materials
stored and used on the site that will eventually require
disposal. This could include both biohazards, as well as
chemical hazards. There will also likely be
transportation of hazardous materials to and from the
site, probably traveling along Highway 101 and East
Grand Avenue.
Haz-1a: Registration in the Hazardous Materials
Business Plan Program. Qualifying businesses
occupying and/or operating at the development must
submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe
storage and use of chemicals to the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department prior to the start of
operations, and must review and update the entire
Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30
days of any significant change. Plans shall be submitted
to the San Mateo County Environmental Health
Business Plan Program, which may be contacted at
(650) 363-4305 for more information.
Businesses qualify for the Hazardous Materials Business
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 24 Recirculated IS/MND
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level
The risk of accidental upset and environmental
contamination from routine transport, storage, use and
disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous
materials to the public and environment is a potentially
significant impact.
Plan Program if they store a hazardous material equal to
or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These
quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for
solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and
pressure) for compressed gases. Exemptions include
businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods;
medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen,
and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not more than 1,000
cubic feet for each material, and whom store or use no
other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no
more than 55 gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil,
and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil not
exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil.
These exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A
laboratory facilities.
The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of
hazardous materials, a site map showing storage
locations of hazardous materials and where they may be
used and transported from, risks of using these
materials, included in material safety data sheets for
each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency
response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA
guidelines, and emergency contact information.
Haz-1b: Compliance with US Department of
Transportation, State of California and local laws,
ordinances and procedures for transportation of
hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All
transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous
waste to and from the site will be in accordance with
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US
Department of Transportation, State of California, and
local laws, ordinances and procedures including
placards, signs and other identifying information.
Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Release.
Existing buildings potentially contain hazardous
materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, and
PCBs. Underlying site soils may contain hazardous
materials including toxic heavy metals related to the
history of heavy industry in the area. The historic
railroad grade along the northeast edge of the Project
site may be a source of additional hazardous materials,
including arsenic, chromium, creosote, zinc chloride, or
other wood preservatives. During demolition operations
hazardous materials could be released from structures at
the site or from the underlying soils. Following
construction, operations at the proposed facilities are
expected to represent a continuing threat to the
Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A demolition
plan with permit applications shall be submitted to the
City of South San Francisco Building Department for
approval prior to demolition. The Demolition Plan for
safe demolition of existing structures shall include
asbestos dust control and incorporate recommendations
from the site surveys for the presence of potentially
hazardous building materials, as well as additional
surveys when required by the City. The Demolition Plan
shall address both on-site worker protection and off-site
resident protection from both chemical and physical
hazards. All contaminated building materials shall be
tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be
disposed of to appropriate licensed landfill facilities.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 25
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level
environment through accidental release of hazardous
materials since the site is proposed to include Class A
laboratory facilities, where hazardous materials may be
stored, used, and disposed of. This represents a
potentially significant impact.
Prior to building demolition, hazardous building
materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead
based paint and asbestos containing building materials
shall be removed in accordance with all applicable
guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plan
shall include a program of air monitoring for dust
particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and
suspension of work during dry windy days shall be
addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition
permit from BAAQMD, an asbestos demolition survey
shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements
of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2.
Haz-2b: Additional Soil Sampling of Site Soils. The
applicant shall retain a licensed Civil Engineer or
Professional Geologist to complete additional surface
and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated
levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor oil, or wood
preservatives are present in site soils. These tests shall
take place throughout the Project site. If contamination
exceeding commercial/industrial guidelines including
the Regional Water Quality Control Board
Environmental Screening Levels for commercial/
industrial sites, USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals
for commercial/ industrial sites, and the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control Human Health
Screening Levels is detected, then a Site Soil
Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be
prepared and implemented, as discussed in Mitigation
Measure Haz-2c.
Haz-2c: Implementation of a Site Soil Management
Plan. If contamination of site soils is detected, then
results shall be submitted to the State of California EPA,
pursuant to the Brownfield Memorandum of Agreement,
Request for Oversight of a Brownfield Site process, and
a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in
accordance with recommendations of the environmental
consultant and established procedures for safe removal.
Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human
health and the environment will be provided in the plan.
At a minimum the plan shall include, but not be limited
to the following:
(1) Documentation of the extent of previous
environmental investigation and remediation at the
site.
(2) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety
Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at
the Project site. This includes a HASP for all
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 26 Recirculated IS/MND
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level
demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as
well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The
HASP shall include appropriate training, any
required personal protective equipment, and
monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure.
The HASP will be reviewed and approved by a
Certified Industrial Hygienist.
(3) Description of protocols for the investigation and
evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous
materials that could be encountered during Project
development, including engineering controls that
may be required to reduce exposure to construction
workers and future users of the site.
(4) Requirements for site-specific construction
techniques that would minimize exposure to any
subsurface contamination found to occur. This
shall include treatment and disposal measures for
any contaminated groundwater removed from
excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in
accordance with San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board guidelines.
(5) Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to
determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for
disposal at a state licensed landfill facility.
(6) Restrictions limiting future excavation or
development of the subsurface by residents and
visitors to the proposed development if determined
necessary through coordination with California
EPA.
(7) The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
responsible jurisdiction prior to issuance of any
demolition, grading and construction permits for the
Project.
Haz-2d: California Accidental Release Prevention
Program (CalARP). Future businesses at the
development shall check the state and federal lists of
regulated substances available from the San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD).
Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major
threat to public health and safety or the environment
because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive.
Businesses shall determine which list to use in
consultation with the SMCEHD.
Should businesses qualify for the program they shall
complete a CalARP registration form and submit it to
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 27
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level
Environmental Health. Following registration, they shall
submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are
designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that
businesses have the proper information to provide to
emergency response teams if an accidental release
occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a
threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must
develop a RMP and follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public
health and the environment in the event that a regulated
substance is released near schools, residential areas,
hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include
procedures for: keeping employees and customers safe,
handling regulated substances, training staff,
maintaining equipment, checking that substances are
stored safely, and responding to an accidental release.
Impact Haz-3: Hazardous Materials Near Schools. The
nearest school or childcare sites to the Project are the
Gateway Child Care Center, located 0.21 miles
northwest of the proposed Project, the Early Years
Preschool, located 0.27 miles southeast of the Project
site, and the Genentech Childcare Center, located 0.40
miles northeast of the Project site. Hazardous materials
potentially present at the Project site could lead to a
hazardous materials release during site demolition or
future on-site activities. The impact of hazardous
materials emissions within one-quarter mile of a school
is a potentially significant impact.
Haz-3: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c,
and Haz-2d. Implementation of mitigation measures
Haz-2a through Haz-2d shall be performed. These
mitigation measures include requirements for preparing
a Demolition Plan and obtaining permits for the
demolition work, performing additional soil sampling of
site soils to identify any contaminated soils present, and
preparation and implementation of a Site Soil
Management Plan under the oversight of the Department
of Toxic Substances Control if contaminated soil is
identified, as well as future business participation in the
California Accidental Release Prevention Program if
listed chemicals are used at the Project site.
Impact Haz-4: Hazardous Materials on Site. The site is
not currently included on the “Cortese List” but Phase I
studies indicate the possibility for hazardous material
contamination of the site that could qualify the site for
listing pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
This would be considered a potentially significant
impact.
Haz-4: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c,
and Haz-2d. As described above, these mitigation
measures comprehensively address on-site hazardous
materials.
Impact Hydro-1: Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements. Exposure and
disturbance of site soils during construction and delivery
of post construction surface runoff containing industrial
pollutants to receiving waters could allow eroded soils
and pollution to enter storm water and downstream
waters. This is a potentially significant impact.
Hydro-1: Preparation and Implementation of Project
SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the Project
applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water
quality during construction and submit the SWPPP as
part of project application submittals with the Planning
Permit Application and Building Permit Application.
The Project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to
the following mitigation measures for the construction
period:
1) Grading and earthwork shall be allowed with the
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 28 Recirculated IS/MND
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level
appropriate SWPPP measures during the wet season
(October 1 through April 30) and such work shall
be stopped before pending storm events.
2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as
straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion
control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be
utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined
in the Association of Bay Area Governments
Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment
Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination
with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all
graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the
flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated
flows and around storm drain inlets.
3) “Best management practices” (BMPs) for
preventing the discharge of other construction-
related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e.
paint, concrete, trash, etc.) to downstream waters
such as covered and contained storage areas,
contained wash-out areas, and prompt and
appropriate disposal.
4) After construction is completed, all drainage
facilities shall be inspected for accumulated
sediment and trash, and these drainage structures
shall be cleared of debris and sediment.
In accordance with the handbook C.3 Stormwater
Technical Guidance, permanent mitigation measures
for stormwater shall be submitted as part of project
application submittals with the Planning Permit
Application and Building Permit Application.
Elements that shall be addressed in the submittals
include the following:
5) Description of potential sources of erosion,
sediment, and trash at the Project site. Industrial
activities and significant materials and chemicals
that could be used at the proposed Project site
should be described. This will include a thorough
assessment of existing and potential pollutant
sources.
6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the
Project site based on identified industrial activities
and potential pollutant sources, including non-point
source pollutants. Emphasis shall be placed on
source control BMPs, with treatment controls used
as needed.
7) Development of a monitoring and implementation
plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 29
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level
be carefully described including vector control,
clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet
structures, trash removal, vegetation/landscape
maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular
sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc.
Wastes removed as a result of the BMPs described
above may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance
costs shall be budgeted to include disposal at a
proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared of
debris that may enter the storm drain system on a
daily basis.
8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be
conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the
RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco.
Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and
submitted annually to the State Water Resources
Control Board. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as
necessary, to address any inadequacies identified
through the monitoring.
9) Proposed locations and sizing of stormwater
treatment measures shall be included.
The applicant shall prepare informational literature and
guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to
minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed
development. This information shall be distributed to all
employees at the Project site. At a minimum the
information shall cover: a) proper disposal of
commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of
landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate
disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d)
prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials
and chemicals into storm drains.
Impact Hydro-2: Altered Drainage Patterns.
Construction operations associated with the Project
would present a threat of soil erosion from soil
disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to
the erosional forces of runoff and post construction
runoff that could increase and/or could contain soil and
sediment.
Hydro-2: Mitigation Measure Hydro-1. Implementation
of mitigation measure Hydro-1 for construction related
sources of erosion and post construction BMPs will
reduce the impact of altered drainage patterns to less
than significant.
Impact Hydro-3: Degrade Water Quality. Construction
and operation of the Project have the potential to
degrade water quality through discharge of stormwater.
Hydro-3: Mitigation Measure Hydro-1. Implementation
of mitigation measure Hydro-1for construction related
sources of erosion and post construction BMPs will
reduce the impact on water quality to less than
significant.
Impact Noise-1: Construction-Related Noise. Project Noise-1: Construction Noise Abatement and Limitation
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 30 Recirculated IS/MND
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level
construction could result in temporary short-term noise
increases due to the operation of heavy construction
equipment. Construction noise typically ranges from
about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of
construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of
about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of
earthmoving and impact equipment. This impact is
considered to be potentially significant.
of Construction Hours. Construction hours shall be
limited to the hourly restrictions specified in the City
Noise Ordinance, and the Project sponsor shall require
by contract specification that construction best
management practices be implemented by contractors to
reduce noise levels to the 90-dBA at 25 feet noise limit
specified in the City Noise Ordinance. Required
practices shall include but not be limited to:
• Ensuring that construction equipment is properly
muffled according to industry standards,
• Implementing noise attenuation measures such as
noise barriers or noise blankets, and
• Requiring heavily loaded trucks used during
construction to be routed away from noise and
vibration sensitive uses.
Impact Traf-1: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing,
Airport Blvd. Addition of Project traffic would
significantly increase volumes for the left turn on the
southbound approach to Grand Avenue, which already
exceeds available queuing capacity. This is a potentially
significant impact.
Traf-1: Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue Signal
Timing. Adjust signal timing to the approval of the
South San Francisco Public Works Department in order
to reduce Base Case + Project 95th percentile vehicle
queuing for the left turn movement on the southbound
Airport Boulevard approach to Grand Avenue to a
shorter distance than Base Case queuing for this
movement.
Impact Traf-2: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing, E.
Grand Avenue. The addition of Project traffic would
degrade existing acceptable queuing in the left turn lane
on the approach to the unsignalized Roebling Road
intersection to an unacceptable storage demand.
Traf-2: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Turn Lane
Extension. The following improvement is not included
in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program
and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact
fee contribution for this program. The Project proponent
will be responsible for implementation of the following
improvement:
Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand
Avenue approach to Roebling Road from 75 feet up to
at least 125 feet (as determined by the City Engineer).
Impact Traf-3: East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road
Signal Warrant. This unsignalized intersection would
receive a significant signal warrant impact due to the
addition of Project traffic to cumulative PM peak hour
volumes. This would be a significant impact.
Traf-3: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Signalization.
The following improvements are not currently included
as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic
impact fee contribution to this program. The Project
proponent will be responsible for implementation of the
following improvement or fair-share reimbursement (as
determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by
another party prior to initiation of construction for this
Project:
a) Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 31
Table 1: Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure
Reduces Impact to a Less Than Significant Level
with the signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes
Boulevard / Harbor Way.
b) Lengthen the single left turn lane on the westbound
E. Grand Avenue approach to the Forbes/Harbor
intersection to at least 225 feet (as determined by
the City Engineer). Prohibit left turns to/from all
driveways along E. Grand Avenue between these
two locations.
Mitigation Measure Traf-2, the E. Grand Avenue /
Roebling Road left turn lane extension, would also
reduce this impact.
Impact Traf-4: Grade Crossing Approaches Missing
Signing and Pavement Striping. The State Public
Utilities Commission (September 26, 2006 letter to City
of South San Francisco) has noted in a recent inspection
that the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor
Way intersection grade crossing is not up to minimum
standards on one or more approaches for required
advanced warning signing and pavement striping (i.e.
R15-1 and W-10-1 signs as well as RxR pavement
striping). This results in an existing safety concern that
would be aggravated by the addition of Project traffic.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-4: Impacts to Grade Crossing Approach Signing &
Pavement Striping. The Project shall provide a fair
share contribution towards all needed signs and
pavement markings on the approaches to the East Grand
Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection
“at grade railroad crossing” to meet minimum State
Public Utilities Commission requirements as detailed in
the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by
the Federal Highway Commission.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 32 Recirculated IS/MND
PROPOSED FINDINGS
The report preparers, in consultation with City of South San Francisco staff, have determined that with
the implementation of mitigation measures identified in this Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed
Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If this Mitigated Negative Declaration is
adopted by the City of South San Francisco, the requirements of CEQA will be met by the preparation of
this Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project will not require the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report. This decision is supported by the following findings:
a. The Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. It does not reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. It does not eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history, since there is no
identified area at the Project site which is habitat for rare or endangered species, or which
represents unique examples of California history or prehistory. In addition, the Project is within
the scope of use contemplated in the General Plan and the Project does not have any significant,
unavoidable adverse impacts. Implementation of specified mitigation measures will avoid or
reduce the effects of the Project on the environment and thereby avoid any significant impacts.
b. The Project does not involve impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable, because the described Project will incorporate both Project-specific mitigation measures and
cumulative mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts of the Project in the context of continued
growth and development in the City of South San Francisco.
c. The Project does not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly, because all adverse effects of the Project will be
mitigated to an insignificant level.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 33
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY
AFFECTED
Environmental factors which may be affected by the Project, as defined by CEQA are listed
alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filled in block () were determined to be potentially
affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that has been identified as a “Potentially
Significant Impact” with mitigation measures identified that would reduce the impact to a less than
significant level, as indicated in the Environmental Evaluation Form Checklist and related discussion
that follows. Unmarked factors ( ) would not be significantly affected by the Project, as described in
the Checklist.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population and Housing
Agriculture Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Public Services
Air Quality Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Transportation and Circulation
Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Geology and Soils Noise
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 35
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each answer. A “no
impact” response indicates that the impact simply does not apply to the Project or any action that
would occur due to the Project. A “less than significant” response indicates that while there may be
potential for an environmental impact, there are standard procedures or regulations in place, or other
features of the Project as proposed, which would limit the extent of this impact to below significance
thresholds. Responses that indicate that the impact of the Project would be “less than significant with
mitigation” have been identified as potentially significant impacts but indicate that mitigation
measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be required as a condition of Project approval to
effectively reduce potential Project-related environmental effects to a level below significance
thresholds. Finally, while this is not the case for any topics in this IS/MND, topics with a “potentially
significant impact” response would indicate the inability to identify mitigation measures to reduce the
impact below significance thresholds and would need to be analyzed in an Environmental Impact
Report.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 36 Recirculated IS/MND
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS — Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
SETTING
The Project site is located on Roebling Road, off of East Grand Avenue. The Project would replace
three existing office/warehouse buildings with two 2-story office/R&D buildings.
South San Francisco
South San Francisco’s urban character is one of contrast within a visually well-defined setting. San
Bruno Mountains to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco
Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges.1 The City is contained in almost a bowl-like
fashion by hills on three sides. The City’s terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east
and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain in the
distance are visual landmarks. Much of the City’s topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from
many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles
in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west.
East of 101 Area
The Project site is located in the East of 101 planning sub-area of South San Francisco. The East of 101
Area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100 years ago. Since
then, the area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel
manufacturing, and meat packaging gave way to industrial park and warehousing and distribution uses
that came to dominate the area in the 50s and 60s. The recent emergence of modern office buildings
marks the third major wave of land use change in the area. The newly emerging office areas are unique
in their use of consistent and conscious street tree planting. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park
structures and tilt-up warehousing buildings can all be found in the area. Blocks are generally very
1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and
Planning Issues, 1997, p.4-2, 4-10, 4-15.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 37
large in size and the area is in an obvious transition from a very stark industrial look to office/R&D
campuses with an emphasis on quality architectural and landscape designs. 2
Design Guidelines
East of 101 Area Plan Design Element
In 1995, the East of 101 Area Plan established goals and policies for the City and East of 101 Area.
Although the South San Francisco General Plan (adopted in 1999) supersedes the East of 101 Area
Plan, the policies contained in the Plan’s design element still apply to development at the Project site.
The stated goals of the East of 101 Area Plan’s design element are to promote quality design, to
promote a functional, safe and attractive environment, preserve the character of South San Francisco’s
heritage, protect public investment and land values, protect the natural environment, and facilitate
evaluation of individual development proposals through the use of the Plan’s design guidelines. The
East of 101 Area’s development policies for the Project site encourage the creation of campus-like
environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and other high quality
multi-tenant office or warehouse developments.
The East of 101 Area Plan design element sets area-wide design policies for streetscape, parking,
loading and access, site design and open space, landscaping and lighting, fencing and screening,
building design, signage and rooftop mechanical equipment. Additionally, the Plan sets more specific
guidelines for individual land use categories. For the Project site, the design guidelines include specific
requirements for street trees, landscape buffers, minimizing visual impacts of blank walls, building
orientation, design guidelines, parking lot trees and parking lot shrubs.
IMPACTS
a) Scenic Vistas
The Project site is not located within a scenic vista. CEQA generally protects against significant
adverse impacts to public views of such scenic vistas, taking into consideration the environmental
context—i.e., whether the view is from a recreation area or scenic expanse, as opposed to a developed
urban area. San Bruno Mountain is a prominent visual landmark in South San Francisco, and can be
seen from many locations throughout the city, including many portions of the East of 101 Area.
Construction of the proposed Project may block a small portion of the existing views to the north from
locations to the south. However, the areas from which views of the mountain may be blocked are not
designated scenic overlooks; and are not places where people gather in order to gain a view of San
Bruno Mountain. Therefore, blockage of existing views by the proposed Project, particularly given the
Project site’s urban setting, would be considered less than significant.
b) Scenic Highways
Within South San Francisco, sections of Interstate-280 (I-280) have been designated as scenic corridors
under the State Scenic Highway program; however, these are not in the vicinity of the Project site. U.S.
2 City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 38 Recirculated IS/MND
101 has not been designated or identified as eligible in the vicinity.3 The Project site would not impact
views from a scenic highway. (No impact)
c) Visual Character
The proposed Project would involve the demolition of three existing office/warehouse buildings, and
replacement with two 2-story office/R&D buildings. The Project site is directly across Roebling Road
from an entitled, but not yet constructed, ±292,000 square foot R&D/biotech development at 213 - 221
East Grand Avenue. The proposed Project is consistent with surrounding development and design
guidelines contemplated for the East of 101 Area, and would not result in development incongruous to
the existing and proposed development in the area. This impact would be less than significant.
d) Light and Glare
Sources of light and glare in the Project vicinity include interior and exterior building lights, service
areas and surface parking lots, and city street lights. Light and glare associated with vehicular traffic
along major thoroughfares in the area also create sources of glare. The existing level and sources of
light and glare are typical of those in a developed urban setting.
Residential uses and natural areas are particularly sensitive to light and glare impacts, particularly from
nearby non-residential sources. However, the Project is located in a commercial and industrial area
with no adjacent residential uses or natural areas.
The Project would increase the active building area on the Project site and therefore would increase the
amount of nighttime lighting and glare. However, it is not expected that the Project could substantially
affect the overall ambient light levels in the Project vicinity, a fully developed, urban context. As a
standard condition of project approval, new lighting would be required to conform to standards that
limit the amount of light that can spill over to other properties, through the use of downcast lighting
fixtures.
In summary, since the Project would consist of development and lighting treatments typical of the
existing commercial/industrial urban settings and would incorporate standard lighting measures to
address undue lighting on adjacent areas, it would not result in new sources of substantial adverse light
or glare. The impact would be less than significant.
3 California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Program, Eligible and Designated Routes, website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm, accessed on November 6, 2010.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 39
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (As defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resource Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in 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 or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
SETTING
The Project site is a currently developed industrial site. It is not farmland and is not under Williamson
Act contract.
IMPACTS
a) through e) Farmland and Forest Land
No land designated for or used as agricultural land, forest land or timberland is located on the Project
site. No land on the Project site is under a Williamson Act contract. (No Impact)
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 40 Recirculated IS/MND
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
SETTING
The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the rate of release and the
atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and
dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.
Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps
within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing
excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on average in the fall and
winter.
The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution in the
city, but their northwesterly orientation can contribute to poor air quality in regions east of the city.
Even so, in fall and winter especially there can be periods of several days when winds are very light
and local pollutants can build up.
State of California and Federal Air Quality Standards
Both the California Air Resource Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have
established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and lead. These
ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that represent safe levels that avoid specific
adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards include what
are called “criteria” pollutants, because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 41
criteria documents. For some of these pollutants, notably ozone and PM10, the State standards are more
stringent than the national standards.
In addition to the criteria pollutants, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of
concern in the Bay Area. TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence
of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent
compared to that for criteria pollutants.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD
enforces rules and regulations regarding air pollution sources and is the primary agency preparing the
regional air quality plans mandated under state and federal law. BAAQMD has prepared air quality
impact guidelines for use in preparing environmental documents under CEQA.4
BAAQMD monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, although
none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring stations closest to the Project site are located
in San Francisco to the north and Redwood City to the south. Table 2 summarizes the air quality data
recorded at these two sites. The table shows that from 2007 through 2009, the ambient air quality in
the areas of San Francisco and Redwood City exceeded the state standard for ozone, the state standard
for PM10, and the federal standard for PM2.5. According to the standards of the federal Clean Air Act,
the Bay Area is in attainment with all federal ambient air quality standards except for ozone and
particulate matter.
Table 2: Air Quality Data Summary for Closest Monitoring Sites, 2007-2009
Pollutant Standard Monitoring Site Days Standard Exceeded
2007 2008 2009
Ozone Federal 1-Hour San Francisco
Redwood City
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ozone State 1-Hour San Francisco
Redwood City
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ozone Federal 8-Hour1 San Francisco
Redwood City
0
0
0
0
0
0
PM10 Federal 24-Hour San Francisco
Redwood City
0
0
0
*
0
*
PM10 State 24-Hour San Francisco
Redwood City
2
1
0
*
0
*
PM2.5 Federal 24-Hour San Francisco
Redwood City
5
1
0
0
1
0
Carbon
Monoxide
State/Federal
8-Hour
San Francisco
Redwood City
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nitrogen
Dioxide State 1-Hour San Francisco
Redwood City
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source: BAAQMD Air Pollution Summaries, http://www.baaqmd.gov/pio/aq_summaries/index.htm
* PM10 monitoring was discontinued at Redwood City on June 30, 2008.
Note that PM10 and PM2.5 are measured every sixth day, so the number of days exceeding the standard is estimated.
2009 is the latest year to be reported by BAAQMD.
4 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 42 Recirculated IS/MND
IMPACTS
a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan
Significance Criteria: The Project would be considered to have a significant impact if it were to be in
conflict with the current air quality plan. BAAQMD recommends thresholds for local plans, but not for
project-level analysis.
BAAQMD recommends thresholds for local plans, but not for project-level analysis under this
criterion, as consistency is based on regional conformance with the population growth assumptions or
regional growth in vehicle miles traveled. 5 The Clean Air Plan also includes control measures, but
many of these are intended to be applied on a jurisdictional level and/or to select projects.6
The Project site is in an area designated as Business and Technology Park in the 1999 General Plan.
The South San Francisco General Plan specifies an average Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 for the
Business and Technology Park designation, but permits increases up to a FAR of 1.0 for research and
development uses.7 At a FAR of 0.8, the proposed Project would therefore be within the anticipated
range. The Project site’s proposed use is also consistent with the zoning for the area, Business
Technology Park (BTP). The City’s General Plan designations and future land use types and intensities
would have been taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD’s most recent Clean Air Plan,
released in 2010.
Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are not applicable to the proposed Project, however, the
Project would include implementation of an employer-based trip reduction program (Transportation
Control Measure C-1) and would include bicycles and pedestrian access (Transportation Control
Measures D-1 and D-2) and incorporate energy efficiency measures required under Title 24 (Energy
and Climate Measure 1).
The Project would not conflict with development assumptions or prevent implementation of applicable
control measures and would therefore have a less than significant impact related to a conflict with the
air quality plan.
b) and c) Air Quality Standards
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed
BAAQMD’s emission rate threshold or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors).
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide thresholds of significance for air pollutants which include
an assumption of emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively
considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be
5 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011.
6 BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and ABAG, Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, September 2010.
7 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 43
cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing
air quality conditions.
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines also contain screening criteria to provide a conservative indication
of whether the proposed Project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. If all of the
screening criteria are met by a proposed project, quantification of the project’s air pollutant emissions
is not necessary to make a determination that the impact will be below significance levels.
Construction Activities
Demolition, earth-moving activities, and exhaust emissions from construction-related vehicles and
equipment comprise the major sources of construction dust and diesel emissions. Screening Criteria are
included on Table 3-1 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, which provides construction-period
screening levels of 277,000 square feet for office-type uses. 8 The Project involves construction of
105,536 square feet for R&D/office uses, which is well below the conservative screening thresholds
established by the BAAQMD. Therefore, it can be concluded that construction-period criteria pollutant
emissions would be below applicable thresholds without the need to quantify emissions. Fugitive dust
is also a concern during the construction-period. BAAQMD does not have a threshold of significance
for fugitive dust impacts, but instead regards fugitive dust impacts as mitigated if appropriate
management practices are implemented, as outlined in the mitigation below.
Impact Air-1 Construction Dust and Exhaust. Construction activities would generate exhaust
emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive dust particles that could affect
local air quality. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure
Air-1: Basic Construction Best Management Practices. The Project shall demonstrate
proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures
prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, including
implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures”.
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded
areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
c. 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.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e. 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.
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in
use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
8 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 44 Recirculated IS/MND
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California
Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points.
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked
by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior
to operation.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and
take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall
also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness
of construction dust controls. With implementation of the Basic Construction Best Management
Practices detailed in Mitigation Measure Air-1, impacts related to construction period emissions and
dust would be considered less than significant with mitigation. Because construction-period emissions
do not exceed applicable significance thresholds, additional construction mitigation measures would
not be required.
Operational Activities
Emissions from operation of the Project could cumulatively contribute to air pollutant levels in the
region. Since the Bay Area is considered nonattainment for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5, emissions of these
pollutants or their precursors could contribute to existing air quality problems.9 For this reason,
BAAQMD has adopted emission-based significance thresholds to measure the significance of a
project’s contribution, as detailed below.
The URBEMIS2007 model, version 9.2.4, was used to calculate the Project’s emissions from mobile
sources (vehicles) and area sources. Default URBEMIS settings were used for San Mateo County
except for the specifics of the Project size and trip generation from the traffic study, as detailed in the
model output included in Attachment A. These results are total for the proposed Project, without
subtracting existing emissions or accounting for mitigating characteristics, other than that already
accounted for in the trip generation rates, as discussed in more detail in the traffic section. Operational
Project emissions and BAAQMD thresholds are reported in Table 3, below.
Table 3: Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions for Project Operations
Description
Reactive
Organic Gases
Nitrogen
Oxides
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Daily (Pounds per Day) 5.11 5.06 11.55 2.18
BAAQMD Daily Thresholds 54.00 54.00 82.00 54.00
Annual (Tons per Year) 0.92 1.06 2.11 0.40
BAAQMD Annual Thresholds 10.00 10.00 15.00 10.00
9 BAAQMD, Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, available at
http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 45
The Project emissions would be below the significance thresholds established by BAAQMD.
Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on regional air quality during the
operational period.
BAAQMD also presents the screening level that localized carbon monoxide concentrations should be
studied at affected intersections where traffic is increased to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (or
24,000 vehicles per hour where mixing is substantially limited, such as in a tunnel).10 This screening
level represents the volume of traffic at which a significant impact related to carbon monoxide would
be possible. Based on traffic volumes in the vicinity, it is not anticipated the Project will affect
intersections of that volume and therefore, the impact related to carbon monoxide is less than
significant.
d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations
Significance Criteria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed Project on exposure of
sensitive receptors to risks and hazards, the threshold of significance is exceeded when the project-
specific cancer risk exceeds 10 in one million, the non-cancer risk exceeds a Hazard Index of 1.0 (or
cumulative risk of 100 in one million or a Hazard Index of 10.0 respectively is exceeded), and/or the
annual average PM2.5 concentration would exceed 0.3 ug/m3 (0.8 ug/m3 on a cumulative level). 11
Examples of sensitive receptors are places where people live, play or convalesce and include schools,
hospitals, residential areas and recreation facilities.
Construction Activities
The closest sensitive receptors are the Early Years Children’s Center located at 371 Allerton Avenue,
0.27 miles east of the proposed Project, the Genentech Childcare Center at 444 Allerton, 0.40 miles
east of the proposed Project site, and the Gateway Child Care Center at 599 Gateway Boulevard, 0.21
miles (approximately 1,100 feet) west of the Project site.
BAAQMD provides Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction. These tables
provide distances to the nearest sensitive receptor for construction projects of certain types and sizes
within which impacts could be significant. The screening distance for an approximately 100,000 square
foot commercial project is 150 meters (492 feet).12 The closest sensitive receptor to this construction
site is 1,100 feet away. Therefore, it can be concluded that construction-period health risk would be
below applicable thresholds without the need to quantify risk levels.
Additionally, the California Health and Safety Code requires local agencies not to issue demolition
permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable
federal regulations regarding asbestos, lead-based paint and other potentially hazardous materials. The
BAAQMD is vested by the California Legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants through
both inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified ten days in advance of any proposed
demolition and must provide information on the amount and nature of any hazardous pollutants, nature
of planned work and methods to be employed, and the name and location of the waste disposal site to
10 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011, pp. 3-3 to 3-4.
11 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011, Table 2-1.
12 BAAQMD, Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction, May 2010, available at
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 46 Recirculated IS/MND
be used. The purpose of BAAQMD regulations is the minimization of potential hazards to the public
and surrounding land uses.
The Project must also comply with California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(Cal/OSHA) regulations, standards and procedures and California Department of Health Services
(DHS) Lead Work Practice Standards. These regulations are designed to minimize worker and general
public exposure to hazardous building materials, as may be encountered during building demolition
and construction.
The above regulations and procedures, already established and enforced as part of the permit review
process, would ensure that the impact of hazardous emissions during construction of the Project would
be less than significant.
Operational Activities
The Project could include laboratory facilities or stationary equipment (e.g., standby emergency
generators) that emit air pollution. These sources could emit small amounts of toxic air contaminants
with the potential to affect sensitive receptors within a quarter mile of the Project site. While the
specific tenants of the proposed site have not been identified, stationary equipment or laboratories that
are subject to BAAQMD permitting requirements will be required to show that impacts to the public
would be negligible. Therefore, because the Project would comply with standard BAAQMD permitting
requirements, the impact would be considered less than significant.
e) Odors
Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD defines public exposure to offensive odors as a potentially
significant impact. Potential odor impacts are based on a list of specific types of facilities, such as
wastewater treatment plants, landfills, refineries, etc. 13
Many construction vehicles run on diesel gasoline, the exhaust of which has a distinct smell generally
considered an objectionable odor. However, these odors would be temporary, as they are only
associated with construction, and would not be expected to reach substantially beyond the boundaries
of the Project site as such odors do not generally remain noticeable at any substantial distance from
their source.
As a laboratory use, the Project also theoretically has the potential to generate chemical smells during
operations. However, the Project will be subject to BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, which restricts
noticeable odors beyond the Project boundary.14
The impact of the Project with regard to odors is considered to be less than significant. This impact
would be further reduced by implementation of mitigation measure Air-1, which would reduce
construction diesel exhaust.
13 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011, p. 3-4.
14 BAAQMD, Regulation 7, last amended 1982, available at http://www.baaqmd.gov/?sc_itemid=D39A3015-453E-4A0D-
9C76-6F7F4DA5AED5.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 47
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the
Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
SETTING
The Project site is located in a largely industrial area, on a site that has previously been developed, and
is predominantly covered with asphalt and buildings. The existing limited vegetation consists of
parking lot and screening landscaping.
IMPACTS
a) and b) Special Status Species and Habitat
Due to the historic industrial use of the East of 101 Area, natural resources are limited in this area and
primarily consist of wetlands and their associated plan and animal species and slopes with native
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 48 Recirculated IS/MND
vegetation. The Project site is not identified as a location with sensitive biological resources. 15, 16 This
is consistent with the fully developed character of the site and surroundings, which offer little or no
habitat value, and would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications on special status species, except for possibly migrating birds, discussed below.
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code of California protect special-status
bird species year-round, as well as their eggs and nests during the nesting season. The list of migratory
birds includes almost every native bird in the United States. On-site or adjacent trees could be used by
protected birds. Construction activities could adversely affect nesting birds protected by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and/or Fish and Game Code of California.
Impact Bio-1: Disturbance of Nesting Birds. Construction activities could adversely affect
nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or Fish and Game
Code of California. This is a potentially significant impact.
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code of California protect special-status
bird species year-round, as well as their eggs and nests during the nesting season. The list of migratory
birds includes almost every native bird in the United States. On-site or adjacent trees could be used by
protected birds.
Mitigation Measure
Bio-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Pre-construction surveys for nesting
birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game
Code of California within 100 feet of a development site in the Project area shall
be conducted within 30 days of initiation of construction activities. If active nests
are found, the project shall follow recommendations of a qualified biologist
regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting,
location of the nest, and type of construction activity. The buffer shall be
maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. If there is a
complete stoppage in construction activities for 30 days or more, a new nesting-
survey shall be completed prior to re-initiation of construction activities.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-1, which requires a nesting survey close to initiation
of construction activities, the impacts on special status species or their habitat would be less than
significant with mitigation.
c) and d) Wetlands and Wildlife Corridors
The proposed Project site is fully developed and does not contain wetland areas. It is an area that is
currently developed with urban land uses. 17, 18 The Project has no impact on wetlands and wildlife
corridors.
15 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994, pp. 169 to 174.
16 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Figure
7-1.
17 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994, pp. 170.
18 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Figure
7-1.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 49
e) and f) Plan and Policy Conflicts
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict
with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The existing vegetation on site consists of parking lot and screening landscaping. None of the trees on
site are large enough to be considered protected trees under the City of South San Francisco Tree
Protection Ordinance (Chapter 13.30 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code), which defines
protected trees as those with a circumference of 48 inches or greater at 54 inches above the natural
grade or those otherwise so designated by the Parks and Recreation director);
The Project has no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 50 Recirculated IS/MND
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the
Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§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?
SETTING
The Historic and Cultural Resources Element of South San Francisco’s General Plan provides the
following description of the cultural and historic context:
“South San Francisco’s growth is notable for the close relationship between industry and community.
The development of a residential town in support of new industrial plants was the calculated strategy of
local industrialists. With the success of the city’s industries, South San Francisco earned an important
role as “The Industrial City” of the region. The conservation of this unique history is the objective of
historic and cultural preservation in South San Francisco. In addition to Sign Hill, designated resources
in South San Francisco include several residential and commercial buildings in the downtown area. The
City’s Municipal Code and State and federal law, protect these local, State, and national historic
resources from alteration and demolition.
Although industry played a critical role in South San Francisco’s history, no industrial buildings or
sites are currently designated historic resources.”
No historic resources were identified on the Project site or in the whole of the East of 101 Area. 19
Additionally, South San Francisco’s Historic Preservation Commission has identified fifty historically
or culturally significant sites through the Historic Marker Program. While none of these sites have been
designated a Historic Resource, each has been identified for its historic or cultural significance and is
identified by a marker that describes its significance as part of the history of this City.20
19 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Figure
7-3.
20 City of South San Francisco, Historic Marker Program webpage, http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=275.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 51
IMPACTS
a) Historical Resource
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.
The corner lot, 233 East Grand Avenue, is marker site #38 in the City’s Historic Marker Program.
Created by the City’s Historic Preservation Commission, the Historic Marker Program is an effort to
identify and provide information about sites with significance as part of the history of this City, though
none of these sites have been designated as Historic Resources. This site’s marker notes that the lot
was once the site of the United Packing Co. from 1929 to 1958 with its significance described as
follows: “Built on the site of the Metzger Packing Plant. Owned by A.C. Freeman. Housed a butcher's
slaughterhouse and a broker's commission house.”21 This marker references previous uses no longer on
the site and would not be considered to indicate a cultural or historic resource under CEQA.
The Project site is currently developed with 1980s era industrial buildings, which are not eligible for
designation on the California Register of Historic Resources. The Project has no impact on historical
resources.
b) Archaeological Resources
Significant Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources as defined in CEQA Section
15064.5.
According to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, South San Francisco’s coastal location,
and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the existence of prehistoric and historic
archaeological resources likely. It is possible that buried prehistoric resources may be found in the City,
although currently there is insufficient data to predict that they may be found at the Project site,
especially because the site has been previously disturbed. If archaeological resources are discovered on
site, these resources shall be handled according to CEQA Section 15064.5(c), which calls on lead
agencies to refer to the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code dealing with the
treatment and handling of archaeological resources, or Section 21084.1 dealing with the treatment of
handling of historical resource. This would be a standard condition of any project approval so the
impact is considered less than significant.
c) Geologic/Paleontological Features
There are no unique geologic or paleontological features associated with the Project site. 22 The Project
has no impact on paleontological resources or geologic features.
21 City of South San Francisco, Historic Marker Program webpage, http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=275.
22 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Figure
7-3.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 52 Recirculated IS/MND
d) Human Remains
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in
the disturbance of any human remains.
There are no known human remains that would be disturbed by the proposed Project. As mentioned
under b) above, most of the Project site has already been disturbed by urban development. No formal
cemeteries have been located on the Project site. If human remains are found within the Project site,
they will be handled according to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code which disallows
intentional disturbance, requires ceasing activity until a county coroner makes a report and requires the
county coroner to contact the Native American Heritage Commission if the coroner determines that the
remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are Native American, they will be handled
according to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code requiring notification of likely descendants,
inspection, and recommendations for removal. This would be a standard condition of any project
approval so the impact is considered less than significant.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 53
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the
Project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
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 roadway improvements, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
SETTING
Regional Seismicity
The Project site lies in the tectonically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of Northern
California, on the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. The geologic and geomorphic structure of
the northwest trending ridges and valleys in the region, including the Santa Cruz Mountains and San
Francisco Bay, are controlled by active tectonism along the boundary between the North American and
Pacific Tectonic Plates, defined by the San Andreas Fault System. Regional faults have predominantly
right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal) movement, with lesser dip-slip (vertical) components of
displacement. Horizontal and vertical movement is distributed on the various fault strands within a fault
zone. Throughout geologic time the fault strands experiencing active deformation change in response to
regional shifts in stress and strain from plate motions. Within 15 miles of the Project site there are three
major active faults that display large right-lateral strike-slip offsets, the San Andreas Fault, the San
Gregorio Fault, and the Hayward Fault. The nearest known active fault is the San Andreas Fault trace,
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 54 Recirculated IS/MND
located approximately 3 miles (5 km) southwest of the site. Other nearby active faults include the
Hayward Fault 15 miles (24 km) northeast, the San Gregorio Fault (Seal Cove Fault) located
approximately 8.6 miles to the southwest, the Calaveras Fault located 25 miles northeast and the
Concord/Green Valley Fault located 30 miles northeast. 23
Other faults are nearer than the San Andreas but not considered active since they show no evidence of
Holocene rupture or movement during the past 11,000 years. This includes the San Bruno and Serra
Faults mapped approximately 1.4 and 2.6 miles (2.2 km and 4.2 km) west of the site. The nearest
mapped fault of any type is the Hillside Fault mapped about 0.35 miles (0.55 km) northeast. While this
is near the subject property the fault shows no evidence of rupture during at least the past 2 million
years.
Seismicity of the Project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic period,
including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and most recently, the
1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.24 According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),
violent ground shaking (Modified Mercalli Intensity, MMI Level IX) is possible in response to a large
earthquake along the nearby San Andreas Fault. A major rupture of the Hayward Fault is expected to
produce strong ground shaking (MMI VII).
Regional Geology
The Project site is located at the edge of the San Francisco Bay, a submerged valley in the Central
Coast Ranges of California. This area is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and
valleys oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System. In the San Francisco Bay area,
Tertiary strata commonly rest in angular unconformity on rocks of the Franciscan complex, which is
composed of weakly to strongly metamorphosed greywacke (sandstone), argillite, limestone, basalt,
serpentinite, and chert. The rocks of the Franciscan Complex are ancient Jurassic oceanic crust and
deep marine (pelagic) deposits accreted onto the edge of the North American Continent and
metamorphosed as a result of accretion and partial subduction. These deposits have been overlain by
Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous sedimentary deposits. Deposits of these rocks may be found
outcropping along San Bruno Mountain in the Project vicinity. Little metamorphosed, high-pressure,
low-temperature metamorphic minerals are common in the Franciscan complex, but there are also high
grade metamorphic blocks in sheared but relatively un-metamorphosed argillite matrix which reflect
the complicated history of the Franciscan.25
These rocks have been offset by movement along the San Andreas Fault System, which traverses the
Santa Cruz Mountains prior to heading offshore in Southern Daly City, on the other side of the
Peninsula. Several northwest trending and structurally controlled valleys dissect the San Francisco
Peninsula, including the valley of Colma Creek, which contains the Project site. During the Quaternary
Period of rising and falling sea level in response to patterns of global glaciation, these valleys were
incised and then backfilled with sediment to form the suite of alluvial deposits that can be found today,
23 Review of Official California Geologic Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology) Maps, including
the South San Francisco Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map (1982), and Fault Activity Map of California (1994).
24 California Division of Mines and Geology, 2002. Fault Evaluation Reports Prepared Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act, California Geological Survey CD 2002-01
25 Bonilla, M.G. 1998, Geologic Map of the South San Francisco 7.5’ Quadrangle and Part of the Hunter’s Point 7.5’
Quadrangle, USGS Open-File Report 98-354
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 55
including the Pleistocene Colma Formation. Along the bay margin, deposits of Holocene Bay Mud,
marsh deposits, and other fine grained sediment accumulated by currents along the shore.
Site Geology and Soils
According to a geologic map of the area, the Project site is at the northern edge of an area underlain by
fill, described as clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, organic matter, and man-made debris, placed over
tidal flats. However, just north of the site is a large outcrop of Franciscan bedrock, indicating that the
site is likely underlain at a relatively shallow depth by the Franciscan Complex. Sandstone bedrock
typical of the Franciscan Complex was penetrated in two boreholes at the site located approximately
350 feet south of the site. 26
A geotechnical investigation was not completed for the Project, but several geotechnical studies of the
surrounding parcels have been completed in association with recent construction activities. In four
geotechnical studies of adjacent properties, subsurface conditions were found to consist of fill materials
overlying soft Bay Mud deposits, which are underlain by medium dense to very dense granular alluvial
soils (Colma Formation).27 The thickness of fill and Bay Mud varied considerably on the adjacent
properties. Fill soils ranged from five to twelve feet deep; Bay Mud varied from three feet to 30-feet in
thickness under the fill soils. Bedrock was not encountered in boreholes, with the exception of two
boreholes in which weathered sandstone was encountered at depths of 68.5 feet and 73 feet below
ground surface. These boreholes were located 350 to 400 feet south of the Project site.28
It is expected that subsurface conditions at the Project site are generally similar to those encountered
during the geotechnical studies of the surrounding parcels. The thickness of the surficial fill materials, Bay
Mud, alluvial sediments, and depth to bedrock could vary considerably.
REGULATORY SETTING
State Laws and Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The California Legislature passed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972 to mitigate
the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. 29 The Act’s main purpose is to
prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults.
The Act addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake
hazards. Local agencies must regulate most development in fault zones established by the State
Geologist. Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the
26 Bonilla, M.G. 1998, Geologic Map of the South San Francisco 7.5’ Quadrangle and Part of the Hunter’s Point 7.5’
Quadrangle, USGS Open-File Report 98-354
27 Review of Geotechnical Study Sugen Phase II Building, Britannia Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, January 1999; Geotechnical
Study, Exelis II, Britannia Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, May 2000; Geotechnical Study Sugen and Metaxen Buildings,
Britannia Pointe Grand Business Park, Geomatrix, August 1997; and Geotechnical Study Sugen Phase III Building
Britannia Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, May 23, 2002.
28 Geomatrix Consultants, 1997, Geotechnical Study Sugen and Metaxen Buildings Britannia Pointe Grand Business Park.
29 California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997 revision, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, DMG Special
Publication 42.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 56 Recirculated IS/MND
city or county with jurisdiction must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed
buildings would not be constructed across active or potentially active faults.
California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California Public Resources Code Sections
2690-2699.6) addresses seismic hazards other than surface rupture, such as liquefaction and seismically
induced landslides. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act specifies that the lead agency for a project may
withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and
mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and
unstable soils.
California Building Code
The California Building Code was developed to incorporate modifications to the International Building
Code (developed by the International Conference of Building Officials) required by California law and
statute and has been adopted by most jurisdictions in California, including the City of South San
Francisco, to oversee construction. The California Building Code defines four Seismic Zones in
California, which are ranked according to their seismic hazard potential. Zone 1 has the least seismic
potential and Zone 4 has the highest seismic potential. The City of South San Francisco is located in
Seismic Zone 4 and thus development is required to comply with all design standards applicable to
Seismic Zone 4. The earthquake protection law (California Health and Safety Code section 19100 et
seq.) requires that structures be designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by wind
and earthquakes. Specific minimum standards for seismic safety and structural design to meet
earthquake protection requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the California Building Code.
Local Regulations and Policies
City of South San Francisco General Plan Update
The General Plan Update Health and Safety Element includes a section on Geological and Seismic
Hazards. This section identifies geotechnical and geologic impacts to the general City of South San
Francisco area. The most recent General Plan update was completed in October 1999.
East of 101 Area Plan
The 1999 General Plan update also includes a summary of the East of 101 Area Plan, providing
specific policies for the area located east of U.S. Highway 101.
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 15 includes information on the Construction
Codes and Amendments adopted by the City of South San Francisco. This includes the California
Building Code, among other codes used in construction in the City of South San Francisco.
IMPACTS
a) Seismic Hazards
Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary and secondary. The primary seismic
hazard is surface fault rupture. Secondary seismic hazards, caused by the sudden movement along a
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 57
fault, include strong ground shaking, liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced
ground failure.
i) Surface Fault Rupture
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the surface rupture of a
known earthquake fault.
A number of active and potentially active faults are present in the region. Many active and potentially
active faults in San Mateo County have undergone extensive investigation in the past. ABAG has
summarized results from many of these studies to quantify the potential impact to certain areas, while
the California Geological Survey has established Earthquake Fault Zone boundaries where primary
seismic hazards are very high. According to these maps, the proposed development is not located
within an Earthquake Fault Zone. No faults zoned as active by the State of California are mapped
across the Project site.30 As such, it has been determined that the risk of ground rupture along a fault
trace is low at the Project site.
The Project would have a less than significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from
surface rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground
shaking.
The San Francisco Bay Region has experienced several historic earthquakes from movement along the
San Andreas and other associated active faults. Mapped active faults (those experiencing surface
rupture within the past 11,000 years) nearest the site are characterized in Table 4.
Data presented by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities estimates the chance of
one or more large earthquakes (Magnitude 6.7 or greater) occurring in the San Francisco Bay region by
the year 2031 to be 62 percent.31 Consequently, the site will likely be subject to strong seismic shaking
during the life of the improvements. The site is not located immediately adjacent to a known active
fault, but the presence of deep soft underlying alluvium and marsh or bay mud deposits overlain by fill
is expected to amplify seismic waves significantly.
30 State of California Department of Conservation, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps accessed at
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm
31 Working Group on California Earthquakes, Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2003-2031, USGS
Open File Report 03-214
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 58 Recirculated IS/MND
Table 4: Nearest Active Faults
Fault System Distance From
Site (Miles/Km) 1
Direction From
Site to Fault
MCE Moment
Magnitude 2
Modified Mercalli
Shaking Intensity 3
San Andreas 3.5/5.6 Southwest 7.9 IX
San Gregorio 9/14.5 Southwest 7.3 VIII
Hayward 15/24 Northeast 7.1 VII
Calaveras 24/39 East 7.5 VI
Rodgers Creek 32/51.5 North 7.0 VII
1 Fault Activity map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994.
2 Caltrans California Seismic Hazards Map based on Maximum Credible Earthquakes, California Department
of Transportation, 1996
3 Association of Bay Area Governments Shaking Intensity Map
http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/mapsba.html
The intensity of ground shaking will vary with the distance and magnitude of the earthquake causing
the ground shaking, as well as the density and consistency of underlying materials. This ground
shaking intensity has been predicted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and California Geological
Survey for most of the Bay Area, including the Project site, and is summarized on the ABAG
website.32 The maximum intensity ground shaking expected to occur at the site would be a modified
Mercalli intensity level of IX (violent) in response to a major rupture along the San Andreas Fault
equivalent to the 1906 earthquake. A major rupture on the San Gregorio, Hayward or Rodgers Creek
faults is predicted to cause strong to very strong ground shaking (MMI=VII to VIII), while a major
earthquake on more distant faults is expected to cause moderate to strong ground shaking of the site.
Strong ground shaking could severely damage unreinforced masonry or poorly built structures, while
violent shaking is expected to cause extensive damage to even well-constructed buildings.
The California Geological Survey has developed a probabilistic seismic hazards map to predict the
peak ground acceleration that can be expected at a given site. The probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment for this site predicts a peak ground acceleration of approximately 61% that of gravity, with
a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years.33
Impact Geo-1: Seismic Ground Shaking. Buildings and occupants of the Project site would be
subject to ground shaking in the event of a seismic event, which could be high
intensity (Mercalli intensity level of IX, violent). Development of the Project
would increase the number of structures and people potentially exposed to hazards
associated with a major earthquake in the region. This is a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measures
Geo-1a: Compliance with California Building Code. Project development shall meet
requirements of the California Building Code as modified by the amendments,
additions and deletions adopted by the City of South San Francisco. Incorporation
of seismic construction standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic
effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure.
32 ABAG, Earthquake Shaking Potential Map, 2003, available at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/shaking/.
33 California Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment
http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 59
Geo-1b: Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report and with
Structural Design Plans. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be
performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical
Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical design and a Registered
Structural Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in structural design.
The structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined
in the California Building Code. The Project Geotechnical Investigation shall
establish the seismic design parameters, as determined by the geotechnical
engineer in accordance with requirements of the California Building Code.
Geo-1c: Obtain a building permit and complete final plan review. The Project applicant
shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building
Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by
the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned
commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San
Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element,
buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic
events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a
strong earthquake.
Implementation of mitigation measures Geo-1a through Geo-1c would reduce the impact of exposing
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground
shaking to a level of less than significant by implementation of current building code requirements and
the design level recommendations for construction prepared by Geotechnical and Structural Engineers
to minimize the risk of loss, injury or death related to seismic ground shaking. Building Division Plan
Review will verify that the code requirements and geotechnical and structural engineer
recommendations are implemented.
iii) Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading.
Impact Geo-2: Liquefaction, Densification, and Ground Surface Settlement. Due to the site’s
location at the border between the competent bedrock of Oyster Point to the north,
and artificial fill placed over tidal flats to the south, the southern portion of the
Project area is identified as an area of high hazard for liquefaction. The northern
portion is identified as having a very low hazard for liquefaction. Liquefaction or
densification of soils underlying the site could result in settlement and differential
settlement of site improvements including buildings, pavements, and utilities and
pose a threat to human health. The potential for liquefaction of site soils is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Geo-2a: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and in
conformance with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level Geotechnical
Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California
Registered Geotechnical Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical
engineering, and shall include analysis for liquefaction potential of the underlying
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 60 Recirculated IS/MND
sediments. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in
accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The
Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s
Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural
Engineer, or civil engineer experienced in structural engineering shall prepare
Project structural design plans. Structures shall be designed to minimize the effects
of anticipated seismic settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review the
Structural Design Plans and provide approval for the geotechnical elements of the
plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the
liquefaction potential of surface soils. Mitigation measures may include excavation
and replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation loading, and ground
improvement by methods such as stone columns or pressure grouting.
Geo-2b: Obtain a building permit and complete plan review. The Project applicant shall
obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building
Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by
the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned
commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San
Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element,
buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic
events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a
strong earthquake.
Implementation of mitigation measures Geo-2a and Geo-2b would reduce the impact of exposing
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading to a less than significant level by implementation
of current building code requirements and the design level recommendations for construction prepared
by Geotechnical and Structural Engineers. Building Division Plan Review will verify that the code
requirements and geotechnical and structural engineer recommendations are implemented.
iv) Landslides
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose
people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides.
Impact Geo-3. Landslides and Slope Stability. A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris
displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. The site is located on gently
sloping ground, and as such natural slope stability is not expected to be an issue.
However, cuts currently exist in the northern part of the site, and more cuts will be
necessary to provide level building pads. These cuts will require construction of
retaining walls, which could fail if improperly designed. The impacts of slope
stability and landslides are potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-3: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation. A Design
Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction
of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering, and shall include analysis of the site slope stability.
Proper foundation engineering and retaining wall design shall be performed in
accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 61
Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s
Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer.
Implementation of mitigation measure Geo-3 would reduce the impact of exposing people or structures
to substantial hazards from landslides to a less than significant level by design and construction in
accordance with recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. Review and approval by the
City’s Geotechnical Consultant and City Engineer will verify that the recommendations are sound and
that they are implemented for the Project.
b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil.
Impact Geo-4. Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading at the site. Excavation of
soil for construction of new buildings and pavement sections would also be
performed and temporary stockpiles of loose soil will be created. Soils exposed
during construction activities would be subject to erosion during storm events.
This would be a potentially significant impact during and following site
construction activities.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-4: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the Clean
Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board, the Applicant shall file a
SWPPP prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best
management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage
under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity.
Implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (mitigation measure Geo-4) will reduce the
impact of soil erosion to a level of less-than-significant.
c) Unstable Geologic Unit
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
Impact Geo-5: Unstable Soils and Bay Mud. Undocumented fill soils are present on portions of
the subject site. Fill soils may settle due to new building loads. Bay Mud and
alluvial soil deposits are present on adjacent sites and also constitute areas of
potentially unstable soils. Bay Mud may be present under the southern portion of
the Project site and may settle under design loading conditions resulting in
differential settlement of structures. The presence of unstable fill soil and Bay Mud
is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-5: Investigate unstable fill soils and Bay Mud. A Design Level Geotechnical
Investigation shall be performed to determine the depth and extent of potentially
unstable fill soil and Bay Mud. Based on results of this study, the Geotechnical
Engineer shall determine appropriate measures to stabilize the potentially unstable
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 62 Recirculated IS/MND
site soils. Consolidation testing of any Bay Mud soils present shall be performed,
as part of the Design Level Geotechnical Investigation, and estimates of settlement
for the site shall be developed.
Methods of unstable soil stabilization may include construction of driven pile
foundations that support structures on materials located below fill soils and Bay
Mud, and other methods as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Implementation of mitigation measure Geo-5 will reduce the impact of the Project being located on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project to a less
than significant level by construction of foundations that support structures on materials located below
fill soils and Bay Mud.
d) Expansive Soils
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on
expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property.
Impact Geo-6 Expansive Soils. Expansive soils are present in the existing fill on the site and in
Bay Mud sediments that underlie the site. The presence of expansive soils could
cause damage to proposed improvements but are unlikely to create substantial risk
of life. The impact of expansive soil is potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-6: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and in
conformance with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level Geotechnical
Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California
Registered Geotechnical Engineer and shall include analysis for expansion
potential of the site soils. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be
performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by
the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered
Structural Engineer shall prepare Project structural design plans. The design plans
shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the effects of expansive
surface soils. Mitigations measures may include the following: Excavate
expansive soils and replace with at least one foot of non-expansive fill. Design
and construct structures to withstand expected stresses by the implementation of
the following: minimize use of slab-on-grade floors; support buildings and slabs on
non-expansive materials; chemically treat expansive materials to reduce expansion
potential; avoid siting structures across soil materials of substantially different
expansive properties; extend foundations below the zone of seasonal moisture
change; utilize pier-and-grade-beam foundation systems where appropriate; utilize
special bending resistant design; and prevent accumulation of surface water
adjacent to buildings.
Implementation of mitigation measure Geo-6 will reduce the impact of locating Project improvements
on expansive soil to a level of less than significant.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 63
e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involved
construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems.
The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alternate waste disposal systems. The
wastewater generated by the Project would be pumped into the local sewer system. Therefore, there is
no impact due to soils incapable of supporting septic systems.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 64 Recirculated IS/MND
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —Would the
Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
SETTING
In addition to the air pollutants discussed in the Air Quality section, other emissions may not be
directly associated with adverse health effects, but are suspected of contributing to “global warming”.
Global warming has occurred in the past as a result of natural processes, but the term is often used now
to refer to the warming predicted by computer models to occur as a result of increased emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHGs).
The State of California is concerned about GHG emissions and their effect on global warming. The
State recognizes that there appears to be a close relationship between the concentration of GHG in the
atmosphere and global temperatures and that the evidence for global warming is overwhelming. The
effects of global warming on California, in terms of how it would affect the ecosystem and economy,
remain uncertain. According to the 2006 Climate Action Team Report34 the following global warming
effects and conditions can be expected in California over the course of the next century:
A diminishing Sierra snow pack declining by 70 percent to 90 percent, threatening the state’s water
supply;
Increasing temperatures from eight to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F) under the higher emission
scenarios, leading to a 25 to 35 percent increase in the number of days ozone pollution levels are
exceeded in most urban areas;
Coastal erosion along the length of California and seawater intrusion into the Sacramento River
Delta from a four-to 33-inch rise in sea level. This would exacerbate flooding in already vulnerable
regions;
Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased temperatures;
Increased challenges for the state’s important agricultural industry from water shortages, increasing
temperatures, and saltwater intrusion into the Delta; and
Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months.
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) concept is used to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat
in the atmosphere relative to carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the most abundant GHG. CO2 has a GWP
34 California Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the
Legislature. (http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF)
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 65
of 1. Other GHGs, such as methane and nitrous oxide are commonly found in the atmosphere at much
lower concentrations, but with higher warming potentials, having GWP ratings of 21 and 310,
respectively. When the GHG emissions are weighted by GWP and added together, the result is
expressed as CO2 equivalent (CO2e). Other trace gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons and hydro
chlorofluorocarbons, which are halocarbons that contain chlorine, have much greater warming
potential. Fortunately these gases are found at much lower concentrations and many are being phased
out as a result of global efforts to reduce destruction of stratospheric ozone.35
California Green Building Standards Code
The Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, better known as
CALGreen), requiring all new buildings in the state to be more energy efficient and environmentally
responsible, took effect on January 1, 2011. These comprehensive regulations are targeted to achieve
major reductions in GHG emissions, energy consumption and water use to create a greener California.
CALGreen requires that every new building constructed in California:
Reduce water consumption by 20 percent
Divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills
Install low pollutant-emitting materials
Requires separate water meters for nonresidential buildings’ indoor and outdoor water use
Requires moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects
Requires mandatory inspections of energy systems (e.g., heat furnace, air conditioner and
mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure that all
are working at their maximum capacity and according to their design efficiencies.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Project site falls within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and therefore under the jurisdiction
of BAAQMD. BAAQMD provides a document titled California Environmental Quality Act Air
Quality Guidelines (“BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines”), which provides guidance for consideration by
lead agencies, consultants, and other parties evaluating air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay
Area Air Basin conducted pursuant to CEQA. The document includes guidance on evaluating and
mitigating GHG emissions impacts. 36
City of South San Francisco Emissions
At present, the City of South San Francisco does not have an adopted plan or specific policies to reduce
GHG emissions, although many of the City’s policies and ordinances—such as one of the region’s
most aggressive TDM programs—achieve the same objective. The City is completing an emissions
survey that will provide a basis for formally developing such tools. Although the General Plan did not
specify policies and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, many of the Plan’s policies will
contribute to this objective by promoting development that is less reliant on motor vehicles. According
35 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2008. U.S. EPA. April 15, 2010, Table 2-1: Recent Trends
in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.
36 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2011.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 66 Recirculated IS/MND
to the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Update (December 17, 2009), South San
Francisco emitted approximately 527,000 tons of CO2e in 2005 from all major sources, nearly half of
which were from transportation.
It is easy to dismiss the impact any single community can have on GHG emissions. In the context of
the State of California, the City of South San Francisco accounts for .001 percent (perhaps slightly
higher, if we account for traffic outside the city borders and waste impacts) of GHG emissions.
However, it is important to understand that reduction of GHG emissions is partially a matter of the
availability of options in transportation and other energy use. Achievement of the reductions required
by Measure G and State law require local action.
IMPACTS
a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significance Criteria: BAAQMD provides two alternative quantitative thresholds for operational
emissions, a brightline threshold of 1,100 MT of CO2e per year to assess smaller projects or, if a
project’s emissions are greater than the brightline threshold, an efficiency-based threshold of 4.6 MT
CO2e per Service Population per year. As shown below, the proposed Project has been compared
against the brightline threshold of 1,100 MT of CO2e per year. 37
BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions.
Construction-period emissions would be temporary only, and a project of this size would not be
anticipated to contribute substantially to regional GHG levels. Construction-period GHG emissions
would also be further reduced by mitigation measure Air-1, which includes measures to reduce exhaust
emissions during construction.
The Project’s direct emissions refer to emissions produced from mobile sources (vehicles) and area
sources such as natural gas used on-site for heating. Direct CO2 emissions have been calculated using
the URBEMIS2007 model, relying on the same inputs used to calculate emissions of air pollutants and
precursors. (See Attachment A for URBEMIS results.)
The BAAQMD GHG Model (BGM) was used to estimate the Project’s CO2e emissions from direct and
indirect emission sources, using the URBEMIS CO2 emission results as an input. BAAQMD developed
this model to calculate GHG emissions not included in URBEMIS, such as indirect emissions from
electricity use and waste. The BGM also adjusts for state regulations not included in URBEMIS,
specifically California’s low carbon fuel rules and Pavley regulations, which regulate emissions from
new passenger vehicles. 38 Changes from model defaults included trip generation from the Project
traffic study as well as a 50% reduction in solid waste, consistent with that seen for developments of
this type in this area. A summary of the results are included in Table 5 and the model results sheets can
be found in Attachment A.
37 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011, Table 2-1.
38 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011, p. 4-5.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 67
Table 5: Annual Operational GHG Emissions
Emissions Source
Proposed Project CO2e (net
increase, metric tons/year)
Transportation: 498.26
Area Source: (0.24)
Electricity: 228.90
Natural Gas: 104.42
Water & Wastewater: 10.86
Solid Waste: 193.73
Total: 1,035.94
Source: Lamphier-Gregory results from BAAQMD's Greenhouse Gas Calculator v.
1.1.9 Beta available at http://www.urbemis.com/software/download.html.
Operation of the Project as proposed would result in the net increase in GHG emissions of
approximately 1,036 metric tons CO2e per year. This is below the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 metric
tons CO2e per year and would therefore be less than significant.
b) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The Project is not located in a community with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, so
consistency with such a plan cannot be analyzed. Emissions associated with the development of the
proposed Project were analyzed per the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. BAAQMD’s
thresholds and methodologies take into account implementation of state-wide regulations and plans,
such as the AB 32 Scoping Plan and adopted state regulations such as Pavley and the low carbon fuel
standard. See the Air Quality section of this document for a discussion of consistency with the Clean
Air Plan, including applicable control measures. The impact related to conflict with a GHG reduction
plan would be less than significant.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 68 Recirculated IS/MND
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. 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?
SETTING
Site Use History
Originally a tidal marsh, the Project area was filled and developed in the late 19th century. Development
was hastened by construction of the railroad, which facilitated transport of heavy industrial materials
along the railroad and from nearby barges on San Francisco Bay. In the site vicinity, the chief
industries were metal plating and de-tinning operations from the 1920s until the early 1980s. Many
small railroad spurs, all connecting to a large rail yard located north of the site, served the various
industrial facilities in the area. While the area in the Project vicinity has been associated with heavy
industry, the Project site itself has historically been used as part of a livestock and meat packing
operation, a cold storage facility, and for commercial uses.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 69
A site history for 328 Roebling Road was documented by GeoSyntec Consultants (GeoSyntec) as part
of an environmental due diligence report completed in general conformance with American Society for
Testing and Materials Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment Process. GeoSyntec obtained Sanborn fire insurance maps, which identify use and
owners of sites for the years 1950, 1956, and 1970. In the 1950 map, the site and surrounding areas are
shown as owned by the United Packing Company, with hay barns, livestock feeding sheds, and cold
storage buildings. The 1956 map shows the site and surrounding areas labeled as the South San
Francisco Cold Storage Company. The 1970 map shows Roebling Road and lists 328 Roebling Road
as a radio parts store, constructed of reinforced concrete, wood trusses, and a concrete floor. The cold
storage facility is still shown south of the site with a plastic products company occupying the building
north of the site. In 1988 the site was leased to the current tenant, Slakey Brothers. The site is
currently being used as a wholesale warehouse for heating and air conditioning related equipment, as
well as other small construction related equipment, including plumbing supplies.39
Secor International Incorporated (Secor) documented a site history for 340 Roebling as part of a Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment, dated 3 December 2003. From 1908 to approximately 1956 the site
was part of the Western Meat Company or Union Meat’s stock yards. The warehouse/ manufacturing
building currently on-site was occupied by Roebling Wire Rope – The Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp
from 1958 to 1968, and Precision Plastics has occupied the site since 1968.40
GeoSyntec also documented a site history for 233 East Grand Avenue as part of a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment, dated 14 August 2006. 233 East Grand was also part of the Western
Meat Company/Union Meat Company stockyard/feedlot. Since at least 1966, when Ed Willig Jr.
purchased the property, it has been used solely for cold storage. 41
Current Site Use and Potential Contamination
GeoSyntec conducted a site visit to 328 Roebling Road as part of their Phase I Site Assessment. They
observed one small (10 gallon), unlabeled, closed-top plastic tank inside the building. The branch
manager indicated that the tank contained waste oil, collected from compressors that were brought into
Slakey Brothers for repair. The tank was approximately two-thirds full and appeared to be in good
condition, however it was not stored in an area of secondary containment. Additionally, GeoSyntec
observed a few isolated areas of concrete staining on the warehouse floor. The stains were of unknown
origin, generally small and did not appear fresh. No obvious evidence of stains, releases, or spills was
noted in the large outdoor storage area located north of the warehouse. There were no chemical storage
areas located in the outdoor storage area. 42
The Project site is listed on two environmental databases, the HAZNET database for disposing (via
recycler) of small quantities (0.22 tons) of liquids containing halogenated organic compounds
(>1000mg/l) and the San Mateo Business Plan database as a small quantity (<27 gallons per year)
generator. Over 90 other sites within one mile of the Project site were identified by the EDR report as
appearing on one or more of the environmental databases. However, information in the EDR report
39 GeoSyntec, Environmental and Geotechnical Due Diligence, 328 Roebling Road, South San Francisco, 2006.
40 Secor International Incorporated, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 340 Roebling Road, December 2003.
41 GeoSyntec, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 233 East Grand Avenue, August 2006.
42 GeoSyntec, Environmental and Geotechnical Due Diligence, 328 Roebling Road, South San Francisco, 2006.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 70 Recirculated IS/MND
indicated a southerly groundwater flow, therefore GeoSyntec concluded that none of the properties
identified in the report are likely to affect the Project site. 43
United Cold Storage has filed a Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the San Mateo County
Division of Environmental Health as a site that generates waste oil/solvent. GeoSyntec observed
regularly maintained compressors located in various areas of the building, with waste oil collected in
55-gallon drums within secondary containment. Freon in the refrigerant system was replaced with
anhydrous ammonia in approximately 1992. Potentially asbestos-containing tiles and ceilings were
observed in the office portion of the warehouse. A dry transformer had been installed in 2004, the
current owner did not know if the previous transformer contained Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).
A hydraulic elevator in the building was replaced in 1992, however there is no information as to
whether the hydraulic oil was replaced, and/or whether it contains or previously contained PCBs. No
indications of belowground structures were observed in the areas around the building. 44
Secor conducted a site visit to 340 Roebling Road for their Phase I Site Assessment. They observed
55-gallon drums in the hydraulic oil storage area, with moderate to major staining nearby. The floor of
the storage area was concrete with no floor drains and no evidence of significant staining.
Additionally, four 55–gallon drums stored within secondary containment on wooden pallets on an
asphalt surface were observed near the south corner of the site. The drums appeared to be in good
shape, with two containing waste oil and two containing oily water. Fluorescent lighting was observed
throughout the building, and due to the age of the building may contain PCBs within their ballasts. 45
Based on review of the Phase I Site Assessments for the subject properties there are five main
hazardous materials concerns at the site. There is evidence of improper storage of waste oil with
unknown quantities spilled over the years. The cold storage facility at 233 East Grand stores large
quantities of anhydrous ammonia, which, if spilled would be an acute human health hazard, but would
be unlikely to lead to a lasting environmental concern. Due to the ages of the existing buildings, they
are likely to have asbestos containing building materials and/or lead based paint. The transformers on
site may, or may not have previously contained PCBs; fluorescent light ballasts are another potential
source of PCBs. Additionally this area has a long history of heavy industrial uses, with a nearby rail
yard and numerous active and inactive rail spurs, one of which runs just north of the Project site. The
long history of heavy industry in the area indicates potential contamination including toxic heavy
metals such as lead in the subsurface. Historic railroad grades are potential sources of a number of
hazardous materials. These include herbicides used to clear unwanted vegetative growth in rail yards
and along tracks and toxic metal contamination including arsenic and chromium associated with
railroads. Wooden rail ties are another potential source of contamination due to creosote, zinc chloride
or other preservatives. Additionally there exists the threat of contamination due to fuel spills. 46
43 GeoSyntec, Environmental and Geotechnical Due Diligence, 328 Roebling Road, South San Francisco, 2006.
44 GeoSyntec, Environmental and Geotechnical Due Diligence, 328 Roebling Road, South San Francisco, 2006.
45 Secor International Incorporated, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 340 Roebling Road, December 2003.
46 GeoSyntec, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 233 East Grand Avenue, August 2006.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 71
REGULATORY SETTING
Federal and State Level
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The chief environmental regulator at the federal level is the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region IX for Northern California. In California the department of Toxic Substances
Control is chiefly responsible for regulating the safe, handling, use, and disposal of toxic materials in
the state of California, while the State Water Resources Control Board regulates discharge of
potentially hazardous materials into waterways and aquifers. Programs intended to protect workers
from exposure to hazardous materials and from accidental upset are covered under the Occupational
Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) at the federal level and at the state level through
CAL/OSHA, as well as through DHS.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The RCRA is the United States primary law governing the handling and disposal of solid hazardous
waste. The RCRA is actually an amendment, made in 1976, to the solid waste disposal act of 1965, but
the amendments were so comprehensive that it is generally referred to as a new act. The RCRA defines
solid and hazardous waste, authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set standards for
facilities that generate or manage hazardous waste, and establishes a permit program for hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The RCRA was last re-authorized by the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. The authorization for appropriations under the Act expired
September 30, 1988, but funding for the EPA’s programs in this area has continued; the Act’s other
authorities do not expire.47
Department of Transportation
Transportation of hazardous materials on the highways is regulated through the Federal Department of
Transportation (DOT) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). This includes a
system of placards, labels, and shipping papers required to identify the hazards of shipping each class
of hazardous materials. Existing federal and state laws address risks associated with the transport of
hazardous materials. These laws include regulations outlined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act administered by the DOT. Caltrans is mandated to implement the regulations established by the
DOT, which is published as the Federal Code of Regulations, Title 49, commonly referred to as 49
CFR. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) enforces these regulations. Regulations of hazardous
materials and wastes include the manufacture of packaging and transport containers; packing and
repacking; labeling; marking or placarding; handling; spill reporting; routing of transports; training of
transport personnel; and registration of highly hazardous material transport.
State Water Resource Control Board
The State Water Resource Control Board was created by the state legislature in 1967, with the joint
authority of water allocation and water quality protection. The State Water Resources Control Board
runs Geo Tracker, a database of environmentally regulated facilities in California. Within the State of
47 McCarthy, J and Tiemann, M, Congressional Research Service Report RL30032 – Solid Waste Disposal Act/Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, National Council for Science and the Environment, obtained from
http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/BriefingBooks/Laws/h.cfm
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 72 Recirculated IS/MND
California there are nine regional water quality control boards. The mission of the regional boards is to
develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans that will best protect the state’s
waters, recognizing local differences in climate, topography, geology and hydrology. The City of
South San Francisco is under the purview of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
Local and Regional Level
The City of South San Francisco Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions shall review all
architectural, structural, civil, electrical, and landscape plans and specifications associated with the
entire development. Alarm systems, sprinklers, vents and secondary containment structures within the
buildings are reviewed by the South San Francisco Fire Departments as a part of the plan check
process.
IMPACTS
a) Routine Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, or
disposal of hazardous materials.
Impact Haz-1: Routine Use of Hazardous Materials. The proposed development includes
construction of Class-A office and laboratory buildings. Class A refers to a
research laboratory, not merely an instructional laboratory. Depending upon the
nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, for which detailed information
is not currently available, there are likely to be both hazardous and potentially
hazardous materials stored and used on the site that will eventually require
disposal. This could include both biohazards, as well as chemical hazards. There
will also likely be transportation of hazardous materials to and from the site,
probably traveling along Highway 101 and East Grand Avenue.
The risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine
transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous
materials to the public and environment is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-1a: Registration in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. Qualifying
businesses occupying and/or operating at the development must submit a
Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals to the
San Mateo County Environmental Health Department prior to the start of
operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every
two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Plans shall be submitted to
the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program, which may
be contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information.
Businesses qualify for the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program if they
store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable
quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and
200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases.
Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods;
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 73
medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in
quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and whom store or use
no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons of a
specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil
not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These exemptions are not
expected to apply to Class A laboratory facilities.
The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site
map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they may be used
and transported from, risks of using these materials, included in material safety
data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan,
employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact
information.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-1b: Compliance with US Department of Transportation, State of California and
local laws, ordinances and procedures for transportation of hazardous
materials and hazardous wastes. All transportation of hazardous materials and
hazardous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation, State of
California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placards, signs and
other identifying information.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Haz-1a and Haz-1b would reduce the impact of creating a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, or
disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant by registration in the Hazardous
Materials Business Plan Program, which includes development of a written plan and oversight by the
County Environmental Health Department. The impact will also be mitigated to a level of less than
significant by compliance with federal, state and local laws, ordinances, and procedures for the safe
transport of hazardous materials and hazardous waste.
b) Risk from accidental upset of hazardous materials
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. Existing buildings potentially contain
hazardous materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, and PCBs.
Underlying site soils may contain hazardous materials including toxic heavy
metals related to the history of heavy industry in the area. The historic railroad
grade along the northeast edge of the Project site may be a source of additional
hazardous materials, including arsenic, chromium, creosote, zinc chloride, or other
wood preservatives. During demolition operations hazardous materials could be
released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Following
construction, operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a
continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of hazardous
materials since the site is proposed to include Class A laboratory facilities, where
hazardous materials may be stored, used, and disposed of. This represents a
potentially significant impact.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 74 Recirculated IS/MND
Mitigation Measures
Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A demolition plan with permit applications
shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building Department for
approval prior to demolition. The Demolition Plan for safe demolition of existing
structures shall include asbestos dust control and incorporate recommendations
from the site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials,
as well as additional surveys when required by the City. The Demolition Plan shall
address both on-site worker protection and off-site resident protection from both
chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials shall be tested
for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed
landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials such
as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building
materials shall be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and
ordinances. The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust
particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work
during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a
demolition permit from the BAAQMD, an asbestos demolition survey shall be
conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule
2.
Haz-2b: Additional Soil Sampling of Site Soils. The applicant shall retain a licensed Civil
Engineer or Professional Geologist to complete additional surface and subsurface
soil sampling to determine if elevated levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor oil,
or wood preservatives are present in site soils. These tests shall take place
throughout the Project site. If contamination exceeding commercial/industrial
guidelines including the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental
Screening Levels for commercial/ industrial sites, USEPA Preliminary
Remediation Goals for commercial/ industrial sites, and the California Department
of Toxic Substances Control Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a
Site Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared and
implemented, as discussed in Mitigation Measure Haz-2c.
Haz-2c: Implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan. If contamination of site soils
is detected, then results shall be submitted to the State of California EPA, pursuant
to the Brownfield Memorandum of Agreement, Request for Oversight of a
Brownfield Site process, and a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in
accordance with recommendations of the environmental consultant and established
procedures for safe removal. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect
human health and the environment will be provided in the plan. At a minimum the
plan shall include, but not be limited to the following:
(1) Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and
remediation at the site.
(2) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared
by all contractors at the Project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition,
grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance
work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal
protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The
HASP will be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 75
(3) Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously
unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during Project
development, including engineering controls that may be required to reduce
exposure to construction workers and future users of the site.
(4) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize
exposure to any subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include
treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from
excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines.
(5) Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for reuse
or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility.
(6) Restrictions limiting future excavation or development of the subsurface by
residents and visitors to the proposed development if determined necessary
through coordination with California EPA.
(7) The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the responsible jurisdiction prior
to issuance of any demolition, grading and construction permits for the Project.
Haz-2d: California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP). Future
businesses at the development shall check the state and federal lists of regulated
substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major
threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic,
flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to use in
consultation with the SMCEHD.
Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a CalARP
registration form and submit it to Environmental Health. Following registration,
they shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle
accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to
provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All
businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ)48 of a regulated
substance must develop a RMP and follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment in
the event that a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas,
hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for: keeping
employees and customers safe, handling regulated substances, training staff,
maintaining equipment, checking that substances are stored safely, and responding
to an accidental release.
Implementation of mitigation measures Haz-2a through Haz-2d will reduce the impact of creating a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidents
48 California Code of Regulations; Title 19. Public Safety; Division 2. Office of Emergency Services; Chapter 4.5 California
Accidental Release Prevention Program, § 2770.5.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 76 Recirculated IS/MND
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment to a less than significant level by
implementation of the identified mitigation measures. These mitigation measures include preparing a
Demolition Plan and obtaining permits for the demolition work, performing additional soil sampling of
site soils to identify any contaminated soils present, and preparation and implementation of a Site Soil
Management Plan under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances Control if contaminated
soil is identified. Additionally, future businesses shall participate in the California Accidental Release
Prevention Program if listed chemicals are used at the Project site.
c) Hazardous materials emissions or handling near school
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in
hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within a quarter-mile of an existing or proposed school.
Impact Haz-3: Hazardous Materials Near Schools. The nearest school or childcare sites to the
Project are the Gateway Child Care Center, located 0.21 miles northwest of the
proposed Project, the Early Years Preschool, located 0.27 miles southeast of the
Project site, and the Genentech Childcare Center, located 0.40 miles northeast of
the Project site. Hazardous materials potentially present at the Project site could
lead to a hazardous materials release during site demolition or future on-site
activities. The impact of hazardous materials emissions within one-quarter mile of
a school is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-3: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d. Implementation of
mitigation measures Haz-2a through Haz-2d shall be performed. These mitigation
measures include requirements for preparing a Demolition Plan and obtaining
permits for the demolition work, performing additional soil sampling of site soils
to identify any contaminated soils present, and preparation and implementation of
a Site Soil Management Plan under the oversight of the Department of Toxic
Substances Control if contaminated soil is identified, as well as future business
participation in the California Accidental Release Prevention Program if listed
chemicals are used at the Project site.
Implementation of mitigation measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c and Haz-2d would reduce the impact
of the potential release of hazardous materials within one quarter mile from a school to a less than
significant impact through proper characterization and control of any hazardous materials currently
present or planned to be used in the future at the Project site.
d) Hazardous Materials on the site
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through being included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (“Cortese List”).
The site is not included on the “Cortese List”. The Phase I ESAs performed by GeoSyntec and Secor
indicated that the Project site was not listed within any of the databases requiring inclusion on the
“Cortese List”. Sources reviewed include the National Priorities List (NPL), Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System list (CERCLIS), CERCLIS
No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) list, Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) CORRACTS Facility List, RCRA TSD Facilities list, RCRA Generator list, Federal
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 77
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) database, State Priority and CERCLIS-Equivalent
list (SMBRP), State Spills Leaks Investigations and Cleanups List (SLIC), Solid Waste/Landfill
Facilities (SWLF) database, State Leaking Underground Storage Tank List (LUST), State Underground
Storage Tank List (UST), and Dry Cleaners List. .49, 50
However, the businesses currently operating do handle hazardous materials and show up on the
HAZNET database for disposal of waste oil/solvents, and have filed hazardous materials business plans
with San Mateo County. Additionally, the Phase I ESAs indicated potential sources of hazardous
materials including unknown quantities of waste oil spilled over the years; anhydrous ammonia used
for cold storage; asbestos containing building materials; lead based paint; PCBs associated with
fluorescent light ballasts, hydraulic elevator oil, and transformers; heavy metal contamination in soil
due to the history of heavy industry in the area; as well as herbicides and wood preservatives associated
with the railroad grade at the northern edge of the Project site.51, 52
Impact Haz-4: Hazardous Materials on Site. The site is not currently included on the “Cortese
List” but Phase I studies indicate the possibility for hazardous material
contamination of the site that could qualify the site for listing pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. This would be considered a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-4: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d. As described
above, these mitigation measures comprehensively address on-site hazardous
materials.
The impact of being listed on a list of hazardous materials sites and the possible presence of hazardous
materials on the Project site would be mitigated by implementation of mitigation measures Haz-2a,
Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d to a less than significant level. Theses mitigation measures include
requirements for preparing a Demolition Plan and obtaining permits for the demolition work,
performing additional soil sampling of site soils to identify any contaminated soils present, preparation
and implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan under the oversight of the Department of Toxic
Substances Control if contaminated soil is identified, and future business participation in the California
Accidental Release Prevention Program if listed chemicals are used at the Project site.
e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located
within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport), if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the Project area; or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area.
The proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San
Francisco International Airport. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, the most stringent height
49 Secor International Incorporated, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 340 Roebling Road, December 2003.
50 GeoSyntec, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 233 East Grand Avenue, August 2006.
51 Secor International Incorporated, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 340 Roebling Road, December 2003.
52 GeoSyntec, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 233 East Grand Avenue, August 2006.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 78 Recirculated IS/MND
limits in South San Francisco are south of Forbes Boulevard and Lindenville (the area between
Railroad Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue), including the Project area. In this
area, Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, limits building heights to an elevation of 161 feet above
mean sea level, approximately 12 to14 stories. These height limitations are in place to insure the safety
of the workers in the Project area and to prevent interference of new construction with the Airport
operations.53 No proposed building would exceed the 161 feet height limitation; therefore, the
structures would be in compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan and will not create a safety hazard.
The impact of the Project on the Airport Land Use Plan is less than significant with no mitigation
warranted.
The Project area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Private aircraft are sometimes
granted air space in the East of 101 Area, but consistency with the San Francisco International Airport
regulations will ensure the Project is compliant with safety regulations in relation to private aircraft as
well.
g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair
implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
No changes to the major access and evacuation routes along East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road are
planned since the Project calls for redevelopment rather than reconstruction or new development of an
entire area. Therefore, the Project would have no impact relating to an adopted emergency response
plan.
h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose
people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
The area is urbanized and there are no wildland corridors containing high fire fuel loads in the
immediate vicinity of the Project site. 54 The Project site is bordered on all sides by urban land uses,
which do not contain vegetation conducive to wildland fires. There is no impact related to wildland
fires.
53 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Plan, December 1996.
54 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Figure
8-4.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 79
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
— Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
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, which 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?
SETTING
Climate and Topography
The Project site is located in a slightly sloped portion of the generally flat area east of U.S. 101 in the
City of South San Francisco. The San Francisco Bay is located approximately 3,000 feet southeast of
the site. The regional climate is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry,
mild summers and moist, cool winters. About 80 percent of the total annual precipitation occurs during
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 80 Recirculated IS/MND
the months of November through March, with an average annual precipitation of 20 inches. Average
monthly temperatures range from a high of 74 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer to a low of 42 degrees
Fahrenheit in the winter. 55
Regional Hydrology
The site drains to the Colma Creek. The Colma Creek watershed includes portions of San Bruno
Mountain as well as urbanized areas of Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco. Most of this
urbanized creek is channelized and/or conveyed underground to allow for urban development. The
percent of impervious surface area in the Colma Creek watershed was estimated at 63 percent, the
highest in the County. 56 Colma Creek is maintained by the San Mateo County Department of Public
Works. The Creek discharges into the San Francisco Bay just north of the San Francisco International
Airport. Improvements to and maintenance of the creek and its flood control infrastructure are funded
by assessment district properties that fall within the county-designated Colma Creek Flood Control
Zone.57 The Project site is located within the designated boundaries of the Zone as shown in Figure
7.58
Existing Drainage Concept:
Approximately 98 percent of the 2.95-acre Project site is currently covered by buildings, paved yards,
and parking areas. Stormwater runoff from the Project site begins as sheet flow on roofs and parking
lots and is primarily carried westward to Roebling Avenue, where it then flows down the street gutter
to a storm drain inlet at South San Francisco Avenue. A few minor storm drain inlets currently exist in
the parking areas. A small portion of roof and pavement runoff may also be directed to the vegetated
fill slope east of the Project site.
Proposed Drainage Concept:
Redevelopment of the Project site would replace the three buildings currently occupying the property
with two buildings while utilizing landscaped drainage features to reduce the total stormwater runoff
from the site. Runoff from the northern portion of the site would drain to drop inlets located in the
parking area north of Building A. This runoff would be conveyed via an underground pipe to bubble
up to a vegetated swale (with check dams) that follows the southeast property line (flows to southwest).
Runoff from the southeast parking area and the southeast portion of the middle parking area would also
flow into this swale via a number of curb cuts along the edge of the lot. From this ditch runoff would
be conveyed via an underground pipe to a large vegetated bioswale located between proposed Building
B and the Roebling Rd/East Grand Ave intersection. Runoff would then pass through a sand media
filter and finally be delivered to the storm-drain at East Grand Ave.
55 Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Weather Station: San Francisco WSO AP, California (047769).
56 City of Daly City Water and Wastewater Resources webpage,
http://www.dalycity.org/City_Hall/Departments/wwr/Divisions/waste_source.htm, referencing 1998 Center for Watershed
Protection study of impervious surfaces.
57 San Mateo Public Works Flood control webpage,
http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/publicworks/menuitem.a4bfacf14e50a00d82439054d17332a0/?vgnextoid=b79d4
b3a4b71f110VgnVCM1000001d37230aRCRD&vgnextfmt=DivisionsLanding.
58 San Mateo Public Works, Colma Creek Flood Control Zone map, available at
http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/vgn/images/portal/cit_609/10658749colma-creek-flood-control-zone.pdf.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 81
Figure 7: Colma Creek Flood Protection Zone
Prepared by Questa Engineering
Runoff from the northwestern portion of the site would drain to drop inlets in the parking area and flow
to a vegetated bioswale along the northwestern side of Building A. Once it passes the bioswale runoff
would flow through an underground pipe and sand media filter before outfalling to the gutter along
Roebling Road to flow to the stormdrain on East Grand Ave.
Groundwater
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines state groundwater basins based on
geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the Project site is located within the
Westside Groundwater Basin. The Westside Groundwater Basin consists of bedrock and
unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated materials overlying the basin represent the primary water-
bearing strata and are comprised of dune sands, the Colma Formation, and the Merced Formation.
While groundwater quality in the basin is generally in compliance with drinking water quality
standards, some wells in the basin have experienced nitrate-nitrogen concentration in excess of the
primary maximum contaminant levels.59
59 California Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Westside Groundwater Basin, last
updated 1/20/2006.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 82 Recirculated IS/MND
REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed Project must be constructed in accordance with several regulatory programs, laws, and
regulations that aim to protect surface water resources. In some cases, Federal laws are administered
and enforced by state and local government. In other cases, state and local regulations in California are
stricter than those imposed by Federal law. This section summarizes relevant regulatory programs,
laws, and regulations with respect to hydrology and water quality and how they relate to the proposed
Project.
Federal Laws and Regulations
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since
inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms the basis
for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water
pollution in the nation’s rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribed the basic
federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum water quality standards for
all waters of the United States. Several mechanisms are employed to control domestic, industrial, and
agricultural pollution under the CWA. At the Federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) administers the CWA. At the state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by
the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB).
The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations, in part to
assist in the implementation of the CWA and related Federally mandated water quality requirements. In
many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards and policies and the laws, rules, and
regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards exceed them.
State Laws and Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the State Water Resources Control Board
and the RWQCB as the principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and
controlling water quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act established the responsibility of the
RWQCB for adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which
set forth the water quality standards of the state (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater)
and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The National Pollutant
Elimination System permits must be consistent with the Basin Plans.
NPDES Permit Requirements
The CWA has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from any point
source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added section 402(p), which established a
framework for regulating nonpoint source (NPS) storm water discharges under the National Pollutant
Elimination System (NPDES). The Phase I NPDES storm water program regulates storm water
discharges from industrial facilities, large and medium-sized municipal separate storm sewer systems
(those serving more than 100,000 persons), and construction sites that disturb five or more acres of
land. Under the program, the applicant shall be required to comply with NPDES permit requirements.
The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances to
the ground such as excavation. The applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 83
State Water Resource Control Board’s Division of Water Quality. The NOI includes general
information on the types of construction activities that will occur on the site. The applicant shall also be
required to submit a site-specific SWPPP for construction activities. The SWPPP shall include a
description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharge of pollutants from the site
during construction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain coverage under the permit
prior to site construction.
The NPDES General Industrial Permit Requirements apply to the discharge of storm water associated
with industrial sites. It is assumed that the future R&D labs would require compliance with the
requirements because it is likely that the Standard Industrial Code for the R&D labs would be 2834
(Pharmaceutical Preparations). The permit requires the implementation of management measures that
will achieve the performance standard of best available technology (BAT) economically achievable and
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Under the statute, operators of new facilities
must implement industrial BMPs in the Plan SWPPP and perform monitoring of storm water
discharges and unauthorized non-storm water discharges. An annual report must be submitted to the
RWQCB each July 1. Operators of new facilities must file an NOI at least 14 days prior to the
beginning of operations.
Sea Level Rise and Executive Order S-13-08
In November 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-13-08. The order
indicates that future potential sea level rise associated with climate change may have a substantial
effect on coastal development, and provided for the formation of an independent panel to complete a
California Sea Level Rise Assessment Report by December 1, 2010. This panel, the California
Adaptation Advisory Panel to the State of California, published the required report in November 2010
titled Preparing for the Effects of Climate Change – A Strategy for California.60 This study notes that
the State has requested an assessment of defensible sea level rise projections for the West Coast from
the National Research Council, but that this study has not yet been completed.
In the interim, BCDC has proposed Bay Plan amendment language, which includes guidance for
addressing future sea level rise scenarios associated with planning and permitting development in
potentially susceptible areas in the San Francisco Bay Area. These scenarios are:
• a sea level rise of 16 inches by 2050; and
• a sea level rise of 55 inches by 2100.
These values represent the upper end of the range of sea level rise estimates and are consistent with
preliminary state recommendations for 100-year sea level rise. These values are meant to ensure that
projects take these potentially high estimates into account when planning infrastructure and
development projects, prior to the release of official sea level rise projections.
Local Programs and Regulations
San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
60 California Adaptation Advisory Panel to the State of California, prepared by Pacific Council, Preparing for the Effects of
Climate Change – A Strategy for California, November 2010.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 84 Recirculated IS/MND
To comply with the CWA, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and towns in the County formed the
San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP holds a joint
municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay 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.
San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of
the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin Plan is the master policy
document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water quality
regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface waters
and groundwater within its region and specifies water quality objectives to maintain the continued
beneficial uses of these waters. Projects under the proposed Project are required to adhere to all water
quality objectives identified in the Basin Plan.
The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater in its corresponding
jurisdiction. The beneficial uses of groundwater in the Visitacion Valley Groundwater Basin include
municipal and domestic supply, industrial process supply, industrial supply, and agricultural supply.
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 area plan provides detailed planning policies that are consistent with policies of the
adopted South San Francisco General Plan. With respect to hydrology and water quality, the plan aims
to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals to determine drainage and flood
protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of water quality by minimizing erosion and
sedimentation, and requiring that projects under the Plan comply with NPDES permit requirements.61
City of South San Francisco
The South San Francisco – San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant requires Source Control Measures
of Stormwater Pollutants to comply with their NPDES permit, including methods for managing
pollution sources. Applicable control measures include utilization of stormwater pollution prevention
devices, management of refuse areas, management of pesticide/fertilizer application for landscaping,
use of treatment devices for interior level parking garage floor drains, and marking of on-site storm
drains.62
IMPACTS
a) Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it violated any
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
61 City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994.
62 California EPA, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Cities of South San
Francisco and San Bruno Water Quality Control Plan Limitations and Discharge Requirements, Order No. R2-2008-
0094, NPDES No. CA0038130, available at
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_decisions/adopted_orders_db/index.php.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 85
Impact Hydro-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Exposure and disturbance of site soils during construction and delivery of post
construction surface runoff containing industrial pollutants to receiving waters
could allow eroded soils and pollution to enter storm water and downstream
waters. This is a potentially significant impact.
Increased Non-Point Source Pollutants (NPS) to Receiving Waters
Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are washed by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and streets
and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical industrial NPS pollutants for various industrial
activities are listed in Table 6. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife,
vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the
quality of potential groundwater sources. Under existing conditions, almost all of the site runoff drains
to Roebling Road, or minor underground stormdrains, before entering the municipal stormdrain
network at East Grand Avenue, and then discharging to the San Francisco Bay.
The proposed Project includes a decrease in the amount of impervious surfaces, and an increase in
landscaped areas. Of the 2.95 acre site, 2.89 acres (98%) are currently covered in hardscape,
impervious to rainfall infiltration. The Project will include 2.42 acres (82%) of impermeable hardscape,
a reduction of 16%. Planted stormwater treatment areas and landscaping will cover 18% of the site.
The proposed Project also includes an increase in parking areas, and a general reduction in rooftop
areas.
Under the NPDES storm water permit, the proposed Project is required to provide permanent treatment
for site runoff. To meet this requirement, the proposed Project would reduce the quantity and the levels
of NPS pollutants and litter entering the San Francisco Bay by redirecting site runoff from roofs and
parking areas into newly constructed vegetated swales and into new onsite storm drain network systems
with inline, underground sand filtration systems. 63
The current plan for stormwater collection and drainage on site includes sand filters, Which require
appropriate design configuration and sizing as well as requires periodic cleaning and maintenance. As
part of the stormwater information to be included with application submittals with the Planning Permit
Application and the Building Permit Application, the Project applicant is required to submit hydraulic
computations to support site-specific hydraulic sizing for the sand filters and other elements and
establish there will be no increased run off from the site.
Increased Erosion or Siltation to Receiving Waters
Construction of the proposed Project would involve the demolition of existing structures and pavement
areas and grading activities. Existing structures and pavement that currently help to stabilize site soils
would be removed during Project construction. Construction operations associated with the Project
would present a threat of soil erosion by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to runoff during
construction.
63 California EPA, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Municipal Regional
Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074, NPDES No. CAS612008, available at
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_decisions/adopted_orders_db/index.php.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 86 Recirculated IS/MND
Table 6: Potential Pollutants From Industrial Activities
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY Sediments Nutrients Metals Organics and Toxicants Floatable Materials Oxygen-Demanding Substances Oil & Grease Bacteria Pesticides Vehicle & Equipment Fueling X X X
Vehicle & Equipment Washing X X X X X X
Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance & Repair X X X
Outdoor Loading & Unloading of Materials X X X X X X X
Outdoor Container Storage of Liquids X X X X X X
Outdoor Process Equipment Operations &
Maintenance
X X X X
Outdoor Storage of Raw Materials, Products, &
Byproducts
X X X X X X X
Waste Handling & Disposal X X X X X X
Contaminated or Erodible Surface Areas X X X X X X X X
Building & Grounds Maintenance X X X X X X X
Building Repair, Remodeling, & Construction X X X X
Parking/Storage Area Maintenance X X X X
Source: California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003. California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Industrial & Commercial.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 87
Mitigation Measure
Hydro-1: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES
requirements, the Project applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water quality
during construction and submit the SWPPP as part of project application
submittals with the Planning Permit Application and Building Permit Application.
The Project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation
measures for the construction period:
1) Grading and earthwork shall be allowed with the appropriate SWPPP measures
during the wet season (October 1 through April 30) and such work shall be stopped
before pending storm events.
2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion
control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized, in
accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area
Governments Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures.
Silt fences used in combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all
graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas
receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets.
3) “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) for preventing the discharge of other
construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, trash,
etc.) to downstream waters such as covered and contained storage areas, contained
wash-out areas, and prompt and appropriate disposal.
4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for
accumulated sediment and trash, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of
debris and sediment.
In accordance with the handbook C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, permanent
mitigation measures for stormwater shall be submitted as part of project
application submittals with the Planning Permit Application and Building Permit
Application. Elements that shall be addressed in the submittals include the
following:
5) Description of potential sources of erosion, sediment, and trash at the Project
site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used
at the proposed Project site should be described. This will include a thorough
assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources.
6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on
identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources, including non-point
source pollutants. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with
treatment controls used as needed.
7) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance
requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control,
clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, trash removal,
vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping
of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed as a result of BMPs
described above may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted
to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared of debris that
may enter the storm drain system on a daily basis.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 88 Recirculated IS/MND
8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency
agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and
maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the State Water
Resources Control Board. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address
any inadequacies identified through the monitoring.
9) Proposed locations and sizing of stormwater treatment measures shall be
included.
The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and
commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed
development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project
site. At a minimum the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial
cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and
appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of
any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains.
The impact of violating any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be reduced
to a less than significant level by implementation of mitigation measures Hydro-1, which includes
erosion control and identifies Best Management Practices for control of discharge of runoff, sediment,
pollution, refuse, landscaping and cleaning chemicals and other potential sources of water quality
degradation.
b) Groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially
depleted groundwater supplies or interfered 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).
Construction of the proposed Project would increase the amount of pervious surface areas including
planted landscape areas and vegetated bio swales. (See discussion in the setting section above for
additional detail.) Increasing permeable surface area allows for a greater rate infiltration of rainfall,
therefore there is no impact related to groundwater recharge.
c) and d) Alter the existing drainage pattern resulting in erosion or siltation or flooding on- or
off-site
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially
altered 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, siltation or flooding on- or off-
site.
The design of the proposed Project would not ultimately alter the drainage pattern in a manner that
would increase erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. However, temporary impacts could occur
during site grading and construction activities.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 89
Impact Hydro-2: Altered Drainage Patterns. Construction operations associated with the Project
would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting
unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff and post construction
runoff that could increase and/or could contain soil and sediment.
Mitigation Measure
Hydro-2: Mitigation Measure Hydro-1. Implementation of mitigation measure Hydro-1
for construction related sources of erosion and post construction BMPs will reduce
the impact of altered drainage patterns to less than significant.
The impact of alterations to existing drainage patterns resulting in construction related sources of
erosion would be reduced to less than significant by implementation of mitigation measure Hydro-1,
which includes preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of Best Management Practices for
sediment control. Post Construction BMPs, if properly maintained following standard requirements
under the SWPPP would reduce the potential for erosion. Review and approval of the SWPPP and
BMPs by the City of South San Francisco will provide supporting documentation that the mitigation
measures are properly designed and implemented. The impact of altered drainage patterns will be
mitigated to a level of less than significant following implementation of mitigation measure Hydro-1.
e) Exceed capacity of stormwater drainage system.
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it created or
contributed runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Relative to existing conditions, the proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas and
increase landscape areas where water can infiltrate into site soils instead of flowing into the stormwater
system. (See discussion in the setting section above for additional detail.) Inclusion of stormwater
treatment features, such as vegetated swales, will also serve to reduce stormwater flows. The rational
method for calculating peak flow uses a runoff coefficient weighted to account for percentages of
impervious cover. In this case, the proposed site conditions will decrease the amount of impervious
surfaces, thereby decreasing the runoff coefficient. Peak flows due to a 10-year design storm for
existing and proposed site conditions are summarized in Table 7. Therefore the proposed Project
would have no impact on the existing or planned stormwater drainage system.
Table 7: Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions for the 10-Year Design Storm
Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions
Runoff
coeff.
Precipitation
Intensity**
Drainage
area
Peak
flow
Runoff
coeff.
Precipitation
Intensity**
Drainage
area
Peak
flow Flow Increase***
(in/hr) (acres) (cfs*) (in/hr) (acres) (cfs*) (cfs*) (percent)
Impervious
Surfaces 0.95 3.2 2.89 8.8 0.95 3.2 2.42 7.4
Landscaped
Areas 0.35 3.2 0.06 0.1 0.35 3.2 0.53 0.6
Weighted
Totals 0.94 3.2 2.95 8.9 0.84 3.2 2.95 8.0 -0.9 -10%
* CFS = CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
** OBTAINED VIA TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION WITH SOUTH SF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
***A NEGATIVE FLOW INCREASE REPRESENTS A FLOW DECREASE.
Source: Prepared by Questa Engineering
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 90 Recirculated IS/MND
f) Substantially degrade water quality.
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it increased
pollution or otherwise degraded water quality.
Impact Hydro-3: Degrade Water Quality. Construction and operation of the Project have the
potential to degrade water quality through discharge of stormwater.
Mitigation Measure
Hydro-3: Mitigation Measure Hydro-1. Implementation of mitigation measure Hydro-1
for construction related sources of erosion and post construction BMPs will reduce
the impact on water quality to less than significant.
The impact of a degradation water quality would be reduced to less than significant by elements of the
proposed Project including a reduction in impervious surface areas and an increase in storm water
treatment features, such as vegetated swales, curb cuts, and stormwater sand filters. Mitigation Measure
Hydro-1, preparation and implementation of Project SWPPP, including required maintenance and
monitoring, would further reduce Project related impacts that could otherwise degraded water quality to
a less than significant level.
g) Place housing in a flood zone.
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it placed 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.
The proposed Project does not include housing, and according to current Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) (1981), the Project is not located
within a 100-year flood zone. Therefore, there would be no impact from placing housing in a flood
zone.
h) Impede or redirect flood flows.
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it placed structures
within a 100-year flood hazard area, which would impede or redirect flood flows.
According to FEMA flood maps, the Project is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Therefore,
there would be no impact from impeding or redirecting flood flows.
i) Flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located in an area
mapped as being within the inundation area after the failure of a dam or levee.
According to maps published by ABAG, the Project is not located downstream of a dam, nor are there
any levees near the Project area.64 Therefore, there would be no inundation and no impact resulting
from a dam or levee failure.
64 ABAG, Dam Failure Inundation Map, last updated 2003, available at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/dam-failure/.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 91
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow or sea level rise
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located in an area
susceptible to seiche (a wave caused by oscillation in an enclosed body of water such as a lake or
reservoir), a tsunami, mudflow or climate-induced sea level rise.
The proposed Project is located over 3000 feet from the San Francisco Bay, and over 6 miles from the
Pacific Ocean. Wave run up from a tsunami is estimated at 6 feet above mean sea level for a 500-year
tsunami.65 Project site elevations range from 12 feet to 31 feet above mean sea level, therefore, the site
is not in danger of inundation from a tsunami or climate induced sea level rise (16 inches by 2050 and
55 inches by 2100). Further, the site is not located near an inland body of water, nor is it located
adjacent to a soil slope susceptible to rapid mass wasting or mudflows. Therefore, there would a less
than significant impact due to inundation by seiche, tsunami, mudflow or sea level rise.
65 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Health and Safety
Element, 1999, p. 250.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 92 Recirculated IS/MND
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would
the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
Project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
SETTING
South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to initially locate
industrial areas east of the majority of homes and businesses in order to take advantage of the
topography and winds on Point San Bruno. Another development trend that shaped the arrangement of
uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating
large areas almost entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is
largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City,
single family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and
multiple family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. 66
In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a slow
industrial transformation over the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy industries have
largely been replaced by warehousing, research, development and biotechnology. 67
As high technology businesses have moved into many of these older industrial areas, conflicts, such as
between automobile and truck traffic, and land use and visual character have become increasingly
pronounced. Business centers have somewhat different needs than industrial and warehousing uses,
including smaller blocks, more through street connections, ancillary facilities such as restaurants, easier
connections to transit, sidewalks and bikeways, and higher landscape standards. The City attempts to
balance regional growth objectives with conservation of residential and industrial neighborhoods. 68
The East of 101 Area Plan, adopted in 1994, was prepared to maximize the potential of undeveloped or
underused properties in the City’s traditional industrial east of U.S. 101. Upgrading of existing uses
and provisions for quality design are important components of the Plan. In addition to policies relating
to land use dispersion, intensities, and transportation, the Plan includes a Design Element to help
achieve a high standard of development.
66 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 26.
67 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 11.
68 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 13.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 93
GOVERNING PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND ORDINANCES OVERVIEW
South San Francisco General Plan
Adopted in October 1999, the South San Francisco General Plan recognizes that the biotech/R&D
industry is South San Francisco’s largest industrial cluster. The General Plan establishes goals and
policies for the City and East of 101 Area, such as:
Establishes an economic development program that promotes the biotechnology/R&D
industrial cluster,
Encourages the development of R&D campuses,
Establishes infrastructure capacity,
Establishes transportation improvements, and
Promotes employee amenities, open space and recreation areas.
General Plan Designation
The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the East of 101 planning subarea of the
City of South San Francisco’s General Plan. The plan designates the Project site for “Business and
Technology Park” uses, and gives the following summary of Business and Technology Park
designation:
This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research
and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator-research facilities, testing,
repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline-oriented recreation, and offices,
and research and development facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are
permitted as ancillary uses only. All development is subject to high design and landscape
standards. Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of
1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, or for development meeting specific
transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards.
City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan
In 1994, the East of 101 Area Plan established goals/policies for the City and East of 101 Area.
Although the South San Francisco General Plan (adopted in 1999) supersedes the East of 101 Area
Plan, most of the Plan’s original design, noise, opens space and development standards still apply to
campus development. Specifically, it:
Encourages economic development,
Establishes design and development standards for all development, and
Encourages regulatory incentives for facility-wide planning.
BTP (Business Technology Park) Zone
Under the City’s existing zoning regulations, the Project site is subject to the provisions of the SSFMC
Chapter 20.110 (Employment Districts). Zoning regulations prescribe the allowable uses within
specific zoning districts and impose standards on those uses. The proposed Project is consistent with
the regulations of this zone assuming approval of conditional use permit per the SSFMC Sections
20.110 and 20.330.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 94 Recirculated IS/MND
County of San Mateo Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation
Regulation Part 77, established a 161-foot above mean sea level height limit around San Francisco
International Airport. This height limit would apply to the Project site.
IMPACTS
a) Division of an Established Community
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
physically divide an established community.
The Project would involve construction of an office/research and development facility located on an
already urbanized site. The Project has no impact related to division of an established community.
b) Conflicts with Land Use Plan and Zoning
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in
a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
The Project proposes development of a R&D facility of the type and size consistent with the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance as summarized above and would require a Lot Consolidation, Use Permit,
and TDM Plan as well as design review consistent with existing plans and policies. R&D facilities are
explicitly allowed and encouraged for the area in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the
Project proposes development within the allowable development intensity at a proposed FAR (Floor
Area Ratio) of 0.81, where a FAR up to 1.0 could be allowed. The aesthetics of the proposal have been
analyzed from an environmental perspective in the previous Aesthetics section and found to have no
significant impacts.
While it is ultimately in the domain of the City’s decision-makers to decide project consistency with
applicable City plans and policies related to project approval, from a CEQA perspective, the Project
would not conflict with plans or policies in any way that could have an adverse environmental impact.
The Project would have no impact related to a conflict with policies and plans.
c) Conflict with Conservation Plan
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in
a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
There are no conservation plans either currently in force or proposed that are applicable to the subject
property. 69 Therefore, the Project would have no impact on conservation plans.
69 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Chapter
7, Open Space and Conservation.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 95
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the
Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?
SETTING
Mineral resources of concern include metals, industrial minerals (e.g., aggregate, sand and gravel), oil
and gas, and geothermal resources that would be of value to the region and residents of the state.
Loss of mineral resources would primarily be the result of conversion of lands underlain by these
resources to other uses, or within close proximity to the resources, such that the construction and
occupancy of the Project would restrict or eliminate sage and environmentally sound measures to
implement extractive operations. Loss of access could also be the result of changes in land ownership.
Important mineral resource areas are recognized at the federal and state levels through environmental
resource management plans and adopted mineral resource mapping, and at the local level through land
use planning documents such as General Plans that incorporate such information.
IMPACTS
a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state, or if it were to result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on the City of
South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan.70 In addition, as
the Project site exists above Bay Fill, it can be conclusively stated that there are no subsurface mineral
resources of value to the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, the proposed Project would
have no impact on mineral resources.
70 USGS, Mineral Resources Data System, Edition 20120207, 2005, available at http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 96 Recirculated IS/MND
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. NOISE — Would the Project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels
existing without the Project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project?
e) For a Project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the Project expose people residing or
working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or
working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
SETTING
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when and
where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound (loudness, pitch
and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above background sound
levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the
difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During nighttime, exterior
background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most household noise also
decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and
are very sensitive to noise intrusion.
The Noise Element of the 1999 General Plan contains land use criteria for noise-impacted areas in
South San Francisco. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses
in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the implementation of noise
reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less than 75 dBA (CNEL) 71are
acceptable noise levels for industrial and open space uses.
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code, Noise Regulations,
Section 8.32.030) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and
71 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Table
9.2-1.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 97
industrial uses. The noise level standard for the Project site is 70 dBA(L50). Shorter periods of noise
levels higher than these limits are allowed, but only for specified periods of time. Specifically, the
standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the
standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be
exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the
above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the standard.
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code, Section 8.32.050)
restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits
noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line.
IMPACTS
a) - d) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards or to
Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, or a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in
Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in
exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the South San
Francisco General Plan or the City’s Noise Ordinance.
Construction Noise
During site preparation and construction at the Project site, operation of heavy equipment could result
in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site.
Impact Noise-1: Construction-Related Noise. Project construction could result in temporary short-
term noise increases due to the operation of heavy construction equipment.
Construction noise typically ranges from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most
types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA
at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. This impact is
considered to be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure
Noise-1: Construction Noise Abatement and Limitation of Construction Hours.
Construction hours shall be limited to the hourly restrictions specified in the City
Noise Ordinance, and the Project sponsor shall require by contract specification
that construction best management practices be implemented by contractors to
reduce noise levels to the 90-dBA at 25 feet noise limit specified in the City Noise
Ordinance. Required practices shall include but not be limited to:
Ensuring that construction equipment is properly muffled according to
industry standards,
Implementing noise attenuation measures such as noise barriers or noise
blankets, and
Requiring heavily loaded trucks used during construction to be routed away
from noise and vibration sensitive uses.
Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce the impact of construction-related noise
to a level of less than significant.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 98 Recirculated IS/MND
Operational Noise
The operation of the Project would increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through the generation
of additional traffic and the operation of exterior mechanical equipment.
Traffic. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase traffic noise levels along local streets
due to Project generated traffic. As a rule of thumb, a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a 3-
dBA noise increase in a traffic dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise increase is barely
perceptible to most people. Per the Transportation and Circulation checklist section, the Project would
increase traffic by up to 47 vehicle trips during the commute peak traffic hours compared to existing
site traffic activity. This would lead to a small but possibly perceptible increase in traffic noise levels at
the Project site and on the Roebling Road cul-de-sac, but would be unlikely to increase noise by a
perceptible amount elsewhere. The increase in traffic noise levels would be considered less than
significant.
Mechanical Equipment. Implementation of the proposed Project could increase ambient noise levels in
the Project vicinity due to the operation of rooftop mechanical equipment, such as an HVAC system.
However, such equipment would be required to conform to standards of the City of South San
Francisco Noise Ordinance and the impact would be considered less than significant.
Vibration. It is not expected that future land uses at the Project site would generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Therefore, it is expected that the Project would have no
impact related to excessive groundborne vibration or excessive groundborne noise.
Project-generated traffic noise and noise from operation of exterior mechanical equipment could
increase but would not exceed noise standards and would not significantly increase ambient noise
levels nor substantially impact noise-sensitive receptors. This would be considered a less than
significant impact.
e) and f) Aircraft Noise
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located
within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose people
residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels.
The Project site is located about 2.5 miles north of the San Francisco International Airport. Flights
leaving from and arriving at the airport can occasionally be heard at the Project site. The 1999 General
Plan Noise Element contains existing and future airport noise contours associated with San Francisco
International Airport. These contours indicated the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL)
existing and future airport noise contours. Projected contours for road and railroad noise are also included
in the Noise Element. These contours indicate that the Project site is located in an area where noise levels
generated by major road and railroad noise sources would continue to be less than 60 dBA (CNEL). 72
Based on the City’s land use criteria, the proposed Project’s office type land use would be compatible with
future noise level projections in the Project vicinity of less than 60 to 65 dBA (CNEL), thereby representing
no impact.
72 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Figures
9-1 and 9-2.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 99
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
SETTING
South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern with industry in the eastern and southeastern
portions of the city, single-family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along the few
transportation corridors, and multi-family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides.
According to the General Plan Housing Element, which was prepared in 2007, the City has a history of
imbalance in its jobs/housing ratio. South San Francisco is a “jobs rich” City with substantial in-
commuting from other jurisdictions. At the time of preparation of the General Plan, there were
approximately 30,000 employed residents in the City compared to 50,000 jobs, a ratio of 1.7 jobs per
every working resident of the City. By comparison, at the time, San Mateo County had a much closer
balance between the number of employed residents and total jobs with approximately 370,000
employed residents and 340,000 jobs, a ratio of 0.9 jobs per every working resident of the County. The
City’s jobs-housing balance is a measure for land use planning purposes. The City does not currently
have an adopted jobs-housing ratio goal.
Given that much of the land in the City, including all of the East of 101 Area, is not zoned for
residential development, attainment of a jobs and housing balance in South San Francisco is doubtful.
On the other hand, continued job growth in the City will promote a greater regional balance between
jobs and housing. As an inner Bay Area community well served by all modes of transit—including air
and rail, BART and ferry service in the near future—future employees from and traveling to the City
will have varied means of reaching employment sites.
As South San Francisco’s employment base, the East of 101 Area is expected to accommodate a major
share of South San Francisco’s new non-residential development. While under the General Plan total
building floor space is expected to increase by about 50 percent (from 12.0 million square feet to about
17.4 million sf), overall employment levels are expected to more than double (from 22,200 in 1997 to
42,000 at General Plan buildout in 2020).
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 100 Recirculated IS/MND
Consistent with this, ABAG Projections 2009 (the most recent available) projects the City’s total
employment number to be 48,290 in 2020. This represents an increase in employment in the City of
6,050 to 2020.73 Both the Traffic Impact Fee Study Update and the ABAG Projections 2009 are based
upon existing planning documentation; therefore, as new projects are approved, the projection numbers
would also change. As such, the employment buildout projections are not treated as limits, rather they
project the employment for the region based upon the best available data.
IMPACTS
a) Substantial Population Growth
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce
either directly or indirectly substantial population growth.
The existing buildings on site could support approximately 62 employees. Depending on the set-up and
mix between office and R&D, the proposed Project could support between 192 and 264 employees for
a net increase of 130 to 202 employees on site.74
ABAG projects an increase in employment in the City of 6,050 by 2020. Therefore, the Project’s
contributions to the increase in employment in the City would be within ABAG’s employment
projections for the City, accounting for 2.1% to 3.3% of the projected growth.
The increase in employees in the City could result in an increase in demand for housing. As described
previously, the City is primarily built out and any housing constructed within the City limits would
most likely be infill housing. Therefore, the Project could result in an increased imbalance in the
jobs/housing ratio in the City.
A jobs-housing ratio is a numeric representation of the relationship between the total number of jobs
and the total number of residential units in an area. This ratio indicates the ability of a region to provide
both adequate employment and housing opportunities for its existing and projected population. A jobs
housing ratio of 1.0 represents a balance of jobs and housing. An overall jobs-housing ratio of 1.0 to
1.5 is generally considered balanced (so that there is little in- or out-commuting). A balance of jobs and
housing can benefit the regional environment by reducing commute times and distances between
residential areas and employment centers. Longer commutes result in increased vehicle trip length,
which creates environmental effects, such as those associated with transportation, air quality, and noise.
As discussed in the setting above, South San Francisco currently has a high jobs/housing ratio of 1.7;
this means that South San Francisco is a job center that imports employees from surrounding
communities, or alternatively, that exports housing.
Based on ABAG’s projections, the future jobs/housing ratio in the City would increase to
approximately 2.11 by 2020. These ratios suggest poor housing availability relative to the amount of
73 ABAG, Projections 2009, August 2009. (Note that the anticipated Projections 2011 update was not published due to
unknown implications of the recession on long-term projections.)
74 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Special Topics 1995 Building Activities Other, Square feet per employee, 1995,
available at: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pbawebsite/contents.htm. Square feet per employees used
in this assessment are 400 for office, 1,700 for warehouse, and 550 for research and development (other).
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 101
jobs projected, and a high level of in-commuting. Housing availability, already projected to be out of
balance, would decrease with implementation of the Project. Assuming that one person per household
would be employed by the Project, the Project would require 130 to 202 new units of housing, which
may not all be provided for within South San Francisco city limits, taking into consideration other
growth in the area. Consequently, the potential employment increase resulting from the Project would
result in indirect growth that may not be accommodated by existing or proposed housing projections
for the city. However, continued job growth in the city will promote a greater regional balance between
jobs and housing. The city is a strategically located inner Bay Area community well served by all
modes of transit—including air and rail, BART, and ferry service coming soon as well. Therefore,
future employees commuting to jobs in the city would have varied means of reaching the Project.
Given the fact that the City does not have an adopted jobs/housing ratio goal, and overall the Project
would promote a greater regional jobs balance, the impact of the Project on indirect population growth
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
b) and c) Displace People and Housing
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in
the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people living at the Project site.
There is currently no housing on the Project site. The Project would not displace any residents or
housing units, and therefore, would have no impact on the displacement of housing or people.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 102 Recirculated IS/MND
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES —
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
SETTING
The proposed Project is within the jurisdiction of the City of South San Francisco and would be served
by City of South San Francisco public services, including the following.
Police Protection Services
Police service within the Project area is provided by the South San Francisco Police Department
(SSFPD). The South San Francisco Police Department’s jurisdictional area includes the entire city. The
Department currently has a total of 79 sworn officers and 35 civilian employees covering a city of
approximately 60,000 residents with a daytime population around 100,000 people.75 That’s a ratio of
approximately 1.3 sworn officers for every one thousand residents. The Department is generally able to
respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes and average response times are five to seven
minutes depending on the priority.
The South San Francisco General Plan establishes guiding policies 8.5-G1 to 8.5-G2 to provide police
services that are responsive to citizen’s needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and
property in the community and to assist in crime prevention through physical planning and community
design.
Fire Service
Fire protection and emergency services within the Project area is the responsibility of the South San
Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD). The SSFFD has 85 members. Minimum on-duty staffing is 20
persons. There are currently five fire stations located throughout South San Francisco. In addition to
the paramedics, the rest of the fire personnel are certified Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT). The
SSFFD also has Advanced Life Support (ALS) engines that arrive on scene with a paramedic aboard.
75 City of South San Francisco website, http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=285.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 103
Station #62 is the closest station to the Project site, approximately 1,000 feet to the south at 249 Harbor
Way. 76
School Services
The South San Francisco Unified School District provides schooling to South San Francisco’s children
in ten Elementary Schools (grades K-5), three Middle Schools (grades 6-8) and three High Schools
(grades 9-12) as well as an adult education program.
a) Public Services
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire
protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or other government facilities.
i) Fire Protection
South San Francisco Fire Department Station #62 is the closest station to the Project site, less than one
half mile away at 249 Harbor Way, and would provide all first response services to the Project.
Implementation of the proposed Project would increase development within the Project site, which
would translate to an increase in workers on the site of 130 to 202, as discussed in more detail under
Population, above. Compared to a daytime population of 100,000, this would represent an increase of
less than 1% in the City’s daytime population (0.1% to 0.2%). This negligible increase in daytime
population would not result in SSFPD’s inability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times,
or other performance objectives. Current response times and service ratios are adequate and no new
facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required. The Project site is not
located in any of the city’s fire hazard management unit areas. 77 The Project’s design would be
required to comply with the City’s Fire Code (Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code) and the City Fire
Marshal’s code requirements regarding on site access for emergency vehicles as is a standard condition
for any project approval. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the city’s
fire protection services.
ii) Police Protection
Implementation of the proposed Project would increase development within the Project site, which
would translate to a net increase of 130 to 202 employees working on the site, as discussed in more
detail under Population, above. Compared to a daytime population of 100,000, this would represent an
increase of less than 1% in the City’s daytime population (0.1% to 0.2%).This would constitute a
negligible increase in the City’s population, and would not result in SSFPD’s inability to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives or meet the goals of the
General Plan or the need to construct new facilities that would result in potential significant impacts
would be required. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures
are required.
iii) Schools
76 City of South San Francisco website, http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=416.
77 City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p.265
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 104 Recirculated IS/MND
It is possible that some of the 130 to 202 employees of the Project site would relocate to the City,
thereby generating a small student population increase in the South San Francisco Unified School
District. However, because the Project would not involve construction of new residences, it is not
expected that the school district would experience a significant growth in student population due to this
Project. Therefore, the impact on the South San Francisco Unified School District would be less than
significant.
iv) Parks
With an estimated increase in daytime population of less than 1% (as discussed more fully in the
Population section, above), the proposed Project would not place a substantial demand on the City’s
public parks. Though some users of the Project site would use the City’s parks, this use would be
considered less than significant. See the following Recreation section for additional discussion.
v) Other Facilities
As with the public services listed above, while the Project could result in a marginal increase in use of
other facilities in South San Francisco, but with a negligible increase in daytime population of 0.1% to
0.2 percent, the net effect is less than significant.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 105
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. RECREATION —
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
SETTING
The City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department manages parks and recreation
centers within the city boundaries. According to the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space element of the
South San Francisco General Plan, there is an estimated 320 acres of parks and open space in the city,
including community parks, neighborhood parks, mini-parks, linear parks, open spaces and school
lands. 78
IMPACTS
a) and b) Recreation
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in
an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities, the
construction of which might have adverse physical effects on the environment.
The South San Francisco General Plan requires 0.5 acres of parks per 1,000 new employees in
employment areas or payment of in-lieu fees. Using the estimate of 130 to 202 net new on-site
employment discussed above, 0.06 to 0.1 acres of parks or appropriate in lieu fees would be required.
The Project does not include on-site recreational opportunities so would pay appropriate in-lieu fees.
While it is possible that some users of the Project site would make use of City recreational facilities, the
increase in daytime population is negligible (0.1% to 0.2%) and this would represent a negligible
increase in the use of parks and would not substantially deteriorate existing parks or recreational
facilities or require the construction of new facilities. Therefore, the impact related to recreational
facilities would be considered less than significant.
78 City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p.265
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 106 Recirculated IS/MND
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. 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 count
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of
such facilities?
A Traffic Study was completed for this Project by Crane Transportation, Inc. in October 2011, included
in full as Appendix B of this document. The following discussion and impact assessment is based on
this Traffic Study.
SETTING
The 328 Roebling Road Project site is located north of East Grand Avenue, east of Roebling Road and
west of the 249 East Grand Avenue project. The Project site is now served by one driveway
connection to East Grand Avenue and three driveway connections to Roebling Road. Driveways are
not all connected via internal parking aisles. There would be three entrances to the proposed Project
site, two on Roebling Road and one on East Grand Avenue. The main entrance on Roebling Road is
between Buildings A and B, and the other entrance on the street is east of Building A at the end of the
cul-de-sac. The East Grand Avenue entrance can only be accessed via a right turn heading northward
due to a median that prevents left turns into the site. A schematic presentation of existing intersection
approach lanes and control at the intersections requested for analysis by the City are presented in detail
in the Traffic Study (Appendix B, Figure 2).
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 107
Streets
East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/ office
areas east of the U.S.101 freeway. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway and narrows to
four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. In the Project vicinity it has
two travel lanes in each direction and left turn lanes provided on the eastbound approach to Roebling
Road and on the westbound approach to Harbor Way. The median break at the Roebling Road
intersection is long enough to allow eastbound left turn access into a small parking area on the Project
site on the northeast corner of the East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road intersection. No on-street
parking is allowed along either the north or south sides of East Grand Avenue. The posted speed limit
is 35 miles per hour (mph) and “Keep Clear” messages have been painted in the westbound lanes at the
Roebling Road intersection. A railroad track diagonally crosses the East Grand Avenue / Forbes
Boulevard-Harbor Way intersection.
Roebling Road is a 40-foot-wide street extending about 600 feet north of East Grand Avenue before
ending in a cul-de-sac. There is no posted speed limit or a painted centerline. Pavement condition is
adequate. Curb, gutter and sidewalks line both sides of the street. On-street parking is allowed during
all hours except 3:00 to 5:00 AM. Roebling Road is stop sign controlled on its approach to East Grand
Avenue.
Volumes
Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was prepared for the following 10 intersections serving the
Project site.
1. Airport Blvd. / Miller Avenue / U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal)
2. Airport Blvd. / Grand Avenue (Signal)
3. E. Grand Overcrossing / Dubuque Avenue (Signal)
4. E. Grand Avenue Overcrossing / E. Grand Avenue (Signal)
5. E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Blvd. (Signal)
6. E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Blvd. / Harbor Way (Signal)
7. E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (Roebling Road Stop Sign Controlled)
8. S. Airport Blvd. / U.S.101 NB Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane (Signal)
9. Gateway Blvd. / S. Airport Blvd. / Mitchell Avenue (Signal)
10. Airport Blvd. / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue (Signal)
Counts at all locations except E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road were conducted in March 2008 or
June 2008 as part of the East of 101 Area traffic study or the Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR. In
addition, counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in September 2011 at E. Grand
Avenue / Roebling Road, the Project driveway along E. Grand Avenue, and all driveways and on-street
parking locations along Roebling Road.
Currently, volumes on adjacent Roebling Road are light, as existing buildings along both sides of the
street are either empty or at low usage levels. See the Traffic Study in Appendix B (Figures 3 and 4) for
existing AM and PM peak hour volumes at the analysis intersections.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 108 Recirculated IS/MND
Existing Intersection Operating Conditions
The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable
operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections, with LOS E the poorest acceptable operation
for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements.
All signalized intersections evaluated for this assessment are currently operating at good to acceptable
(LOS D or better) Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. At the
unsignalized E. Grand Ave. / Roebling Road intersection, the stop sign controlled Roebling Road
approach is operating at acceptable levels (LOS A during the AM and LOS B during the PM commute
peak traffic hours). (Appendix B, Table 3)
Existing Queuing
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 adjacent to off-ramp intersections 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 entire
AM or PM peak traffic hour. The 95th percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups will only extend
beyond this length five percent of the time during the analysis hour.
Only one intersection has 95th percentile queuing currently exceeding available storage: Airport
Boulevard / Grand Ave. AM peak hour queues in the left turn lane or the southbound Airport
Boulevard approach exceed available storage. (Appendix B, Table 5)
Ramp Operation at Diverge From Freeway Mainline
Caltrans uses an off-ramp volume of 1,500 vehicles per hour as the maximum acceptable limit that can
be accommodated by a single lane off-ramp at its divergence from the freeway mainline. For on-ramp
operation, capacity is dependent upon the free flow speed of on-ramp traffic. For single lane diamond
on-ramps with higher speeds, capacity has been set at 2,200 vehicles per hour, while for single lane
button hook or curving on-ramps, capacity has been set at 2,000 vehicles per hour.
All U.S.101 freeway on-ramps serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 Area analyzed in this
study are operating acceptably and have volumes well below capacity during the AM and PM peak
hours. (Appendix B, Table 7)
All U.S.101 freeway off-ramps serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 Area analyzed in this
study are operating acceptably and have volumes below 1,500 vehicles per hour during the AM and
PM peak traffic hours, with the exception of the northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive
Drive during the AM peak hour (with a volume of 1,618 vehicles per hour). (Appendix B, Table 6)
Freeway Operation
U.S.101 existing traffic conditions have been evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours.
U.S. 101 is part of the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The LOS
standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary
based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county boarder, the
LOS standard was set as LOS E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring
counties. If the existing Level of Service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 109
existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and
intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year
2000.
Existing Levels of Service have been evaluated on four freeway segments in South San Francisco
(northbound and southbound U.S.101 north of the Oyster Point interchange and northbound and
southbound U.S.101 north of the I-380 interchange). Results were based upon analysis of year 2009
volumes. Currently, all U.S.101 freeway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better
during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Conditions are generally poorer along U.S.101 to the
north of Oyster Point Boulevard. (Appendix B, Tables 8 and 9)
Transit & Shuttle Service
Transit service in South San Francisco includes local bus service, shuttle service, regional rail service
(BART and Caltrain) and a ferry terminal scheduled to open at Oyster Point in the spring of 2012.
There are no local bus lines in the East of 101 Area. Van shuttles are provided between the South San
Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S.101 during commute hours. Separate
shuttles provide service to/from the Colma BART station. Shuttle stops are provided at two locations
along East Grand Avenue and at one location along Harbor Way. The shuttles are free to riders.
(Appendix B, Figure 5 and Tables 10 and 11)
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Sidewalks are in place along the north and south sides of East Grand Avenue and along both sides of
Roebling Road in the Project vicinity. However, there are no Class II or Class III bicycle lane
designations along East Grand Avenue or Roebling Road adjacent to the Project site, although there are
numerous bicycle facilities available in the study area. Bike lanes are provided along East Grand
Avenue east of Littlefield Avenue, Sister Cities Boulevard, Allerton Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard
(east of Gateway Avenue), Gull Road, and Gateway Boulevard (south of East Grand Avenue). Bike
routes are designated on South Airport Boulevard and on East Grand Avenue between Executive Drive
and the East Grand Overcrossing. Bike paths are available along Executive Drive and along the
shoreline. Future bike lanes are planned along Gateway Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, and Forbes
Boulevard (east of Allerton Avenue). Future bike routes are planned along Forbes Boulevard (west of
Allerton Avenue), while a future bike path is planned along the Caltrain right-of-way. The proposed
future bike lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the General Plan Transportation Element.
Project Trip Generation
The proposed Project would result in net increase of 16 inbound trips and a net reduction of 4 outbound
trips during the AM peak hour, and a net increase of 8 inbound and 39 outbound trips during the PM
peak hour. (Appendix B, Table 20)
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 110 Recirculated IS/MND
IMPACTS
a) Conflict with Applicable Measures of Effectiveness for the Performance of the Circulation
System
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause an
increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system. See the Setting section above for specific standards.
Project-Specific
Traffic Impacts were analyzed against existing conditions to determine Project-specific impacts.
The addition of Project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour intersection
level of service to unacceptable levels at any analyzed location. This would be a less-than-significant
impact. (Appendix B, Table 3)
The addition of Project traffic would not increase existing volumes at the E. Grand Avenue / Roebling
Road intersection to meet peak hour signal warrant #3 criteria levels. This would be a less-than-
significant impact. (Appendix B, Table 4)
The addition of Project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak hour off-ramp volumes
above acceptable diverge capacity levels at any analyzed location. At the one analyzed off-ramp where
existing AM peak hour volumes already exceed capacity limits (U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to E.
Grand Avenue / Executive Drive), Project traffic would increase existing AM peak hour off-ramp
volumes by less than 1.0 percent (by only 0.6 percent – an increase from 1,618 up to 1,628 vehicle per
hour). This would be a less-than-significant impact. (Appendix B, Table 6)
The addition of Project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak hour on-ramp volumes
above acceptable capacity levels at any analyzed location. This would be a less-than-significant
impact. (Appendix B, Table 7)
The addition of Project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour U.S.101
mainline operation in South San Francisco to unacceptable levels. This would be a less-than-
significant impact. (Appendix B, Table 9)
The addition of Project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour vehicle
queuing at any signalized intersection from acceptable to unacceptable lengths. However, Project
traffic would significantly degrade operation at one signalized location with existing unacceptable
existing queuing and at an unsignalized intersection, as detailed in the impact statements below.
Impact Traf-1: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing, Airport Blvd. Addition of Project traffic
would significantly increase volumes for the left turn on the southbound approach
to Grand Avenue, which already exceeds available queuing capacity. This is a
potentially significant impact.
The Project would increase existing volumes for the Airport Boulevard left turn on the southbound
approach to Grand Avenue by 4.2 percent during the AM peak hour in a turn lane where existing traffic
95th percentile queuing is already exceeding available storage between the Grand Avenue and Miller
Avenue / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp intersections.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 111
Mitigation Measure
Traf-1: Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue Signal Timing. Adjust signal timing to the
approval of the South San Francisco Public Works Department in order to reduce
Base Case + Project 95th percentile vehicle queuing for the left turn movement on
the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Grand Avenue to a shorter distance
than Base Case queuing for this movement.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure Traf-1, the resultant AM Peak Hour operation for the
southbound 95th percentile left turn lane queue would be reduced to 327 feet, which is within the
existing queue capacity of 332 feet. (Appendix B, Figure 24) The impact would be reduced to less-
than-significant.
Impact Traf-2: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing, E. Grand Avenue. The addition of Project
traffic would degrade existing acceptable queuing in the left turn lane on the
approach to the unsignalized Roebling Road intersection to an unacceptable
storage demand.
The addition of Project traffic would increase the storage demand from 55 up to 100 feet during the
AM peak hour in the 75-foot-long left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the
unsignalized Roebling Road intersection.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-2: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Turn Lane Extension. The following
improvement is not included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution for
this program. The Project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the
following improvement:
Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling
Road from 75 feet up to at least 125 feet (as determined by the City Engineer).
This improvement will require elimination of the short left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand
Avenue approach to the driveway serving the western 250 E. Grand Avenue parking lot. Based upon
counts conducted several years ago at this driveway by Crane Transportation Group, there are very few
drivers making this westbound left turn. Also, drivers currently accessing this driveway have easy
alternate routes to access this parking lot.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure Traf-2, the projected storage demand of 100 feet will be
accommodated in the proposed 125-foot turn lane. The impact related to queuing at the East Grand
Avenue and Roebling Road intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Cumulative
Traffic impacts were also analyzed under future cumulative conditions, specifically for the years 2015
and 2035.
The addition of Project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour intersection
levels at any analyzed location under the cumulative 2015 and 2035 scenarios, nor would Project traffic
increase volumes by more than 2 percent at locations with unacceptable Base Case operation. This
would be a less-than-significant impact. (Appendix B, Tables 13 and 17)
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 112 Recirculated IS/MND
The addition of Project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak hour off-ramp or on-ramp
volumes above acceptable diverge capacity levels at any analyzed location under the cumulative 2015
and 2035 scenarios. This would be a less-than-significant impact. (Appendix B, Tables 6 and 7)
The addition of Project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour U.S.101
mainline operation in South San Francisco to unacceptable levels or contribute significantly to existing
segments experiencing unacceptable operation. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
(Appendix B, Tables 15 and 19)
With implementation of Mitigation Measures Traf-1 and Traf-2, above, the addition of Project traffic
would not degrade acceptable existing AM or PM peak hour vehicle queuing from acceptable to
unacceptable lengths at any study location or contribute significantly to existing unacceptable queuing.
The Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue AM Peak Hour southbound 95th percentile left turn lane queue
would be 376 feet under the 2015 cumulative scenario and 381 feet under the 2035 cumulative
scenario, which are less than the Base Case queues of 390 and 398 feet respectively. The E. Grand
Avenue / Roebling Road AM Peak Hour eastbound 95th percentile left turn lane queue would be up to
125 feet under the 2015 and 2035 cumulative scenarios, which is within the planned capacity of 125
feet. This would be a less-than-significant cumulative impact. (Appendix B, Tables 14, 18 and 24 and
Figures 25 and 26)
Impact Traf-3: East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Signal Warrant. This unsignalized
intersection would receive a significant signal warrant impact due to the addition
of Project traffic to cumulative PM peak hour volumes. This would be a significant
impact.
Year 2015 Base Case PM peak hour volumes would be increased above peak hour signal warrant
criteria levels due to the addition of Project traffic. (Appendix B, Table 4)
Mitigation Measure
Traf-3: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Signalization. The following improvements
are not currently included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to
this program. The Project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the
following improvement or fair-share reimbursement (as determined by the City
Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for
this Project:
a) Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signal at East
Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way.
b) Lengthen the single left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand Avenue approach
to the Forbes/Harbor intersection to at least 225 feet (as determined by the City
Engineer). Prohibit left turns to/from all driveways along E. Grand Avenue
between these two locations.
Mitigation Measure Traf-2, the E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road left turn lane extension, would
also reduce this impact.
The nearby recently-approved 213 East Grand Avenue project would contribute to the impact at this
intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be
solely responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair-share
basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other project if/when it proceeds.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 113
With implementation of Mitigation Measures Traf-2 and Traf-3, the resultant 2015 Base Case + Project
Signalized AM Peak Hour operation would be LOS B-11.5 seconds control delay and PM Peak Hour
operation would be LOS B-11.9 seconds control delay. (Appendix B, Table 23 and Figure 25.) The
resultant 2035 Base Case + Project Signalized AM Peak Hour operation would be LOS C-33.8 seconds
control delay and PM Peak Hour: LOS A-8.8 seconds control delay. (Appendix B, Table 24 and
Figure 26.) These levels are in compliance with City standards and the impact at this location would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level.
b) Direct or Cumulative Increase in Traffic Which Causes a Congestion Management Agency
Standard to be Exceeded
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in
a direct increase in traffic that would cause a Congestion Management Agency standard to be
exceeded, or contribute substantially to a cumulative increase in traffic that would cause a Congestion
Management Agency standard to be exceeded.
The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the
implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program (“C/CAG Guidelines”) specifies
that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour
trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. The Project would
generate less than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours. This is a less than significant
impact. (Appendix B, Table 20)
c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to result in a change in air
traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks.
The Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and therefore would have
no impact on local air traffic patterns.
d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to increase traffic hazards
due to its design or the introduction of incompatible traffic.
The Project’s driveway connection to East Grand Avenue would be located about 200 feet east of the
Forbes Boulevard / Roebling Road intersection. Sight lines at the Project’s only driveway connection
along East Grand Avenue, where right turns only would be allowed, would be at least 800 feet to the
east (to see westbound traffic). Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 40 miles per
hour (five miles greater than the posted speed limit) would be 305 feet. Therefore, sight lines are
acceptable at this location.
Roebling Road is straight and level along its 600-foot length adjacent to the Project. Project driveways
would be located along the east side of the street about 300 feet and 600 feet from East Grand Avenue.
Speeds along Roebling Road are now 25 miles per hour or less and would be expected to remain at this
level with the Project. Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour
would be 155 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at these driveways.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 114 Recirculated IS/MND
Each Project driveway along Roebling Road would be channelized at least 20 feet internal to the site,
with the East Grand Avenue driveway being channelized at least 35 feet internal to the parking lot. In
addition, all surface parking aisles are shown to be 25 feet or greater in width as are all parking garage
aisles, which meets City code criteria and good traffic engineering practice. Additionally, internal
walkways are shown on the site plan connecting all buildings and connecting the buildings to the
sidewalks along Roebling Road and East Grand Avenue. The internal circulation plan would not create
a safety hazard.
While the Project would increase the intensity of use at the site and on surrounding roadways, the
Project has been designed with acceptable sight lines and internal circulation. The impact related to
hazards due to design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant.
There is an at grade railroad crossings near the Project site running diagonally across the East Grand
Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. No gates or lights are provided at the East
Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection crossing.
Impact Traf-4: Grade Crossing Approaches Missing Signing and Pavement Striping. The
State Public Utilities Commission (September 26, 2006 letter to City of South San
Francisco) has noted in a recent inspection that the East Grand Avenue / Forbes
Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection grade crossing is not up to minimum
standards on one or more approaches for required advanced warning signing and
pavement striping (i.e. R15-1 and W-10-1 signs as well as RxR pavement striping).
This results in an existing safety concern that would be aggravated by the addition
of Project traffic. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-4: Impacts to Grade Crossing Approach Signing & Pavement Striping. The
Project shall provide a fair share contribution towards all needed signs and
pavement markings on the approaches to the East Grand Avenue / Forbes
Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection “at grade railroad crossing” to meet
minimum State Public Utilities Commission requirements as detailed in the 2003
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by the Federal Highway Commission.
With implementation of safety features identified in Mitigation Measure Traf-4, the impact related to
an existing rail-crossing safety concern would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
e) Emergency Access
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have inadequate
emergency access.
The proposed Project is designed in a manner that allows free and clear circulation for emergency
vehicles that would respond to an emergency on site. Driveway connections would be provided to both
Roebling Road and to East Grand Avenue and would connect internal to the site. Parking aisles would
be in close proximity to each building. The Project would have adequate emergency access and
therefore would have a less than significant impact on emergency access.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 115
f) Alternative Transportation
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to conflict with adopted
policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
In 2001, The City Council adopted the TDM Ordinance. The ordinance requires a schedule of
alternative mode use requirements based on floor-area ratio (FAR) for various land uses according to
their General Plan designations. The Project would have a FAR of 0.8, and based on its General Plan
land use designation, would have to provide an alternative mode shift of 30 percent.79 The Project will
be developing a TDM plan to meet City of South San Francisco mode shift criteria.
The Project would have a less than significant impact on adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation.
Parking
Significance Criteria: Parking is no longer analyzed as a direct impact on the environment under
CEQA. This is included as an informational item.
Parking conditions are not static, as parking supply and demand varies from day to day, from day to
night, and from month to month. Hence, the availability of parking spaces (or lack thereof) is not a
permanent physical condition, but changes over time as people change their modes and patterns of
travel.
Parking deficits are considered to be social effects, rather than impacts on the physical environment as
defined by CEQA. Under CEQA, a project’s social impacts need not be treated as significant impacts
on the environment. Environmental documents should, however, address the secondary physical
impacts that could be triggered by a social impact (CEQA Guidelines § 15131(a)). The social
inconvenience of parking deficits, such as having to hunt for scarce parking spaces, is not an
environmental impact, but there may be secondary physical environmental impacts, such as increased
traffic congestion at intersections, air quality impacts, safety impacts, or noise impacts caused by
congestion. However, the absence of a ready supply of parking spaces, combined with available
alternatives to auto travel (e.g., transit service, taxis, bicycles or travel by foot) and a relatively dense
pattern of urban development, may induce drivers to seek and find alternative parking facilities, shift to
other modes of travel, or change their overall travel habits.
The potential secondary effects of drivers searching for parking is typically offset by a reduction in
vehicle trips due to others who are aware of constrained parking conditions in a given area. Hence, any
secondary environmental impacts which may result from a shortfall in parking for the proposed Project
would be minor, and the traffic assignments used in the transportation analysis, as well as in the
associated air quality, noise and pedestrian safety analyses, reasonably addresses potential secondary
effects.
In summary, changes in parking conditions are considered to be social impacts rather than impacts on
the physical environment. A discussion of parking is presented below for informational purposes only.
79 South San Francisco Municipal Code, Table 20.102.030-D.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 116 Recirculated IS/MND
The Project proposes parking at a ratio of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet between the at-grade and
subterranean parking lots, for a total of 288 parking spaces. Based upon City code criteria, 302 parking
spaces would be required although a reduction from this standard may be granted via approval of a Use
Permit if supported by a parking demand analysis acceptable to the City Engineer. Implementation of a
TDM program, as proposed with the Project, supports reduced parking as an effective tool to reduce
trip reduction efforts.
The following General Plan policies also specifically support a commitment to reduced parking
requirements:
4.3-I-11 Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by:
Allowing parking reduction for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods,
such as paid parking.
4.3-I-12 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce minimum parking requirements for projects
proximate to transit stations and for projects implementing a TDM program.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 117
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —
Would the Project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the Project from existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
Project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
SETTING
Wastewater
The existing wastewater system serving the Project site and surrounding community is operated and
maintained by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. All wastewater produced
within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City’s Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP),
which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of the San Francisco Bay. The WQCP is
jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater
generated within the two cities. The WQCP also has contracts to treat a portion of the wastewater
produced by the Cities of Colma and Daly City. 80
The most recent WQCP upgrade project was completed in 2005. The project included improvements to
accommodate peak wet weather flows and an effluent pump station. The WQCP currently has an
average dry weather flow capacity of 13 million gallons per day (MGD) and a wet weather flow
capacity of 62 MGD. The City is implementing a new capital improvement plan (CIP) to increase wet
80 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, 249 East Grand Ave EIR, 2005
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 118 Recirculated IS/MND
weather flow capacity, add reliability improvements, and add green energy facilities. The CIP will be
implemented in several phases over the next 10 years.81
Water
The water system in the East of Highway 101 area is owned and operated by the California Water
Service Company (CWSC). CWSC’s supply source consists of eight groundwater wells and surface
water wholesaled by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). CWSC is a member of
the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). CWSC serves three districts on the
San Francisco Peninsula: Bear Gulch, Mid Peninsula, and South San Francisco. 82
The South San Francisco District water supply is a combination of purchased water obtained from the
SFPUC, groundwater produced from CWSC owned wells, and SB7 conservation generated supply
savings. Based on historical data, future demand projections, contracted treated water deliveries from
SFPUC under normal hydrologic conditions and the mandated SB7 conservation savings are expected
to generate a surplus SFPUC supply during the period 2015 to 2030 of between 2.0 and 3.84 MGD.83
Water lines in the East of 101 Area would generally be adequate to serve new development allowed
under the East of 101 Area Plan.84 The water distribution system in the area was designed and
constructed to meet industrial water demands. It consists of a network of 12-inch lines in relatively
good condition, adequate to serve the 2,500 gallons per minute fire flow requirement and use demands
for the land uses planned for the area.
Stormwater
The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for
industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Thus, any redevelopment of
existing development will generally maintain or decrease the amount of impervious surfaces and
therefore not increase runoff.
Solid Waste
Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at the
South San Francisco Scavenger Company’s materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials
that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half
Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the landfill, has a permit for forward expansion of the
Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires, either Corinda Los Trancos
will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill. In 2005, the City landfilled
approximately 85,091 tons. The landfill has a permitted maximum disposal of 3,598 tons per day. As of
2000 (the most recent quantification available), the landfill has exceeded its originally permitted
81 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project Draft EIR,
January 2011 (including Appendix G: Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Redevelopment Master Plan Utilities
Study, prepared by Carollo Engineers).
82 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project Draft EIR,
January 2011 (and Water Supply Assessment included as Appendix F).
83 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project Draft EIR,
January 2011 (and Water Supply Assessment included as Appendix F).
84 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994, p. 98.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 119
capacity of 37.9 million cubic yards by approximately 6.7 million cubic yards (17.8 percent). The
operators are permitted until 2018 to expand the Ox Mountain landfill capacity and they continue to
accept waste as the landfill gradually settles and new space becomes available. The closure date is
planned for 2018.85
After collection, waste is brought to the Scavenger Company’s Blue Line Transfer, Inc. facility, a
public disposal and recycling center located at 500 East Jamie Court. The Blue Line Transfer facility is
permitted to receive a daily maximum of 2,400 tons per day of wastes and recyclable materials86, but
receives an average of approximately 800 tons per day87. This facility gives the Company increased
capability to recover valuable materials from wastes, reducing the amount of waste being sent to the
landfill. South San Francisco recycles both household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge and
has an estimated diversion rate of 40%.88
IMPACTS
a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to exceed
wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP operates under an NPDES permit issued by the State of
California. One of the requirements of the permit is that the WQCP implement a Pretreatment Program
to regulate the collection of toxic and hazardous wastes in municipal sewers. Under the Pretreatment
Program, dischargers of industrial wastewater are required to abide by specific wastewater discharge
limits and prohibitions. Industrial dischargers are also required to submit self-monitoring reports on the
total volume and pollutant concentrations of their wastewater, and to allow for inspections by the City
of South San Francisco.
The Project will be required to comply with all applicable regulations and would not cause an
exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements so would have no impact related to an exceedance of
wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
b) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require
or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or in the expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
85 California Integrated Waste Management Board, Active Landfills Profile for Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill (41-AA-
0002), website: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/Landfill/LFProfile1.asp?COID=7&FACID=41-AA-0002,
accessed December 17, 2010.
86 San Mateo County, Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, Multi-Jurisdiction Non-Disposal Facility Element,
draft June 2010 amendment.
87 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report, October 2009, page IV.N-8
88 San Mateo County, Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, Multi-Jurisdiction Non-Disposal Facility Element,
draft June 2010 amendment
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 120 Recirculated IS/MND
The City of South San Francisco estimates its water and wastewater capacity needs based on the
projected General Plan buildout of all land uses. The Project is consistent with the General Plan
buildout scenarios, and therefore has been included in the City’s water and wastewater growth
projections.
The 1999 General Plan EIR indicated that major water delivery, and major wastewater treatment
facilities were adequate, or would be improved, in order to meet project water and wastewater demand
growth. These projections have been subsequently updated in the 2007 East of 101 Sewer System
Master Plan Update.89 The City of South San Francisco has initiated a sewer improvement
program/capital improvement plan, whereby individual projects would pay a pro rata, fair share sewer
improvement fee to cover the costs of any necessary sewer improvements.
The Project must, and would, pay this pro rata fee to help construct any local sewer improvements
necessitated by cumulative growth in the area, including the Project. With mandated payment of fee,
the impact of the Project on increased water and wastewater facilities would be less than significant.
c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require
or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Periodic flooding occurs in South San Francisco, but is confined to certain areas along Colma Creek.
Colma Creek handles much of the urban runoff generated in the city; since South San Francisco is
highly urbanized, runoff levels are high and there is increased potential for flood conditions during
periods of heavy rainfall. While the Project site is not located in the vicinity of the creek and would not
be susceptible to flooding during a 100-year storm (see the Hydrology and Water Quality checklist
section of this document for more information), site runoff may be within the Colma Creek watershed.
(See the Hydrology section for additional detail.)
The proposed Project would result in a reduction in impervious surface area of 16%. The Colma Creek
Flood Control District requires that drainage calculations, including outflow locations, be submitted to
the District for approval. Per the Districts requirements, future discharge rates to District facilities may
not exceed pre-project conditions. Therefore, the Project would result in no net increase in storm water
runoff and would have no impact with regards to increased storm water runoff and the building or
expansion of new storm water drainage facilities.
d) Water Supply
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require
additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources.
As discussed in the setting section in more detail, surplus SFPUC supply is anticipated through 2030 of
between 2.0 and 3.84 MGD. 90 The projected increase in demand for the Project would be a small
89 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Carollo Engineers, Addendum to the City of South San Francisco East of
Highway 101 Sewer Master Plan, May 2007
90 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project Draft EIR,
January 2011 (and Water Supply Assessment included as Appendix F).
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 121
fraction of that surplus. Therefore, the proposed Project would lead to an increase in demand for
potable water, but would utilize existing water entitlements and resources, having a less than
significant impact on other water resources.
e) Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in
a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which may serve the Project that it has
inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments.
The proposed Project would contribute both domestic sewage and industrial wastewater to the City of
South San Francisco’s municipal sewer system. As discussed in more detail in the setting section,
above, the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP) has recently been
upgraded and currently has capacity to provide secondary treatment for 13 MGD in dry weather and 60
MGD in wet weather. The WQCP facilities plan is being updated to evaluate the existing and future
treatment capacity needs. The Draft Facilities Plan estimates average flow projections through the year
2040 to reach 10.3 mgd, which is lower than the existing average dry weather plant capacity of 13 mgd.
The increase of flow is within the projected flows for the East of 101 Area.91 The Project would
contribute a small fraction of those increased flows, anticipated to be within existing capacity. The
Project would place a less than significant demand on the area’s wastewater treatment provider and
would not prevent it from fulfilling its existing commitments.
f) and g) Solid Waste
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to be served
by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal
needs, or if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste.
As discussed in the setting section of this chapter, the Scavenger Company is contracted by the City of
South San Francisco as the sole hauler of solid waste and operator of recycling services for the City.
The Scavenger Company transports all solid waste from the Project area to the Blue Line Transfer
facility. The Blue Line Transfer facility has a permitted capacity of 2,400 tons per day. Once the
useable materials have been separated at the Blue Line Transfer facility, the remaining trash is then
transported to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. The landfill has a permitted maximum disposal of
3,598 tons per day.
The Project would increase solid waste generation by a fraction of a percent of the permitted maximum
amount accepted daily at the Blue Line Transfer facility and Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. The
remaining capacity of the Blue Line Transfer facility would be able to accommodate the additional
solid waste. While the Ox Mountain landfill is currently in excess of its originally permitted capacity,
they are permitted until 2018 to expand the Ox Mountain landfill and continue to accept waste as the
landfill gradually settles and new space becomes available. As discussed previously, the operators
would either further expand Corinda Los Trancos or open Apanolio Canyon for fill to ensure adequate
available capacity after 2018. Thus, the increase in solid waste generated under the proposed Project
would be sufficiently served by the Blue Line Transfer facility and the Ox Mountain Landfill.
91 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Carollo Engineers, San Bruno-South San Francisco WQCP DRAFT Facilities
Plan, April 2010.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 122 Recirculated IS/MND
Solid waste disposal and recycling in the City of South San Francisco is regulated by the City’s
Municipal Code, particularly Chapters 8.16 and 8.28. As neither of these chapters establishes
quantitative disposal or recycling rates, the Project site would not be subject to diversion requirements.
However, under the Municipal Code, the Project 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 Municipal Code would be met by the
Scavenger Company.
Construction and operation of the proposed Project would be expected to be in full compliance with all
federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The Project would be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs, and would not
require or result in construction of landfill facilities or expansion of existing facilities nor would it
impede the ability of the City to meet the applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste. The Project would have a less than significant impact in relation to solid waste.
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Recirculated IS/MND Page 123
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
b) Does the Project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a Project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and
the effects of probable future Projects.)
c) Does the Project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Quality of the Environment
Project implementation could lead to development that adversely affects the environment in terms of
impacts to various CEQA issue topics, as discussed in this IS/MND. However, impacts of the Project
are considered to be less than significant with mitigation. Implementation of the Project would not
degrade the quality and extent of the environment provided all policies, rules, and regulations of all
relevant governing bodies are adhered to, and the mitigation measures contained within this document
are implemented.
b) Cumulative Impacts
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this IS/MND was
conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the Project or its
site. No project-specific significant effects peculiar to the Project or its site were identified that could
not be mitigated to a less than significant level.
The traffic study for this Project also includes analysis of a future cumulative scenario, with cumulative
impacts identified and mitigated below significance levels. This is discussed in more detail in that
section.
For Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that in
developing thresholds of significance, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project‘s
individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, given that the Project would not
328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Page 124 Recirculated IS/MND
exceed any BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines threshold of significance, the Project would not have a
cumulatively considerable impact on the topics of Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
While the East of 101 Area is substantially built-out, redevelopment of sites with higher-intensity uses
occurs throughout the area, as it is on this site, and would be considered the cumulative context.
Through conformity with applicable regulations and design-level plans, all other potentially significant
Project-specific impacts would be reduced below significance levels, which include those related to
nesting birds, seismic ground shaking and other geological hazards, erosion and pollutant runoff,
hazardous materials, water quality, drainage, and noise. With the onsite reduction of these impacts, the
Project’s contribution to cumulative increases in these areas would not be considered cumulatively
considerable.
Cumulative impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with mitigation.
c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings
While human beings could be affected by a variety of impacts described above, the Project would not
have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly. Noise, hazardous materials, air quality, and traffic impacts on adjacent land uses
are less than significant with mitigation. The Project would not expose people to new hazards. There
would be no other adverse effects on human beings.
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS
MODELING
Summary Results
Project Name: Roebling
Project and Baseline Years: 2013 2011
Results
Transportation: 498.26 498.26
Area Source: (0.24) (0.24)
Electricity: 228.90 228.90
Natural Gas: 104.42 104.42
Water & Wastewater: 10.86 10.86
Solid Waste: 561.17 193.73
Agriculture: 0.00 0.00
Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00
Refrigerants: 0.00 0.00
Sequestration: N/A 0.00
Purchase of Offsets: N/A 0.00
Total: 1,403.37 1,035.94
Baseline is currently:ON
Baseline Project Name: Roebling Baseline
Unmitigated CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total
Transportation*:1,013.17 44.33%
Area Source: 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.01%
Electricity: 392.11 0.00 0.00 392.74 17.18%
Natural Gas: 130.15 0.01 0.00 130.48 5.71%
Water & Wastewater: 14.14 0.00 0.00 14.16 0.62%
Solid Waste: 5.37 34.74 N/A 734.86 32.15%
Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00%
Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total:2,285.64 100.00%
* Several adjustments were made to transportation emissions after they have been imported from URBEMIS.
After importing from URBEMIS, CO2 emissions are converted to metric tons and then adjusted to account for the "Pavley"
regulation. Then, CO2 is converted to CO2e by multiplying by 100/95 to account for the contribution of other GHGs (CH4, N2O, and HFCs
[from leaking air conditioners]). Finally, CO2e is adjusted to account for th low carbon fuels rule.
Mitigated **CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total
Transportation*:1,013.17 52.82%
Area Source: 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.01%
Electricity: 392.11 0.00 0.00 392.74 20.47%
Natural Gas: 130.15 0.01 0.00 130.48 6.80%
Water & Wastewater: 14.14 0.00 0.00 14.16 0.74%
Solid Waste: 2.68 17.37 N/A 367.43 19.15%
Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00%
Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00%
Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00%
Total:1,918.21 100.00%
** The only migitation added into the BGM model was solid waste reduction of 50%. See URBEMIS results for changes to that model.
Unmitigated Project‐
Baseline CO2e (metric
tons/year)
Mitigated Project‐
Baseline CO2e
(metric tons/year)
Detailed Results
328 Roebling Page 1 of 2 BGM Results
Baseline CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total
Transportation*:514.91 58.36%
Area Source: 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.05%
Electricity: 163.58 0.00 0.00 163.84 18.57%
Natural Gas: 25.99 0.00 0.00 26.06 2.95%
Water & Wastewater: 3.30 0.00 0.00 3.31 0.37%
Solid Waste: 1.27 8.21 N/A 173.70 19.69%
Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00%
Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total:882.28 100.00%
328 Roebling Page 2 of 2 BGM Results
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
0.40 1,117.52
Operational Settings:
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2013 Season: Annual
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.79 0.93 9.59 0.01 2.11
PM25 CO2
Office park 0.79 0.93 9.59 0.01 2.11 0.40 1,117.52
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10
0.00 154.34
Area Source Changes to Defaults
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.00 0.00
Architectural Coatings 0.11
Consumer Products 0.00
0.00 0.00
Landscape 0.01 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25
Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PM2.5 CO2
Natural Gas 0.01 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 154.09
0.40 1,271.86
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.92 1.06 9.84 0.01 2.11
1,117.52
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2
PM10 PM2.5 CO2
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.79 0.93 9.59 0.01 2.11 0.40
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2
PM2.5 CO2
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 154.34
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
File Name: C:\Users\bruce\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Roebling2011.urb924
Project Name: Roebling
Project Location: San Mateo County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
328 Roebling Page 1 of 2 URBEMIS Annual Emissions
28.0Office park 48.0 24.0
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
35.0
% of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1
Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
7.4
Rural Trip Length (miles) 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6
Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4
Residential Commercial
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer
Motor Home 0.4 0.0 100.0 0.0
Travel Conditions
Motorcycle 2.8 53.6 46.4 0.0
School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.7 0.0 71.4 28.6
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 66.7 33.3
Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 20.2 0.0 100.0 0.0
Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 6.3 0.0 100.0 0.0
Light Auto 56.0 0.4 99.4 0.2
Light Truck < 3750 lbs 11.8 0.8 97.5 1.7
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
6,740.93
804.21 6,740.93
Office park 7.62 1000 sq ft 105.54 804.21
Summary of Land Uses
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT
328 Roebling Page 2 of 2 URBEMIS Annual Emissions
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
2.17 6,425.76
Operational Settings:
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2013 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 4.32 4.34 51.98 0.06 11.54
PM25 CO2
Office park 4.32 4.34 51.98 0.06 11.54 2.17 6,425.76
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10
0.01 847.13
Area Source Changes to Defaults
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.79 0.72 2.14 0.00 0.01
Architectural Coatings 0.62
Consumer Products 0.00
Landscape 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.81
Hearth - No Summer Emissions
PM2.5 CO2
Natural Gas 0.05 0.70 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 844.32
2.18 7,272.89
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 5.11 5.06 54.12 0.06 11.55
6,425.76
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2
PM10 PM2.5 CO2
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 4.32 4.34 51.98 0.06 11.54 2.17
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2
PM2.5 CO2
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.79 0.72 2.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 847.13
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
File Name: C:\Users\bruce\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Roebling2011.urb924
Project Name: Roebling
Project Location: San Mateo County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
328 Roebling Page 1 of 2 URBEMIS Daily Emissions
28.0Office park 48.0 24.0
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
35.0
% of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1
Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
7.4
Rural Trip Length (miles) 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6
Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4
Residential Commercial
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer
Motor Home 0.4 0.0 100.0 0.0
Travel Conditions
Motorcycle 2.8 53.6 46.4 0.0
School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.7 0.0 71.4 28.6
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 66.7 33.3
Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 20.2 0.0 100.0 0.0
Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 6.3 0.0 100.0 0.0
Light Auto 56.0 0.4 99.4 0.2
Light Truck < 3750 lbs 11.8 0.8 97.5 1.7
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
6,740.93
804.21 6,740.93
Office park 7.62 1000 sq ft 105.54 804.21
Summary of Land Uses
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT
328 Roebling Page 2 of 2 URBEMIS Daily Emissions
Operational Settings:
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2011 Season: Annual
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
0.15 433.00
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.49 0.55 5.55 0.00 1.04 0.19 547.02
Warehouse 0.40 0.44 4.38 0.00 0.82
PM25 CO2
General office building 0.09 0.11 1.17 0.00 0.22 0.04 114.02
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10
0.00 188.16
Area Source Changes to Defaults
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.11 0.16 0.41 0.00 0.00
Architectural Coatings 0.08
Consumer Products 0.00
0.00 0.00
Landscape 0.02 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51
Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PM2.5 CO2
Natural Gas 0.01 0.16 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 187.65
0.19 735.18
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.60 0.71 5.96 0.00 1.04
547.02
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2
PM10 PM2.5 CO2
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.49 0.55 5.55 0.00 1.04 0.19
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2
PM2.5 CO2
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.11 0.16 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 188.16
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
File Name: C:\Users\bruce\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Roebling2011Baseline.urb924
Project Name: Roebling Baseline
Project Location: San Mateo County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
328 Roebling Page 1 of 2 URBEMIS Annual, Baseline
47.5
Warehouse 2.0 1.0 97.0
General office building 35.0 17.5
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
35.0
% of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1
Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
7.4
Rural Trip Length (miles) 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6
Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4
Residential Commercial
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer
Motor Home 0.4 0.0 100.0 0.0
Travel Conditions
Motorcycle 2.8 64.3 35.7 0.0
School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8
Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.7 0.0 71.4 28.6
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.6 0.0 66.7 33.3
Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 20.2 0.5 99.5 0.0
Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 6.3 0.0 100.0 0.0
Light Auto 56.0 0.7 99.1 0.2
Light Truck < 3750 lbs 11.8 1.7 95.8 2.5
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
2,632.49
441.08 3,321.18
Warehouse 4.96 1000 sq ft 71.79 356.08
Total VMT
General office building 11.01 1000 sq ft 7.72 85.00 688.69
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips
Summary of Land Uses
328 Roebling Page 2 of 2 URBEMIS Annual, Baseline
APPENDIX B
TRAFFIC STUDY
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 1
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
I. INTRODUCTION
This report details the circulation impacts resulting from development of the 105,536-square-
foot research and development project at 328 Roebling Road in the City of South San
Francisco. Existing, year 2015 and 2035 conditions have been evaluated at 10 intersections
along East Grand Avenue and at the nearby U.S.101 interchanges serving the project that
would be most affected by project traffic. Evaluation has also been conducted of operation
along the U.S.101 freeway. Project off-site impacts to intersection level of service,
signalization needs and vehicle queuing as well as impacts to U.S.101 freeway mainline
operation have been determined, as have impacts due to project access, internal vehicular
circulation and pedestrian circulation. Measures have then been recommended to mitigate all
significant impacts. Where appropriate, excerpts and findings from the following EIRs or
traffic studies have been included in this chapter: Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR (by
Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, 2011) and the Revised Draft Report of
the Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area by TJKM Transportation Consultants, January 28,
2011.
II. SETTING
A. ROADWAYS
The 328 Roebling Road Project site is located north of East Grand Avenue, east of Roebling
Road and west of the 249 East Grand Avenue project, (see Figure 1). The project site is now
served by one driveway connection to East Grand Avenue and three driveway connections to
Roebling Road. Driveways are not all connected via internal parking aisles. However, the
proposed project will have all driveways connecting internal to the site. A schematic
presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and control at the intersections requested
for analysis by the City are presented in Figure 2.
Streets
East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/
office areas east of the U.S.101 freeway. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway
and narrows to four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. In
the Project vicinity it has two travel lanes in each direction and left turn lanes provided on the
eastbound approach to Roebling Road and on the westbound approach to Harbor Way. The
median break at the Roebling Road intersection is long enough to allow eastbound left turn
access into a small parking area on the project site on the northeast corner of the East Grand
Avenue / Roebling Road intersection. No on-street parking is allowed along either the north
or south sides of East Grand Avenue. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph) and
“Keep Clear” messages have been painted in the westbound lanes at the Roebling Road
10/19/11 PAGE 2 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
intersection. A railroad track diagonally crosses the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard-
Harbor Way intersection.
Roebling Road is a 40-foot-wide street extending about 600 feet north of East Grand Avenue
before ending in a cul-de-sac. There is no posted speed limit nor a painted centerline.
Pavement condition is adequate. Curb, gutter and sidewalks line both sides of the street. On-
street parking is allowed during all hours except 3:00 to 5:00 AM. Roebling Road is stop sign
controlled on its approach to East Grand Avenue.
Volumes
Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was requested by City staff at the following 10
intersections serving the Project site.
1. Airport Blvd. / Miller Avenue / U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal)
2. Airport Blvd. / Grand Avenue (Signal)
3. E. Grand Overcrossing / Dubuque Avenue (Signal)
4. E. Grand Avenue Overcrossing / E. Grand Avenue (Signal)
5. E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Blvd. (Signal)
6. E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Blvd. / Harbor Way (Signal)
7. E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (Roebling Road Stop Sign Controlled)
8. S. Airport Blvd. / U.S.101 NB Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane (Signal)
9. Gateway Blvd. / S. Airport Blvd. / Mitchell Avenue (Signal)
10. Airport Blvd. / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue (Signal)
Counts at all locations except E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road were conducted in March
2008 or June 2008 as part of the East of 101 area traffic study or the Oyster Point
Redevelopment EIR. In addition, counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in
September 2011 at the following locations.
E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road
All driveways and on-street parking locations along Roebling Road
The project driveway along E. Grand Avenue
Figures 3 and 4 present existing AM and PM peak hour volumes at the analysis
intersections. Currently, volumes on Roebling Road are light, as existing buildings along
both sides of the street are either empty or at low usage levels.
B. INTERSECTION OPERATION
Analysis Methodology
Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections,
are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 3
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a
grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating
uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant
congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is
also associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation Research Board
[TRB] Highway Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The
control delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular
project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/control delay relationship is provided in Table 1.
Table 1 – Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
(Seconds Per Vehicle)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression
and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or
short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable
progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity
(V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are
noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long
cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are
frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable
delay.
55.1 to 80.0
F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to
oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board).
Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded
using the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are
determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual.
Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting
operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated.
Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also
evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in
the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop
analysis where the LOS and control delay designations only pertain to the entire intersection,
in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for only
the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements. Table 2
provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies.
10/19/11 PAGE 4 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 2 – Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
(Seconds Per Vehicle)
A Little or no delays ≤ 10.0
B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
F
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded
(for an all-way stop), or with approach/turn movement
capacity exceeded (for a side street stop controlled
intersection)
> 50.0
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board).
Analysis Software
All existing and future operating conditions have been evaluated using the Synchro software
program.
Standards
The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest
acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections, with LOS E the poorest
acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements.
Existing Intersection Operating Conditions
Table 3 shows that all signalized intersections evaluated for this study are currently
operating at good to acceptable (LOS D or better) Levels of Service during both the AM and
PM peak traffic hours. At the unsignalized E. Grand Ave. / Roebling Road intersection, the
stop sign controlled Roebling Road approach is operating at acceptable levels (LOS A during
the AM and LOS B during the PM commute peak traffic hours).
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 5
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 3 – Intersection Level of Service – Existing & Existing + Project AM & PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Existing
Existing
+ Project
Existing
Existing
+ Project
Airport Blvd./Miller/U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp
(Signal)
C-28.5(1) C-28.5 B-17.5(1) B-17.6
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) D-40.2(1) D-40.8 C-31.7(1) C-31.7
E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave. (Signal) A-6.4(1) A-6.5 A-3.4(1) A-3.4
E. Grand Ave. Overcrossing/E. Grand Ave.
(Signal)
B-18.5(1) B-18.5 B-13.5(1) B-13.5
E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) C-24.9(1) C-24.9 C-22.4(1) C-22.4
E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way. (Signal) B-18.2(1) B-18.2 C-33.9(1) D-35.6
E.Grand Ave./Roebling Rd.
(Roebling Rd. Stop Sign Controlled)
A-9.2(2) A-9.6 B-10.5(2) B-10.4
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook Ramps/
Wondercolor (Signal)
C-31.2(1) C-31.4 C-27.1(1) C-27.1
Gateway Blvd./S. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave.
(Signal)
C-34.3(1) C-34.3 D-44.8(1) D-45.5
Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave.
(Signal)
D-36.8(1) D-36.8 C-33.8(1) C-33.8
(1) Signalized level of service—vehicle control delay in seconds.
(2) Unsignalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds/Roebling Rd. southbound stop sign controlled approach to E.
Grand Ave.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
10/19/11 PAGE 6 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
C. INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION REQUIREMENTS
Traffic signals are used to provide an orderly flow of traffic through an intersection. Many
times they are needed to offer side street traffic an opportunity to access a major road where
high volumes and/or high vehicle speeds block crossing or turn movements. They do not,
however, increase the capacity of an intersection (i.e., increase the overall intersection's
ability to accommodate additional vehicles) and, in fact, often slightly reduce the number of
total vehicles that can pass through an intersection in a given period of time. Signals can also
cause an increase in traffic accidents if installed at inappropriate locations.
There are 9 possible tests for determining whether a traffic signal should be considered for
installation. These tests, called "warrants", consider criteria such as actual traffic volume,
pedestrian volume, presence of school children, and accident history. The intersection
volume data together with the available collision histories were compared to warrants
contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Federal Highway
Administration, 2009, and the Manual on Unified Traffic Control Devices Federal Highway
Administration, 2003 California Supplement, which has been adopted by the State of
California as a replacement for Caltrans Traffic Manual. Section 4C of the MUTCD
provides guidelines, or warrants, which may indicate need for a traffic signal at an
unsignalized intersection. As indicated in the MUTCD, satisfaction of one or more warrants
does not necessarily require immediate installation of a traffic signal. It is merely an
indication that the local jurisdiction should begin monitoring conditions at that location and
that a signal may ultimately be required.
Warrant 3, the peak hour volume warrant, is often used as an initial check of signalization
needs since peak hour volume data is typically available and this warrant is usually the first
one to be met. Warrant 3 is based on a curve and takes only the hour with the highest
volume of the day into account. Please see the Appendix for the warrant chart. To meet this
warrant, a minimum of 100 vehicles per hour must approach the intersection on one of the
side streets. It should also be noted that Warrant 3 has a second set of criteria based upon a
combination of vehicle delay and volumes. This is typically referred to as the peak hour
delay warrant.
Existing Signalization Needs
Currently, the East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road intersection has AM and PM peak hour
volumes well below signal warrant criteria levels (see Table 4).
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 7
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 4: Intersection Signalization Requirements – Do Volumes Meet Peak Hour
Volume Signal Warrant #3 Criteria Levels?
AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING 2015 FUTURE 2035 FUTURE
LOCATION
W/O
PROJECT
+
PROJECT
W/O
PROJECT
+
PROJECT
W/O
PROJECT
+
PROJECT
E. Grand Ave./
Roebling Rd.
No No No No No No
PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING 2015 FUTURE 2035 FUTURE
LOCATION
W/O
PROJECT
+
PROJECT
W/O
PROJECT
+
PROJECT
W/O
PROJECT
+
PROJECT
E. Grand Ave./
Roebling Rd.
No No No Yes No Yes
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
D. VEHICLE QUEUING
Analysis Methodology
The Synchro software program has determined existing, year 2015 and year 2035 projections
of 95th percentile vehicle queuing on the critical approaches to the E. Grand Avenue
intersections with Roebling Road and Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way. The Synchro
software program has also determined projections of vehicle queuing on the critical
approaches to two signalized off-ramp intersections and on the approaches to adjacent
intersections that need to accommodate flow from the off-ramp intersections:
U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp / Airport Boulevard / Miller Avenue intersection & the
adjacent Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue intersection
U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp / South Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane
intersection
In addition, off-ramp queuing was evaluated on the U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp
connection to East Grand Avenue / Executive Drive. While this off-ramp is not controlled on
10/19/11 PAGE 8 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
its approach to this first intersection, East Grand Avenue is signal controlled at its next major
intersection to the east (at Grand Avenue Overcrossing). Queuing results for this signalized
location were evaluated to see if any queuing extended back to the off-ramp. Projections are
provided for each off-ramp as well as for turn lanes and other surface street approaches that
have nearby adjacent intersections.
Queuing Standards
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 adjacent to off-ramp intersections 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 entire AM or PM peak traffic hour. The 95th percentile
queue indicates that vehicle backups will only extend beyond this length five percent of the
time during the analysis hour. Queuing analysis is presented in this study for existing, year
2015 and year 2035 Base Case and Base Case + Project conditions. Off-ramp queuing has
been evaluated using both the Synchro software output, which details queuing for one of the
signal cycles during the peak traffic hour, as well as using the SIM traffic feature of the
Synchro program, which evaluates off-ramp operation and backups during the entire peak
traffic hour.
EXISTING QUEUING
As shown in Table 5, only one intersection has 95th percentile queuing currently exceeding
available storage: Airport Boulevard / Grand Ave: AM peak hour queues in the left turn lane
or the southbound Airport Boulevard approach exceed available storage.
OFF-RAMP OPERATION AT DIVERGE FROM FREEWAY MAINLINE
Analysis Methodology & Standards
Caltrans uses an off-ramp volume of 1,500 vehicles per hour as the maximum acceptable
limit that can be accommodated by a single lane off-ramp at its divergence from the freeway
mainline.
Existing Off-Ramp Diverge Operations
Table 6 shows that currently all U.S.101 freeway off-ramps serving South San Francisco and
the East of 101 area analyzed in this study are operating acceptably and have volumes below
1,500 vehicles per hour during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with the exception of the
northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive during the AM peak hour (with
a volume of 1,618 vehicles per hour).
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 9
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 5: 95th Percentile Queues* - Existing
Intersections at or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the
Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service
Intersection Storage
Distance*
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing Existing
+ Project Existing Existing
+ Project
Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./U.S.101 SB Off
SB Off Left/Through 750 206 211 217 217
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave.
SB Left Turn 300 332 346 160 163
SB Through 300 219 224 154 154
SB Right Turn 300 31 31 59 59
E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing
NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane 800 441 475 52 52
NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane 800 115 116 243 243
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB On and Off/Wondercolor Lane
NB Off Left/Through/Right 825 315 318 164 164
Bolded results = significant project impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to vehicle queuing
for any other approach lane or lanes experiencing unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing as project traffic
contributions would be less than 1 percent of the total.
* Storage and queues—in feet per lane.
Synchro software used for all analysis.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
10/19/11 PAGE 10 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 6 – Off-Ramp Capacity & Volumes at Diverge From Freeway Mainline
Existing, Year 2015 & Year 2035
AM Peak Hour
Volumes
Year 2015 Year 2035
U.S.101 Off-Ramp
Capacity*
(Veh/H.)
Existing
Existing
+
Project
Base
Case
Base
Case +
Project
Base
Case
Base
Case
+ Project
SB Off-Ramp to Airport
Blvd./ Miller Ave.
1500 531 544 767 780 998 1009
NB Off-Ramp to E.
Grand Ave./ Executive
Drive
1500** 1618 1628 1745 1755 2164 2173
NB Off-Ramp to S.
Airport Blvd./
Wondercolor Lane
1500** 1195 1200 1762 1767 2146 2150
PM Peak Hour
SB Off-Ramp to Airport
Blvd./ Miller Ave.
1500 532 535 634 637 743 745
NB Off-Ramp to E.
Grand Ave./ Executive
Drive
1500** 536 540 533 537 659 662
NB Off-Ramp to S.
Airport Blvd./
Wondercolor Lane
1500** 559 559 767 767 802 802
* Caltrans desired volume limit that can be accommodated by a single off-ramp lane connection to the freeway
mainline.
** Programmed provision of second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline will increase capacity to
2,300 vehicles per hour.
Bolded results = significant impacts
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 11
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
ON-RAMP OPERATION
Analysis Methodology & Standards
On-ramp operation has been evaluated using planning level methodology contained in the
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (page 25-4/Exhibit 25-3). Capacity is dependent upon
the free flow speed of on-ramp traffic. For single lane diamond on-ramps with higher speeds,
capacity has been set at 2,200 vehicles per hour, while for single lane button hook or curving
on-ramps, capacity has been set at 2,000 vehicles per hour.
Existing On-Ramp Operations
Table 7 shows that currently, all U.S.101 freeway on-ramps serving South San Francisco and
the East of 101 area analyzed in this study are operating acceptably and have volumes well
below capacity during the AM and PM peak hours.
FREEWAY OPERATION
Analysis Methodology
U.S.101 freeway segments have been evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highway Capacity
Manual as specified by Caltrans and the San Mateo County Congestion Management
Program (CMP). U.S.101 existing traffic conditions have been evaluated for the weekday
AM and PM peak hours. Existing traffic volumes used for the analysis were derived from
year 2009 U.S.101 mainline counts from Caltrans as provided by TJKM Associates as part of
their work for the updating of the City’s East of 101 Traffic Modeling. Freeway mainline
analysis was performed using the HCS software based upon the HCM methodology for
freeway mainlines.
San Mateo CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets
The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP
street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections
near the county boarder, the LOS standard was set as LOS E in order to be consistent with
the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing Level of Service in 1990/91
was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS was or will be E, the
standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to
be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000.
10/19/11 PAGE 12 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 7 – On-Ramp Capacity & Volumes Existing, Year 2015 & Year 2035
AM Peak Hour
Volumes
Year 2015 Year 2035
U.S.101 On-Ramp
Capacity*
(Veh/Hr)
Existing
Existing
+ Project
Base
Case
Base
Case +
Project
Base
Case
Base
Case +
Project
SB On-Ramp from
Produce Ave.
3300** 1026 1024 1103 1101 1295 1293
NB On-Ramp from
Grand Ave.
2000 650 649 752 751 845 843
NB On-Ramp from S.
Airport
Blvd./Wondercolor Lane
2000 269 269 334 334 388 388
PM Peak Hour
SB On-Ramp from
Produce Ave.
3300** 1834 1850 2188 2204 3088 3102
NB On-Ramp from
Grand Ave.
2000 842 856 1269 1283 1201 1212
NB On-Ramp from S.
Airport
Blvd./Wondercolor Lane
2000 476 476 608 608 897 897
* Planning level capacity: Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Report 209.
** Produce Avenue on-ramp has two travel lanes. One on-ramp lane merges to the freeway mainline, while
the other on-ramp continues as an auxiliary lane to the I-380 off-ramp.
Bolded results = significant impacts
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 13
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard
LOS) on a CMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using
LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS
standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are
not feasible (due to financial, environmental or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be
prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and
infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient
conditions.
A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic originating
outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance.
Existing Freeway Operation
Existing Levels of Service have been evaluated on four freeway segments in South San
Francisco (northbound and southbound U.S.101 north of the Oyster Point interchange and
northbound and southbound U.S.101 north of the I-380 interchange). Results were based
upon analysis of year 2009 volumes. Table 8 shows a summary of existing U.S. 101 freeway
operation and Table 9 shows details of the existing freeway Level of Service results.
Currently, all U.S.101 freeway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better
during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Conditions are generally poorer along U.S.101
to the north of Oyster Point Boulevard.
Table 8: Summary Of Existing U.S.101 Freeway Operation
AM Peak Hour
Southbound LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange southbound off-ramps
LOS B South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp (just north of I-380)
Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off-ramp (just north of I-380)
LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange & northbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd.
PM Peak Hour
Southbound LOS C North of the Oyster Point interchange southbound off-ramps
LOS C South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp (just north of I-380)
Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off-ramp (just north of I-380)
LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange & northbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd.
LOS – Level of Service
Source: Crane Transportation Group
10/19/11 PAGE 14 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 9: Existing U.S.101 Freeway Operation – AM & PM Peak Hours
AM Peak Hour
Existing Existing + Project
Segment Vol LOS Density Vol LOS Density
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 7452 D 30.1 7451 D 30.1
Southbound 6774 D 26.3 6787 D 26.4
North of I-380
Northbound 9713 C 24.9 9728 C 24.9
Southbound 6421 B 16.1 6419 B 16.1
PM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 7530 D 30.5 7544 D 30.6
Southbound 6314 C 24.1 6317 C 24.2
North of I-380
Northbound 7605 C 19.1 7609 C 19.1
Southbound 8377 C 21.1 8393 C 21.2
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to any freeway segment.
LOS = Level of Service
Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 15
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
E. TRANSIT & SHUTTLE SERVICE
Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service and regional rail
service. Figure 5 shows bus/shuttle service east of the U.S.101 freeway in the project
vicinity, while Table 10 lists the type and frequency of transit service provided to South San
Francisco area and Table 11 lists the Alliance Shuttle Service shuttles and schedule.
Table 10 Public Transportation Service
Services Route
Frequency
Area Served
AM/PM
Peak Hour Midday
Sam Trans
Airport/Linden Daly City and
Colma BART Stations (130)
20/20 30 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave
South SF BART Station (132) 30/30 50 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave
Airport/Linden Serramonte (133) 30/30 60 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave
Palo Alto Daly City (390) 30/30 30 South SF BART Bay 3
Redwood City Colma BART
Station (391)
15/30(a) 15(a) El Camino Real/South SF
BART Station
San Mateo SF (292) 15/15(a) 30 Airport Blvd./Baden Ave.
Caltrain Gilroy SF 30/30 60 South SF Caltrain Station
BART
Pittsburg-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station
Fremont-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station
Richmond-Daly City 15/15 — Daly City BART Station
Dublin-Millbrae 15/15 15 South SF BART Station
Caltrain
Shuttle to
SSF
Station
Gateway Area 15/15 — 1000 Gateway, Genentech
Bldgs B9, B5
Oyster Point Area 30/30(a) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384
Oyster Point
Sierra Point Area 30/30(a) — 5000 Shoreline Court
Utah Grand Area 30/30(a) — Cabot/Allerton
BART
Shuttle to
SSF
Station
Sierra Point Area 35/35 5000 Shoreline Court
Genentech 15/15 — Genentech Bldgs B5, B54
Oyster Point Area 23/23(a) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384
Oyster Point
Utah-Grand Area 23/23(a) — Cabot/Allerton
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (511.org), Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (commute.org), Caltrain 2009.
Frequency of transit service is presented in minutes.
SF = San Francisco
(a) = average frequency period.
10/19/11 PAGE 16 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 11 Caltrain/BART Shuttle Service
Shuttle Station Served Schedule Area Served
Oyster Point
BART eight AM & nine PM trips Oyster Point Blvd., Gull Dr., Eccles Ave., Forbes
Blvd., Veterans Blvd. Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips
Utah‐Grand
BART nine AM & nine PM trips E. Grand Ave., Utah Ave., Harbor Way,
Littlefield Ave. Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips
Gateway
Millbrae BART ten AM & twelve PM trips Gateway Blvd., BART
Caltrain six AM & five PM trips Gateway Blvd., Genentech Office
Sierra Point
BART four AM & four PM trips
Sierra Point, Shoreline
Caltrain Four AM & four PM trips
Source: Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org), Caltrain 2009.
Both shuttles alternate between 15‐ and 30‐minute headways during both peak hours.
Bus Service
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San
Francisco. However, currently there is no SamTrans service east of the U.S.101 freeway. Bus
service running just west of the freeway is as follows.
Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center–Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and
Airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This
route operates during midday only on weekdays with headways of about two hours.
Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART–South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and
Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Colma
BART station and Daly City. It operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to
60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 60-
minute headways on Sundays.
Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue and Grand
Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak
period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways
on Saturdays.
Route 292: San Francisco–SF Airport–Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport
Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak
headways on weekdays and 30- to 60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays.
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 17
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Caltrain
Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station
located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue Overcrossing in South San
Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during
midday.
Caltrain/BART Shuttles
Van shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment
centers east of U.S.101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service to/from the
Colma BART station. Shuttle stops are provided at two locations along East Grand Avenue
and at one location along Harbor Way.
The Gateway Area/Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway
Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand
Avenue. There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six
morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle.
The Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers in the
Utah/Grand/Littlefield area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot
Court, Grandview Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Haskin Way and Utah Avenue. There are nine
trips in the morning and nine trips in the afternoon on the BART shuttle, with nine morning
and eight afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle.
All shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the
commute periods. The shuttles are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint
Powers Board (JPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the
City/County Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25
percent).
F. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Sidewalks are in place along the north and south sides of East Grand Avenue and along both
sides of Roebling Road in the Project vicinity. However, there are no Class II or Class III
bicycle lane designations along East Grand Avenue or Roebling Road adjacent to the Project
site, although there are numerous bicycle facilities available in the study area. Bike lanes are
provided along East Grand Avenue east of Littlefield Avenue, Sister Cities Boulevard,
Allerton Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard (east of Gateway Avenue), Gull Road, and
Gateway Boulevard (south of East Grand Avenue). Bike routes are designated on South
Airport Boulevard and on East Grand Avenue between Executive Drive and the East Grand
Overcrossing. Bike paths are available along Executive Drive and along the shoreline. Future
bike lanes are planned along Gateway Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, and Forbes Boulevard
(east of Allerton Avenue). Future bike routes are planned along Forbes Boulevard (west of
10/19/11 PAGE 18 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Allerton Avenue), while a future bike path is planned along the Caltrain right-of-way. The
proposed future bike lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the General Plan
Transportation Element.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to
generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)
trip generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter
20.120 Transportation Demand Management). The purposes of the TDM ordinance are as
follows:
Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new
nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development
pursuant to the City’s police power and necessary in order to protect the public health,
safety and welfare.
Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment
opportunities in the City of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated.
Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of
services, incentives, and facilities.
Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that
new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative
transportation usage.
Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development.
Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this
chapter.
Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures
are implemented.
The analysis prepared for the General Plan Amendment includes the assumption that a
moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 9.5 percent
compared to existing traffic generation rates, while an intensive TDM program will reduce
peak hour traffic generation by an additional 20 to 25 percent. The objective of TDM
programs is to reduce vehicle trips at commercial/residential developments by incorporating
project components such as encouraging increased transit use, carpooling, and providing
facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians.
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 19
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
South San Francisco has a “menu” of potential TDM programs, each with a specific number
of points that relate to the program’s effectiveness. Examples of TDM programs include
bicycle racks and lockers, free carpool parking, shuttle services, and on-site amenities.
FUTURE BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) CONDITIONS
The traffic impacts have been evaluated in relation to both year 2015 and year 2035 Base
Case conditions. Year 2015 reflects a horizon year that the project should be completed,
while year 2035 reflects the most distant horizon year currently utilized by the City Public
Works Department and Caltrans for analysis purposes and the assumed build out of the East
of 101 area. This section details the process to determine Base Case traffic (without Project)
operation for year 2015 and 2035 conditions.
Year 2015 Base Case Development
The year 2015 Base Case conditions include traffic generated by existing, approved and
proposed development in the study area, as well as traffic generated by projects that are
under construction. The development list was provided by City Planning staff. Projects and
their associated trip generation are provided in Table 12 and have been utilized by TJKM
Associates to develop local area intersection and freeway volumes for use in the City’s
updated East of 101 Transportation Capital Improvement Program study. Year 2015 peak
hour Base Case (without project) conditions were developed by adding traffic expected to be
generated by all the approved and proposed developments in the greater East of 101 Area to
the existing traffic network. Year 2015 projections include traffic from several recently
approved background projects such as Gateway Business Park, Oyster Point Redevelopment
Phase 1, 213 E. Grand, 494 Forbes, Lowe’s, Home Depot, Terrabay, the ferry terminal that is
currently under construction and the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. Year 2015
Base Case (without project) AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are presented in
Figures 6 and 7.
10/19/11 PAGE 20 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 12 – Existing, Approved & Planned Development Trip Generation by 2015
Developments East of the U.S.101 Freeway or Just West of the U.S.101 Freeway
Contributing Significant Traffic to U.S.101 Interchanges in South San Francisco
LANE USE
(ITE CODE)
SIZE/
UNIT
DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Rate Total
Trip
Rate
In/Out
% In Out Total
Trip
Rate
In/Out
% In Out Total
Genentech(1)
(20% TDM Reduction)
1988 318 2306 271 1613 1884
Genentech
Triangle
Hotel 350
Rooms
8.17 2860 0.56 61:39 120 76 196 0.59 53:47 109 97 206
R&D(2) 372,000
sf
0.51 83:17 158 32 190 0.39 16:84 23 122 145
Office(2) 248,000
sf
0.82 87:13 178 26 204 0.63 17:83 26 129 155
Oyster Point
Redevelopment
Phase 1
369* 48* 417* 55* 343* 398*
Oyster Point
Non-
Redevelopment
Area
R&D(3) 680,499
sf
3.62 2464 0.57 83:17 322 66 388 0.47 15:85 48 272 320
Ferry
Terminal(4)
(010)
1 Berth 814 138 26 164 54 101 155
Marina
(420)
716
Berths
2.96 2119 0.08 33:67 19 38 57 0.19 60:40 82 54 136
Commercial(3) (820) 364,502
sf
43.19 15,741 0.91 61:39 202 129 331 4.15 49:51 741 772 1513
Home Center(3)(862) 290,794
sf
23.29 6774 1.26 57:43 209 158 367 2.37 48:52 331 358 689
Hotel (310) 3385
Rooms
8.17 27,655 0.56 61:39 1156 739 1895 0.59 53:47 1058 939 1997
R&D(3) (760)
(20% TDM Reduction)
7,782,598
sf
3.62 28,174 0.57 83:17 3682 754 4436 0.47 15:85 549 3109 3658
Office(3) (710)
(20% TDM Reduction)
360,000
sf
7.10 2554 1.05 88:12 333 45 378 1.00 17:83 61 300 361
Manufacturing (140)
(15% TDM Reduction)
7,955,717
sf
3.25 25,856 0.62 78:22 3848 1085 4933 0.62 36:64 1776 3157 4933
Total Trips 12,722 3540 16,262 5184 11,366 16,550
* Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase 1 Project Draft EIR
(1) Trips based on existing land use as published in the Genentech EIR (with 20% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the EIR).
(2) Rates based on Genentech EIR (with 20% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the EIR).
(3) Rates developed from ITE equations.
(4) Trips based on SF Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) ridership forecast.
Trip rate source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition)
Compiled by: TJKM Associates
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 21
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
YEAR 2015 BASE CASE OPERATING CONDITIONS
Roadway Improvements Planned by 2015
The City’s East of 101 capital improvement program funds certain roadway and intersection
improvements in the City’s East of 101 area through the collection of lawfully adopted
impact fees. In accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, impact fees are imposed on and
collected from development projects in the East of 101 area, held in a separate account, and
used to fund improvements benefiting the area and the projects from which the fees were
collected. Like other developments in the East of 101 area, the 328 Roebling Road project
will pay a proportionate share towards these improvements. The City is in the process of
updating their capital improvement program list for the East of 101 area; a new list is
expected to be available in late 2011. Based on currently available funding, projected growth
rates, and the pending update, the City of South San Francisco Public Works division expects
that the following intersection improvements will be funded and constructed by 2015.
Accordingly, the improvements have been factored into the year 2015 Base Case traffic
modeling conducted by TJKM Associates for the 2011 Updated East of 101 Capital
Improvement Program.
S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane
Add a second northbound off-ramp right turn lane.
Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp-Southbound On-Ramp
Eliminate the exclusive left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque approach.
Restripe the Northbound Off-Ramp approach to provide 2 exclusive left turn
lanes and a combined through / right turn lane.
Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard
Add a second lane to the northbound (private driveway) approach. Stripe as one
left turn lane and a combined through / right turn lane.
Oyster Point Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Airport Boulevard
Add an exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach
and restripe the existing combined through / right turn lane as an exclusive
through lane.
Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
Widen the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach and provide 2 exclusive left
turn lanes, 1 through lane and 2 exclusive right turn lanes. Also, provide a second
10/19/11 PAGE 22 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
exclusive right turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach
(extending partway to Gateway Boulevard).
E. Grand Avenue / Grand Avenue Overcrossing
Provide a second right turn lane on the northbound E. Grand Avenue approach.
E. Grand / US 101
Widen existing NB off ramp to add an additional lane.
Figure 8 provides a schematic presentation of year 2015 intersection approach lanes and
control.
Intersection Level of Service
All intersections with year 2015 Base Case volumes would be operating at acceptable Levels
of Service with the following exceptions (see Table 13).
AM Peak Hour
E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard (Signal) – LOS E
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (Signal) – LOS E
PM Peak Hour
E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Blvd. / Harbor Way (Signal) – LOS E
Gateway Blvd. / S. Airport Blvd. / Mitchell Avenue (Signal) – LOS E
Intersection Signalization Needs
The following unsignalized intersection would not have year 2015 Base Case volumes
meeting or exceeding peak hour signal warrant #3 volume criteria levels (see Table 4).
E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 23
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 13: Intersection Level of Service – Year 2015 – AM & PM Peak Hours
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Base Case
Base Case
+ Project
Base Case
Base Case
+ Project
Airport Blvd./Miller/U.S.101 SB Off-
Ramp (Signal)
C-27.8(1) C-27.8 B-19.1(1) B-19.1
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) E-59.0(1) E-59.9 D-44.2(1) D-44.2
E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque
Ave. (Signal)
A-8.6(1) A-8.6 B-10.7(1) B-10.7
E. Grand Ave. Overcrossing/E.
Grand Ave. (Signal)
B-20.0(1) B-20.0 B-14.0(1) B-14.0
E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd.
(Signal)
E-61.5(1) E-63.0 D-37.2(1) D-37.2
E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor
Way. (Signal)
C-32.6(1) D-35.5 E-60.8(1) E-64.7
E.Grand Ave./Roebling Rd.
(Roebling Rd. Stop Sign Controlled))
A-9.6(2) A-9.7 B-10.9(2) B-11.1
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook
Ramps/ Wondercolor (Signal)
D-35.1(1) D-35.1 C-34.5(1) C-34.5
Gateway Blvd./S. Airport
Blvd./Mitchell Ave. (Signal)
C-30.2(1) C-30.3 E-65.7(1) E-68.5
Airport Blvd./San Mateo
Ave./Produce Ave. (Signal)
C-30.7(1) C-30.7 D-43.3(1) D-43.3
Bold results = significant impacts. Base Case + Project. Base Case + Project LOS E or F results not bolded
would not be significant since project traffic would not increase Base Case volumes by 2% or more.
(1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds.
(2) Unsignalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. Roebling Road stop sign controlled
approach.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
10/19/11 PAGE 24 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Vehicle Queuing
The following off-ramps and/or approaches to adjacent intersections would have 95th
percentile year 2015 Base Case queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the
Synchro software program (see Table 14).
AM Peak Hour
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
The Airport Boulevard southbound approach left turn and through movements
would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage.
The following left turn would have a 95th percentile year 2015 Base Case queuing exceeding
the available 75-foot storage as determined using unsignalized intersection turn lane queuing
analysis methodology contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Journal.1
E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (Eastbound Left Turn at unsignalized
intersection)
AM Peak Hour: 100-foot queue2
PM Peak Hour: 75-foot queue2
1 Estimation of Maximum Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections by John T. Gard, ITE Journal,
November 2001.
2 Rounded upwards to nearest 25-foot increment.
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 25
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 14: 95th Percentile Queues* - Year 2015
Intersections at or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the
Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service
Intersection Storage
Distance*
Year 2015
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Base
Case
Base Case
+ Project
Base
Case
Base Case
+ Project
Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./U.S.101 SB Off
SB Off Left/Through 750 305 309 225 227
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave.
SB Left Turn 300 390 397 223 230
SB Through 300 328 335 202 203
SB Right Turn 300 31 32 50 51
E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing
NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane 800 268 272 37 37
NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane 800 148 148 301 301
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB On and Off/Wondercolor Lane
NB Off Left/Through/Right 825 448 448 219 219
Bolded results = significant project impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to vehicle queuing
for any other approach lane or lanes experiencing unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing as project traffic
contributions would be less than 1 percent of the total.
* Storage and queues—in feet per lane.
Synchro software used for all analysis.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Off-Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline
No off-ramps would have year 2015 Base Case volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles/hour on a
one-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline or 2,200 to 2,300 vehicles/hour on a
two-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline (see Table 6). Both the northbound
U.S.101 off-ramps to S. Airport Blvd. / Wondercolor Lane and to E. Grand Avenue /
Executive Drive would require planned widening to two lanes in order to accommodate
projected volumes.
U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive
Intersection
AM Peak Hour: 1,745 vehicles per hour using off-ramp (being widened by 2015
to 2 lanes – 2,300 VPH capacity).
U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to So. Airport Blvd. / Wondercolor Lane
AM Peak Hour: 1,762 vehicles per hour using off-ramp (being widened by 2015
to 2 lanes – 2,300 VPH capacity).
10/19/11 PAGE 26 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
On-Ramp Operation
No on-ramps would have year 2015 Base Case volumes exceeding ramp capacities (see
Table 7).
U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Level of Service
No mainline freeway segments would be operating at an unacceptable Level of Service with
year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 15).
Table 15: Year 2015 U.S.101 Freeway Operation – AM & PM Peak Hours
AM Peak Hour
Base Case Base Case + Project
Segment Vol LOS Density Vol LOS Density
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 8114 D 34.1 8115 D 34.1
Southbound 7363 D 29.1 7376 D 29.2
North of I-380
Northbound 11364 D 30.4 11379 D 30.4
Southbound 6714 B 16.7 6716 B 16.7
PM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 8191 D 34.7 8205 D 34.8
Southbound 6802 D 26.1 6805 D 26.1
North of I-380
Northbound 8354 C 20.8 8358 C 20.8
Southbound 9648 C 24.4 9664 C 24.4
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to any freeway segment.
LOS = Level of Service
Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 27
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
YEAR 2035 BASE CASE OPERATING CONDITIONS
The year 2035 Base Case conditions include traffic generated by all development detailed in
the 2015 analysis, the last half of the Genentech master plan, the last part of the Oyster Point
Redevelopment area, the remaining half of the Gateway Master Plan as well as other
increases in manufacturing, commercial, office and R&D uses. The daily and peak hour trip
generation potential of all developments expected in the East of 101 area by 2035 is
presented in Table 16. In addition to these specific developments, traffic on Airport
Boulevard to/from Brisbane to the north as well as on Sister Cities Boulevard and other
surface streets to the west of the U.S. 101 freeway were projected to grow from 2016 to 2035
at rates projected in the C/CAG regional model (after allowance for traffic to/from new
development east of the 101 freeway).
Year 2035 intersection AM and PM peak hour as well as U.S.101 freeway segment traffic
volumes were developed by TJKM Associates for the City’s Update of the East of 101
Capital Improvements Program. Year 2035 Base Case (without project) AM and PM peak
hour intersection volumes are presented in Figures 9 and 10.
Roadway Improvements Planned by 2035
At City Public Works Department direction, all roadway improvements currently listed in the
City’s July 2007 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update for the East of 101 Area were assumed to
be built and in operation for year 2035 Base Case and Base Case + Project evaluation.
Figure 11 provides a schematic presentation of year 2035 intersection approach lanes and
control.
10/19/11 PAGE 28 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 16 – Existing, Approved & Planned Development Trip Generation by 2035
Developments East of the U.S.101 Freeway or Just West of the U.S.101 Freeway
Contributing Significant Traffic to U.S.101 Interchanges in South San Francisco
LANE USE
(ITE CODE)
SIZE/
UNIT
DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Rate Total
Trip
Rate
In/Out
% In Out Total
Trip
Rate
In/Out
% In Out Total
Genentech(1)
(20% TDM Reduction)
3015 427 3442 453 2513 2966
Genentech
Triangle
Hotel 350
Rooms
8.17 2860 0.56 61:39 120 76 196 0.59 53:47 109 97 206
R&D(2) 372,000 sf 0.48 83:17 148 30 178 0.37 16:84 21 115 136
Office(2) 248,000 sf 0.77 87:13 167 24 191 0.58 17:83 24 121 145
Oyster Point
Redevelopment
R&D /
Office
1158* 244* 1402* 426* 1195* 1621*
Oyster Point
Non-
Redevelopment
Area
R&D(3) 680,499 sf 3.28 2464 0.52 83:17 232 66 388 0.42 15:85 48 272 320
Ferry
Terminal(4)
(010)
1 Berth 814 138 26 164 54 101 155
Marina
(420)
716 Berths 2.96 2119 0.08 33:67 19 38 57 0.19 60:40 82 54 136
Commercial(3) (820) 693,302 sf 34.14 23,671 0.69 61:39 291 186 477 3.33 49:51 1130 1176 2306
Home Center(3)(862) 290,794 sf 23.29 6774 1.26 57:43 209 158 367 2.37 48:52 331 358 689
Hotel (310) 3385
Rooms
8.17 27,655 0.56 61:39 1156 739 1895 0.59 53:47 1058 939 1997
R&D(3) (760)
(20% TDM Reduction)
8,597,426
sf
3.28 28,200 0.52 83:17 3711 760 4471 0.42 15:85 542 3069 3611
Office(3) (710)
(20% TDM Reduction)
1,230,570
sf
4.94 6079 0.76 88:12 825 112 937 0.87 17:83 181 886 1067
Manufacturing (140)
(15% TDM Reduction)
11,227,507
sf
3.25 36,490 0.62 78:22 5430 1531 6961 0.62 36:64 2506 4455 6961
Total Trips 16,710 4417 21,127 6965 15,351 22,316
* Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase 1 Project Draft EIR
(1) Trips based on existing land use as published in the Genentech EIR (with 20% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the EIR).
(2) Rates based on Genentech EIR (with 20% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the EIR).
(3) Rates developed from ITE equations.
(4) Trips based on SF Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) ridership forecast.
Trip rate source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition)
Compiled by: TJKM Associates
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 29
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Intersection Level of Service
All intersections with year 2035 Base Case volumes would be operating at acceptable levels
of service with the following exceptions (see Table 17).
AM Peak Hour
Airport Blvd. / Grand Avenue (Signal) – LOS F
S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane
(Signal) – LOS E
E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard (Signal) – LOS F
PM Peak Hour
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (Signal) – LOS E
E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Blvd. / Harbor Way (Signal) – LOS F
Airport Blvd. / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue (Signal) – LOS E
Intersection Signalization Needs
The following unsignalized intersection would not have year 2015 Base Case volumes
meeting or exceeding peak hour signal warrant #3 volume criteria levels (see Table 4).
E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road
Vehicle Queuing
The following off-ramps and/or approaches to adjacent intersections would have 95th
percentile year 2035 Base Case queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the
Synchro software program (see Table 18).
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Airport Boulevard southbound approach left turn movement
would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage.
10/19/11 PAGE 30 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 17: Intersection Level of Service –Year 2035 – AM & PM Peak Hours
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Base Case
Base Case
+ Project
Base Case
Base Case
+ Project
Airport Blvd./Miller/U.S.101 SB Off-
Ramp (Signal)
C-27.1(1) C-27.1 C-21.1(1) C-21.1
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) F-82.5(1) F-83.4 E-62.9(1) E-63.4
E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave.
(Signal)
A-8.3(1) A-8.2 B-11.1(1) B-11.1
E. Grand Ave. Overcrossing/E. Grand
Ave. (Signal)
C-21.2(1) C-21.1 B-15.3(1) B-15.3
E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) F-133(1) F-135 D-54.9(1) E-55.4
E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor
Way. (Signal)
D-48.0(1) D-50.7 F-91.1(1) F-93.0
E.Grand Ave./Roebling Rd.
(Roebling Rd. Stop Sign Controlled)
A-9.9(2) B-10.3 D-29.0(2) D-34.1
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook
Ramps/ Wondercolor (Signal)
E-62.0(1) E-62.2 D-48.8(1) D-48.9
Gateway Blvd./S. Airport
Blvd./Mitchell Ave. (Signal)
B-19.5(1) B-19.5 D-35.0(1) D-35.0
Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce
Ave. (Signal)
C-33.5(1) C-33.5 E-63.2(1) F-64.3
Bold results = significant project impacts. Base Case + Project. Base Case + Project LOS E or F results not
bolded would not be significant since project traffic would not increase Base Case volumes by 2% or more.
(1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds.
(2) Unsignalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. Roebling Road stop sign controlled
approach.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 31
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 18: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues – Year 2035
Intersections at or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the
Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service
Storage
Distance*
Year 2035
Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Base
Case
Base Case
+ Project
Base
Case
Base Case
+ Project
Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./U.S.101 SB Off
SB Left/Through 750 268 272 295 295
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave.
SB Left Turn 300 389 396 155 158
SB Through or SB Through/Right 300 242 242 194 194
E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing
NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane 800 350 356 43 43
NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane 800 156 156 303 303
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB On and Off/Wondercolor Lane
EB Left Turn 825 809 813 319 319
Bolded results = significant project impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to vehicle queuing for any
other approach lane or lanes experiencing unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing as project traffic contributions would
be less than 1 percent of the total.
* Storage and queues—in feet per lane.
Synchro software used for all analysis unless noted.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
The following off-ramps would have year 2035 Base Case queuing extending back to the
U.S.101 mainline one or more times during the peak traffic hours as determined using the
SIM traffic software program (unless noted).
U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive
AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane
AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard / Miller Avenue
AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
10/19/11 PAGE 32 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
The following left turn would have a 95th percentile year 2035 Base Case queuing exceeding
the available 75-foot storage as determined using unsignalized intersection turn lane queuing
analysis methodology contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Journal.3
E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (Eastbound Left Turn at unsignalized
intersection)
AM Peak Hour: 100-foot queue4
PM Peak Hour: 75-foot queue4
Off-Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline
No off-ramps would have year 2035 Base Case volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles/hour on a
one-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline or 2,200 to 2,300 vehicles/hour on a
two-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline (see Table 6).
On-Ramp Operation
No on-ramps would have year 2035 Base Case volumes exceeding ramp capacities (see
Table 7).
U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Level of Service
The following mainline freeway segment with year 2035 Base Case volumes would be
operating at unacceptable Levels of Service (see Table 19).
U.S.101 Southbound (North of the Oyster Point On-Ramp)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F operation.
U.S.101 Northbound (North of the Oyster Point On-Ramp)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F operation.
3 Estimation of Maximum Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections by John T. Gard, ITE Journal,
November 2001.
4 Rounded upwards to nearest 25-foot increment.
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 33
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 19: Year 2035 U.S.101 Freeway Operation – AM & PM Peak Hours
AM Peak Hour
Base Case Base Case + Project
Segment Vol LOS Density Vol LOS Density
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 9450 F* na 9448 F* na
Southbound 10035 F* na 10046 F* na
North of I-380
Northbound 13595 E 41.2 13608 E 41.3
Southbound 8624 C 21.1 8622 C 21.1
PM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 8901 E 39.5 8912 E 39.6
Southbound 7925 D 31.6 7927 D 31.6
North of I-380
Northbound 8764 C 21.4 8767 C 21.4
Southbound 11891 D 31.6 11905 D 31.7
Bold = significant project impact. The proposed project would result in a significant impact to one
freeway segment experiencing Base Case LOS F operation as project volume increases would be
greater than 1 percent.
* unacceptable freeway segment operating conditions.
LOS = Level of Service
Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
10/19/11 PAGE 34 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
III. IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Standards of Significance have been measured based on CEQA, City of South San Francisco
and C/CAG Guideline thresholds. Therefore, project impacts would be significant if they
result in any of the following conditions:
K. The project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system
(C/CAG criteria only).
L. Signalized intersection operation and all-way-stop operation would change from
Level of Service (LOS) A, B, C or D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing
through the intersection would be increased by at least two percent.
M. Uncontrolled turn movements or stop sign controlled approaches at side street stop
sign controlled intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F and
total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least two
percent. Side street criteria are applicable only for stop sign controlled approaches
with more than 25 trips during any peak traffic hour.
N. The proposed project would increase total volumes passing through an intersection by
two percent or more with signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case
LOS E or F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and the stop
sign controlled Base Case operation is at LOS F (and there are more than 25 vehicles
on the stop sign controlled approach).
O. Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to
meet peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels, or to meet pedestrian/school
crossing signal warrant criteria levels.
P. The proposed project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by
two percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding peak hour
volume signal warrant criteria levels.
Q. Project traffic would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle queuing
on a freeway off-ramp and/or also on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading
away from off-ramp intersections to unacceptable levels (as determined by the
Synchro software program), or if Base Case 95th percentile queuing on the freeway
off-ramps or on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading away from off-ramp
intersections is already projected at unacceptable lengths, the project would increase
queuing volumes by one percent or more.
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 35
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
R. Project traffic results in queues exceeding off-ramp storage capacity based upon SIM
traffic software evaluation. If base case traffic already exceeds the storage capacity of
the off-ramp, then a one-percent addition in traffic due to the project is considered a
significant impact.
S. Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S. 101 freeway or freeway ramps
from LOS E to LOS F with at least a one percent increase in volume, or would
increase volumes by more than one percent on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp
with Base Case LOS F operation.
T. If on-site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow
through various parts of the project site.
U. Project development or project traffic would produce a detrimental impact to local
transit or shuttle service.
V. If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a
significant traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety concern would be created or worsened.
B. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Table 20 shows that by 2015 a total of 105,536 square feet of research and development uses
would be likely to generate 50 inbound and 11 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with
8 inbound and 42 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This assumes a 20 percent
reduction in peak hour trips due to a moderate TDM program and R&D uses. By 2035, a
more intense TDM program would be expected to reduce peak hour trip generation by 25
percent and result in 45 inbound and 10 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 7
inbound and 38 outbound trips during the PM peak hour.
As shown in Table 21, after allowance for traffic associated with existing uses on the project
site that will be removed by 2015, the proposed project would result in 16 inbound and a
reduction of 4 outbound net new trips on the local circulation system during the AM peak
hour, with 8 inbound and 39 outbound net new trips on the local circulation system during
the PM peak hour. By 2035, net new trip generation due to the project would be 31 inbound
and a reduction of 5 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 7 inbound and 35
outbound trips during the PM peak hour.
10/19/11 PAGE 36 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 20: 328 Roebling Road Trip Generation 100% R&D, ITE/TJKM Trip Rates with
TDM Adjustments
YEAR 2015
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
SIZE INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND
USE (SQ.FT.) RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL
R&D (20% TDM Red) 105,536 .47 50 .10 11 .07 8 .40 42
61 50
YEAR 2035
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
SIZE INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND
USE (SQ.FT.) RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL
R&D (25% TDM Red) 105,536 .43 45 .09 10 .06 7 .36 38
55 45
Source: Crane Transportation Group
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 37
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 21: 328 Roebling Road Net New Trip Generation After Removal of Existing Site
Activity Trips
2015
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
IN OUT IN OUT
Proposed Project Trip Generation –
100% R&D
50 11 8 42
Existing Site Use Trip Generation
(To be Eliminated)
(-14) (-15) 0 (-3)
Net New Trip Generation from Project
Site
36 (-4) 8 39
2035
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
IN OUT IN OUT
Proposed Project Trip Generation –
100% R&D
45 10 7 38
Existing Site Use Trip Generation
(To be Eliminated)
(-14) (-15) 0 (-3)
Net New Trip Generation from Project
Site
31 (-5) 7 35
Source: Crane Transportation Group
10/19/11 PAGE 38 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
C. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Project traffic was distributed to the regional roadway network based upon East of 101
development traffic patterns contained in the April 2001 Draft SEIR for the South San
Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance, the 2008
Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR and recent traffic modeling for the East of 101
Traffic Modeling update traffic study (see Table 22). Existing or year 2015 AM and PM
peak hour project traffic is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Figures 12 and
13, with Figures 14 and 15 presenting resultant AM and PM peak hour Existing + Project
volumes, and Figures 16 and 17 presenting year 2015 AM and PM peak hour Base Case +
Project volumes at major intersections. Figure 18 presents year 2015 AM and PM peak hour
volumes at project driveways. Year 2035 AM and PM peak hour Project traffic is shown
distributed to the local roadway network in Figures 19 and 20, with Figures 21 and 22
presenting resultant year 2035 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Project volumes at major
intersections. Figure 23 presents year 2035 AM and PM peak hour volumes at Project
driveways.
Table 22: Project Traffic Distribution
Year 2015 Year 2035
Direction
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
U.S.101 North/San Francisco / Brisbane 37 35 34 32
U.S.101 South(1) 48 48 48 48
South San Francisco (central area) 6 6 6 6
Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 6 6 6 6
Local East of U.S.101 3 5 6 8
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
(1) Also includes use of S. Airport Blvd. to/from I-380 interchange.
Sources: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan
Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001 and TJKM Traffic Modeling for 2010 East of 101
Capital Improvement Program Fee Update Traffic Study.
D. ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND ACCESS
Project Access
The Project would be accessed via one driveway connection to East Grand Avenue and two
driveway connections to Roebling Road. AM and PM peak hour turn movement projections
are presented in Figures 18 and 23 for 2015 and 2035 traffic volumes, respectively. The
proposed driveway along East Grand Avenue would allow westbound right in/right out
movements only. All driveways along Roebling Road would allow all in and outbound
movements, but due to the cul-de-sac would just experience right turn inbound and left turn
outbound movements..
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 39
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Impact 1: Site lines at East Grand Avenue Driveway. The Project’s driveway
connection to East Grand Avenue would be located about 200 feet east of
the Forbes Boulevard / Roebling Road intersection. Sight lines at the
Project’s only driveway connection along East Grand Avenue, where
right turns only would be allowed, would be at least 800 feet to the east (to
see westbound traffic). Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle
speed of 40 miles per hour (five miles greater than the posted speed limit)
would be 305 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at this location.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 1:
No mitigation required.
Impact 2: Sight Lines at Roebling Road Driveways. Roebling Road is straight and
level along its 600-foot length adjacent to the Project. Project driveways
would be located along the east side of the street about 300 feet and 600
feet from East Grand Avenue. Speeds along Roebling Road are now 25
miles per hour or less and would be expected to remain at this level with
the Project. Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 25
miles per hour would be 155 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at
these driveways.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 2:
No mitigation required.
Internal Circulation
Impact 3: Internal Vehicular Circulation. The internal circulation plan as shown
on the 7/27/07 site plan by DES Architects / Engineers appears acceptable.
Each Project driveway along Roebling Road would be channelized at least
20 feet internal to the site, with the East Grand Avenue driveway being
channelized at least 35 feet internal to the parking lot. In addition, all
surface parking aisles are shown to be 25 feet or greater in width as are all
parking garage aisles, which meets City code criteria and good traffic
engineering practice.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
10/19/11 PAGE 40 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Mitigation Measure 3:
No mitigation required.
Impact 4: Internal Pedestrian Circulation. Internal walkways are shown on the site
plan connecting all buildings and connecting the buildings to the
sidewalks along Roebling Road and East Grand Avenue.
This would be a less-than significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 4:
No mitigation required.
E. RAIL SAFETY
There is an at grade railroad crossings near the Project site running diagonally across the East
Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. No gates or lights are provided
at the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection crossing.
Impact 5: Grade Crossing Approaches Missing Signing and Pavement Striping.
The State Public Utilities Commission (September 26, 2006 letter to City
of South San Francisco) has noted in a recent inspection that the East
Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection grade
crossing is not up to minimum standards on one or more approaches for
required advanced warning signing and pavement striping (i.e. R15-1 and
W-10-1 signs as well as RxR pavement striping). This results in an
existing safety concern that would be aggravated by the addition of Project
traffic.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 5:
Impacts to Grade Crossing Approach Signing & Pavement Striping.
The Project shall provide a fair share contribution towards all needed signs
and pavement markings on the approaches to the East Grand Avenue /
Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection “at grade railroad crossing”
to meet minimum State Public Utilities Commission requirements as
detailed in the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by the
Federal Highway Commission.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 41
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
F. EXISTING + PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 6: Existing + Project Intersection Level of Service (see Table 3)
The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM
or PM peak hour intersection level of service to unacceptable levels at any
analyzed location.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 6:
No mitigation required.
Impact 7: Existing + Project Intersection Signalization Needs (see Table 4)
The addition of project traffic would not increase existing volumes at the
E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road intersection to meet peak hour signal
warrant #3 criteria levels.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 7:
No mitigation required.
Impact 8: Existing + Project 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing (see Table 5)
The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM
or PM peak hour vehicle queuing at any signalized intersection to
unacceptable lengths. However, project traffic would significantly
degrade operation at one signalized location with unacceptable existing
queuing.
95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. Airport Blvd. left turn on the
southbound approach to Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The project would increase existing volumes by
4.2 percent in a turn lane where existing traffic 95th percentile
queuing is already exceeding available storage between the Grand
Avenue and Miller Avenue / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp
intersections.
10/19/11 PAGE 42 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
The addition of project traffic would degrade existing acceptable queuing
in the left turn lane on the approach to the one unsignalized intersection
evaluated in this study to an unacceptable storage demand.
95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. E. Grand Avenue left turn on
the eastbound approach to Roebling Road
AM Peak Hour: The addition of project traffic would increase the
storage demand from 55 up to 100 feet in the 75-foot-long left turn
lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the
unsignalized Roebling Road intersection.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 8:
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (see Figure 24).
Adjust signal timing.
Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation: Southbound 95th percentile left turn
lane queue reduced to 327 feet, which is less than the existing queue of
332 feet.
E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (see Figure 24).
Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach
to Roebling Road from 75 feet up to at least 125 feet. This will require
elimination of the short left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand
Avenue approach to the driveway serving the western 250 E. Grand
Avenue parking lot. Based upon counts conducted several years ago at
this driveway by Crane Transportation Group, there are very few
drivers making this westbound left turn. Also, they have easy alternate
routes to access this parking lot.
This improvement is not included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic
impact fee contribution for this program.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 9: Existing + Project U.S.101 Off-Ramp Operation (see Table 6)
The addition of project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak
hour off-ramp volumes above acceptable diverge capacity levels at any
analyzed location. At the one analyzed off-ramp where existing AM peak
hour volumes already exceed capacity limits (U.S.101 Northbound Off-
Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive), project traffic would
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 43
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
increase existing AM peak hour off-ramp volumes by less than 1.0
percent (by only 0.6 percent – an increase from 1,618 up to 1,628 vehicle
per hour).
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 9:
No mitigation required.
Impact 10: Existing + Project U.S.101 On-Ramp Operation (see Table 7)
The addition of project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak
hour on-ramp volumes above acceptable capacity levels at any analyzed
location.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 10:
No mitigation required.
Impact 11: Existing + Project U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Operation (see Table 9)
The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM
or PM peak hour U.S.101 mainline operation in South San Francisco to
unacceptable levels.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 11:
No mitigation required.
G. YEAR 2015 BASE CASE + PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 12: 2015 Intersection Level of Service (see Table 13)
The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM
or PM peak hour intersection levels at any analyzed location. Also,
project traffic would not increase volumes by more than 2 percent at
locations with unacceptable Base Case operation.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
10/19/11 PAGE 44 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Mitigation Measure 12:
No mitigation required.
Impact 13: 2015 Intersection Signalization Needs (see Table 4)
The analysis concluded that the East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road
unsignalized intersection would receive a significant signal warrant impact
due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case PM peak hour
volumes. Volumes would be increased above peak hour signal warrant
criteria levels due to the addition of project traffic.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 13:
E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road. (see Table 23 and Figure 25) The
following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impacts.
These improvements are not currently included as part of the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the
Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program.
1. Provide a fair share contribution towards signalizing the intersection
and coordinating operation with the signal at East Grand Avenue /
Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way.
2. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue
intersection approach from 75 feet up to about 125 feet. In conjunction
with this measure, lengthen the single left turn lane on the westbound
E. Grand Avenue approach to the Forbes/Harbor intersection to at least
225 feet. Prohibit left turns to/from all driveways along E. Grand
Avenue between these two locations.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS B-11.5 seconds control delay
PM Peak Hour: LOS B-11.9 seconds control delay
These improvements are not currently included as part of the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the
Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program.
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 45
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 23: 2015 Base Case + Project Mitigated Level of Service
INTERSECTION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
E. Grand Ave. / Roebling Rd. B-11.5(1)* B-11.9(1)*
* Signalize intersection and lengthen eastbound E. Grand left turn lane to at least 125 feet.
(1) Signalized level of service – seconds control delay.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
The nearby recently-approved 213 East Grand Avenue project would
contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same
mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be solely
responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be
reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by
the other project if/when it proceeds.
Mitigation Measure 13 would reduce the impact at this location to a less-
than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements
that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with
City standards.
Impact 14: 2015 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing (see Table 14)
The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM
or PM peak hour vehicle queuing at signalized intersections to
unacceptable lengths. However, project traffic would significantly
degrade operation at one signalized location with unacceptable existing
queuing.
95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. Airport Blvd. left turn on
southbound approach to Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The project would increase 2015 Base Case
volumes by 3.0 percent in a turn lane where existing traffic 95th
percentile queuing would already be exceeding available storage
between the Grand Avenue and Miller Avenue / U.S.101
Southbound Off-Ramp signalized intersections.
10/19/11 PAGE 46 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
The addition of project traffic would increase the already unacceptable
2015 Base Case queuing demand in the left turn lane on the approach
to the one unsignalized intersection evaluated in this study.
95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. E. Grand Avenue left turn on
the eastbound approach to Roebling Road
AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 23
percent in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach
to the unsignalized Roebling Road at a location with
unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The left turn
lane queue at an unsignalized intersection would be extended
from about 100 up to 125 feet in a location with only 75 feet of
storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 14:
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (see Figure 25).
Adjust signal timing.
Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation: Southbound 95th percentile left turn
lane queue reduced to 376 feet, which is less than the 2015 Base Case
queue of 390 feet.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (see Figure 25).
Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach
to Roebling Road from 75 feet up to at least 125 feet. This will require
elimination of the short left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand
Avenue approach to the driveway serving a 250 E. Grand Avenue
parking lot. Based upon counts conducted several years ago at this
driveway by Crane Transportation Group, there are very few drivers
making this westbound left turn. Also, they have easy alternate routes
to access this parking lot.
This improvement is not included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic
impact fee contribution to this program. This measure may also be
constructed in conjunction with Mitigation Measure 13, signalizing the
intersection.
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 47
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
The nearby recently-approved 213 East Grand Avenue project would
contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same
mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be solely
responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be
reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by
the other project if/when it proceeds.
Mitigation Measure 14 would reduce the impact at this location to a less-
than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements
that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with
City standards.
Impact 15: 2015 U.S.101 Off-Ramp Operation (see Table 6)
The addition of project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak
hour off-ramp volumes above acceptable diverge capacity levels at any
analyzed location.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 15:
No mitigation required.
Impact 16: 2015 U.S.101 On-Ramp Operation (see Table 7)
The addition of project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak
hour on-ramp volumes above acceptable capacity levels at any analyzed
location.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 16:
No mitigation required.
Impact 17: 2015 U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Operation (see Table 15)
The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM
or PM peak hour U.S.101 mainline operation in South San Francisco to
unacceptable levels.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 17:
No mitigation required.
10/19/11 PAGE 48 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
H. YEAR 2035 BASE CASE + PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 18: 2035 Intersection Level of Service (see Table 17)
The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM
or PM peak hour intersection level of service to unacceptable levels at any
analyzed location. Also, project traffic would not increase volumes by
more than 2 percent at locations with unacceptable Base Case operation.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 18:
No mitigation required.
Impact 19: 2035 Intersection Signalization Needs.
The analysis concluded that the East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road
unsignalized intersection would receive a significant signal warrant impact
due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2035 Base Case PM peak hour
volumes. Volumes would be increased to borderline signal warrant criteria
levels.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 19:
E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road. (see Table 24 and Figure 26) The
following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impacts.
These improvements are not currently included as part of the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the
Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program.
1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signal at
East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way.
2. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue
intersection approach from 75 feet up to at least 125 feet. In
conjunction with this measure, lengthen the dual left turn lanes on the
westbound E. Grand Avenue approach to the Forbes/Harbor
intersection to at least 275 feet. Prohibit left turns to/from all
driveways along E. Grand Avenue between these two intersections.
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 49
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Table 24: 2035 Base Case + Project Mitigated Level of Service
INTERSECTION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
E. Grand Ave. / Roebling Rd. C-33.8(1)* A-8.8(1)*
* Signalize intersection and lengthen eastbound E. Grand left turn lane to at least 125 feet.
(1) Signalized level of service – seconds control delay.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Resultant Base Case + Project Signalized Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS C-33.8 seconds control delay
PM Peak Hour: LOS A-8.8 seconds control delay
The improvements at the E. Grand / Roebling Road intersection are not
currently included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic impact fee
contribution to this program.
The recently-approved 213 East Grand Avenue project proposal would
contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same
mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be solely
responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be
reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by
the other project if/when it proceeds.
Mitigation Measure 19 would reduce the impact at this location to a less-
than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements
that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with
City standards.
Impact 20: 2035 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing (see Table 18)
The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM
or PM peak hour vehicle queuing at signalized intersections to
unacceptable lengths. However, project traffic would significantly
degrade operation at one signalized location with unacceptable existing
queuing.
10/19/11 PAGE 50 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. Airport Blvd. left turn on
southbound approach to Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The project would increase 2035 Base Case
volumes by 1.6 percent in a turn lane where existing traffic 95th
percentile queuing would already be exceeding available storage
between the Grand Avenue and Miller Avenue / U.S.101
Southbound Off-Ramp signalized intersections.
The addition of project traffic would increase the already unacceptable
2035 Base Case queuing demand in the left turn lane on the approach to
the one unsignalized intersection evaluated in this study.
95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. E. Grand Avenue left turn on
the eastbound approach to Roebling Road
AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 22
percent in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach
to the unsignalized Roebling Road at a location with
unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The left turn
lane queue at an unsignalized intersection would be extended
from about 100 up to 125 feet in a location with only 75 feet of
storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 20:
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (see Figure 26)
Adjust signal timing.
Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation: Southbound 95th percentile left turn
lane queue reduced to 381 feet, which is less than the 2035 Base Case
queue of 398 feet.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road (see Figure 26)
Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach
to Roebling Road from 75 feet up to at least 125 feet. This will require
elimination of the short left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand
Avenue approach to the driveway serving a 250 E. Grand Avenue
parking lot. Based upon counts conducted several years ago at this
driveway by Crane Transportation Group, there are very few drivers
328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY 10/19/11 PAGE 51
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
making this westbound left turn. Also, they have easy alternate routes
to access this parking lot.
This improvement is not included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project’s traffic
impact fee contribution to this program. This measure may also be
constructed in conjunction with Mitigation Measure 19, signalizing the
intersection.
The nearby recently-approved 213 East Grand Avenue project would
contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same
mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be solely
responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be
reimbursed on a fair-share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by
the other project if/when it proceeds.
Mitigation Measure 20 would reduce the impact at this location to a less-
than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements
that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with
City standards.
Impact 21: 2035 U.S.101 Off-Ramp Operation (see Table 6)
The addition of project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak
hour off-ramp volumes above acceptable diverge capacity levels at any
analyzed location.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 21:
No mitigation required.
Impact 22: 2035 U.S.101 On-Ramp Operation (see Table 7)
The addition of project traffic would not increase existing AM or PM peak
hour on-ramp volumes above acceptable capacity levels at any analyzed
location.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 22:
No mitigation required.
10/19/11 PAGE 52 328 ROEBLING ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Impact 23: 2035 U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Operation (see Table 19)
The addition of project traffic would not degrade acceptable existing AM
or PM peak hour U.S.101 mainline operation in South San Francisco to
unacceptable levels. In addition, the project would only increase volumes
by 0.1 percent on the two freeway segments (north of the Oyster Point
interchange) experiencing unacceptable Base Case AM peak hour
operation.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 23:
No mitigation required.
I. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY GUIDELINES
Impact 24: Project Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The
Project would generate less than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM
peak hours in both 2015 and 2035 (in 2015 32 net new two-way (inbound
+ outbound) trips during the AM peak hour, with 47 net new two-way
trips during the PM peak hour; in 2035 26 net new two-way (inbound +
outbound) trips during the AM peak hour and 42 net new two-way trips
during the PM peak hour (see Table 21). The San Mateo City/County
Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the
implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program
(“C/CAG Guidelines”) specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that
the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips
(including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the
development.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 24:
No mitigation measure required.
CRANE TRAN SP ORTATI ON GRO U P
F i g u r e 1
NORTH
Not To Scale
A r e a M a p
1 0 1
Mitc he ll A ve
S.
Ai
r
por
t
Bl
vdHarbor Way B l v d Gatew ay Airport BlvdGrand Ave
Grand Ave
G ran d view
D r
San Mateo AveProduce AveForbes 1 01
Sister Cities Blvd Bayshore BlvdO y s te r P o i n t B lv d
Executive Dr Blvd Dubuque AveEccle sAveGullRdAllertonAveLittlefield Ave U t a h A v e
3 80
E as t E G ra nd E GrandOvercrossingRoebling Rd328 Roebling Rd EIR
= Project
Site
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av1234568910115E GrandG a te wa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandFigure 243GrandA irport 2SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1E GrandR oe bling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIRE GrandExecutiveOfframpS AirportWonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11San MateoA irport P roduce10MitchellGatewayS A irport
ExistingIntersection Lane Geometrics and ControlF= Signal= All Way Stop= Side Street Controlled Stop Sign98
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp141062556101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a te wa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoA irport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S A irport
4938GrandA irport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11671021831080 95 16 1 3 22515 115045221215 947459352611111815161337 35332471102233174 86E GrandR oe bling 756266527952417721226328647 332 33942333442180104 392 214 515 15514265750781803902491543668031017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIRFigure 3 Existing (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes3535495196437 63030612764 7122425511186 129 134162121361 6722250172106SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 152108128403114394
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a te wa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoA irport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S Airport
4938GrandA irport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandR oebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR9471 65401359 671229 290186177574197342131 419 623795 28 5 0 1 361791312 816154211210811033345160306145165 49 76110934 222290 819 927178 63222278289315188 358 23171Figure 4 Existing (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes16153 4762882441111070159 54 4566 93340793 286743350103 611244947 200 3553410134238917863019129 78152100476121134200
CRANE T R A NSPOR TA TIO N GROUP2 Caltrain and BART
Shuttle Maps
Figure 5
C
C SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CALTRAIN STATION
CALTRAIN SHUTTLE MAP
Utah/Grand Area Caltrain Shuttle
BART SHUTTLE MAP
Utah/Grand Area BART Shuttle Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveLittlefield AveHarbor WayU ta h A v
G ran d Grand Ave
F o r b e s B l v d
GatewayDubuqueE
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
230
E Grand
230
E Grand
1 0 1
B
B
B BART STATIONS
PROJECT SITEAirport San Mateo AvProduce AveLittlefield AveHarbor WayU ta h A v
Gr and Grand Ave
F o r b e s B l v d
Allerton AveRoebling RdGatewayDubuqueEastE
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
South San Francisco
= Closest shuttle stop to
project site.
= Closest shuttle stop to
project site.
Millbrae
1 0 1
PROJECT SITE
Allerton AveRoebling RdEast
328 Roebling Rd EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp141189556101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a te wa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoA irport P roduce10MitchellGateway
S A irport
Figure 6 2015 Without Project AM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandA irport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1691432281596 95 30 1 2 342149 16941531828622 991271317680256018155235108179421 35469481110248318 8641544968572 894E GrandR oe bling 7563011467952435915177208326 93663542747 342101042822636150205254152266 167 188104 411 277 625 2351426661436555915148874231156395921994002611704301252 954251191881111017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a tewa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoA irport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S A irport
Figure 7 2015 Without Project PM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandA irport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1E GrandR oe bling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR9465 6810717913003499 327211433686 341419211113181 66481102 30 20 1 1164299105704088761546112 8913852245176366146173113 7699141152633481031599433822251056 328177 16675 123 268501300248191142 9365315613 354814153575 1314 1477203 981689182929724528535480169 37210359101405302367210 487 31645167149214
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av1234568910115E GrandG a te wa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandFigure 843GrandA irport 2SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1E GrandR oe bling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIRE GrandExecutiveOfframpS AirportWonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11San MateoA irport P roduce10MitchellGatewayS A irport
Year 2015Intersection Lane Geometrics and ControlF= Signal= All Way Stop= Side Street Controlled Stop Sign98
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a tewa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoA irport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S A irport
Figure 9 2035 Without Project AM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandA irport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1E GrandR oe bling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR231308856731572402098264813717520411013830295141691219487286519155835125215453 35764527129249419 86486061059885 1313433412477211062442827182219443100292314579 785 938448226513160213256198356 178 290104 544 373 472 890 2471637231666576713652874228205688123247525279219445 1614 137041135219129
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a tewa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoA irport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S A irport
Figure 10 2035 Without Project PM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandA irport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1E GrandR oe bling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR232568826 396527610175320252 52 60 1 1 1971 17 6232402701177045105761561112 9317052745241361146192152 7697151069837491031824483962701658 484117 216159 135 275502300364206185 958842037 4311073324720 1508282117189118538710824831540795194 58315892101541327468225 507 45145179181245154197033355118 4419591 68
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandFigure 1143GrandA irport 21017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIRE GrandExecutiveOfframpWonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11 Year 2035Intersection Lane Geometrics and ControlF= Signal= Side Street Controlled Stop Sign8S Airport5E GrandG a te wa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
SB 101OfframpMillerA irport San MateoA irport P roduce10MitchellGatewayS A irport
91E GrandR oe bling 7
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a te wa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S A irport
Figure 12 Existing or 2015 Project Increment AM Peak Hour VolumesProject Increment (after allowingfor removal of existing site traffic)4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1E GrandR oe bling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR10-2-216-1 30-41 4 35142-2-21-2 103 3 3 1-2 -41312615 16
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a te wa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S A irport
Figure 13 Existing or 2015 Project Increment PM Peak Hour VolumesProject Increment (after allowingfor removal of existing site traffic)4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1E GrandR oe bling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR 41718 42 838 8 311816116 4 3 314 18311113 8 2 2 2 4
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp141072556101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a te wa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoA irport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S A irport
4938GrandA irport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11671011831110 95 12 1 4 22550 115045231215 987459352611111815161337 35346471102233176 86E GrandR oe bling 756264507952417721226128947 335 34242333442180104 392 210 515 15514265750781803902501543668081017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIRFigure 14 Existing + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes3535493196437 64630412774 7122425611186 129 132162123961 6882250172106SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 152108128416114395
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a te wa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoA irport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S Airport
4938GrandA irport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerAirport 1E GrandR oebling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR9475 65411376 671229 294187179574205342131 4204423798 28 13 1 1 361791312 816154211210811033345163306145165 50 76112734 226290 837 927178 63223278289315188 358 23571Figure 15 Existing + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes16153 4782882471111088175 54 4566 93340793 294743352103 641274947 202 3693410134238917864619129 78152100476121134200
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp141199556101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a te wa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S A irport
Figure 16 2015 with Project AM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1691422281622 951531838618422 1031271317680256018155235108179421 35483481110248320 8641542968572 910E GrandR oe bling 756299 263421694144713952435715177208324 94663842747 345101342822636150205255152266 167 186104 411 273 625 2351426661436557215148974231158995921994002621704301257 970251191881111017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a tewa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoA irport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S A irport
Figure 17 2015 with Project PM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandA irport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1E GrandR oe bling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR9469 6810818083003499 331212435686 349419211105113182105 30 28164299481105704088761546112 8913852245179366146173113 769914295423113501031617433822251072 332177 16675 123 268501300248191142 9365315613 356828153577 1348 1477203 981689182929724828635480169 38010359101405302367210 489 32045167149214
CRANE T R A NSP OR TA TIO N GROUP2328 Roebling Rd EIR
Figure 18
Project Driveway
2015 AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes
East Grand Ave Roebling Rd15
11
11
50
14
PROJECT
SITE
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
11
11
1
49
0
= Existing Volumes (to be eliminated)
= Total Project Volumes
East Grand Ave Roebling Rd423
8
0
PROJECT
SITE41
0
8
1
*
*
*
**
11
11
= Existing Volumes (to be eliminated)
= Total Project Volumes **
**
Total of all Driveways
serving 328 Roebling Rd
*Total of all Driveways
serving 328 Roebling Rd
Does not include existing volumes to and from the site, which will be eliminated
**Does not include existing volumes to and from the site, which will be eliminated
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a te wa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S A irport
Figure 19 2035 Project Increment AM Peak Hour Volumes2035 Project Increment (after allowingfor removal of existing site traffic)4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1E GrandR oe bling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR 9-3-314-1 27-5 3 30122-3-21-2 93 2 3 1-2 -51112314 14
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a te wa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoAirport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S A irport
Figure 20 2035 Project Increment PM Peak Hour Volumes2035 Project Increment (after allowingfor removal of existing site traffic)4938GrandAirport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1E GrandR oe bling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR 3 314153273311 721151522211413 3 3 1 30 22116 3
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a tewa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoA irport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S A irport
Figure 21 2035 with Project AM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandA irport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1E GrandR oe bling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR231317856731562402125264813717520411030245171691211689487286519155835125215453 35776527129249421 86486031059885 1327433382457131062442527182219441101192614579 787 941448226513160213257198356 178 288104 544 368 472 890 2471637231666577813652974228207988123247525280219445 1618 138441135219129
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2E GrandExecutiveOfframp101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesE Grand AveGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av123456891011S Airport5E GrandG a tewa y6E GrandH a rborForbes
GrandGrandOvercrossOvercrossD ubuque E GrandEastGrandSan MateoA irport P roduc e10MitchellGateway
S A irport
Figure 22 2035 with Project PM Peak Hour Volumes4938GrandA irport 2Wonder-US 101NB RampsColorS A irport
11SB 101OfframpMillerA irport 1E GrandR oe bling 71017PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR233570826 403 623527610175321254951971 52 242402701177045105761561112 9317052745243361146192153 769715257133117501031839483962701672 487117 216159 135 275502300364206185 968842037 4331086324722 1538282117189118538710825031640795194 58915892101541327468225 507 45445179181245155198433355118 4449594 68
CRANE T R A NSP OR TA TIO N GROUP2328 Roebling Rd EIR
Figure 23
Project Driveway
2035 AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes
East Grand Ave Roebling Rd15
11
10
45
14
PROJECT
SITE
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
11
10
1
44
0
= Existing Volumes (to be eliminated)
= Total Project Volumes
East Grand Ave Roebling Rd383
7
0
PROJECT
SITE37
0
7
1
*
*
*
**
11
11
= Existing Volumes (to be eliminated)
= Total Project Volumes **
**
Total of all Driveways
serving 328 Roebling Rd
*Total of all Driveways
serving 328 Roebling Rd
Does not include existing volumes to and from the site, which will be eliminated
**Does not include existing volumes to and from the site, which will be eliminated
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av2 Figure 24101PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR Existing with ProjectMitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control= Existing Signal= Existing Lanes= Mitigation= Adjust signal timing to accomodate specific queueing issues as opposed to optimizing intersection level of serviceTTGrandA irport 2F667E GrandH a rborForbesE GrandRoebling7Extend eastbound left turn lanefrom 75 feet up to 175 feet ofstorage Prohibit left turn entry and exit to and from driveway on southside of East Grand= Fair Share ContributionFSFS
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av2 Figure 25101PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR 2015 with ProjectMitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control= Existing Signal= Existing Lanes= Mitigation= Adjust signal timing to accomodate specific queueing issues as opposed to optimizing intersection level of serviceTTGrandA irport 2F667E GrandH a rborForbesE GrandRoebling7Extend the single westbound leftturn lane from 90 feet to at least225 feetExtend eastbound left turn lanefrom 75 feet up to 125 feet Prohibit left turn entry and exit at driveways on the north andsouth sides of East Grand Ave= Mitigated Signal= Fair Share ContributionFSFSFSFS= Mitigated Lanes
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUPNORTHNot To Scale2101Airport San Mateo AvProduce AveHarbor WayRoebling Miller Av Grand GatewayDubuqueForbesGrand AveEWondercolor LnMitchell Av2 Figure 26101PROJECT SITE328 Roebling Rd EIR 2035 with ProjectMitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control= Existing Signal= Existing Lanes= Mitigation= Adjust signal timing to accomodate specific queueing issues as opposed to optimizing intersection level of serviceTTGrandA irport 2F667E GrandH a rborForbesE GrandRoebling7Extend both westbound left turn lanes up to 275 feetExtend eastbound left turn lanefrom 75 feet up to 125 feet Prohibit left turn entry and exit at driveways on the north and south sides of East Grand Ave= Mitigated Signal= Fair Share ContributionFSFSFSFS= Mitigated Lanes
328 ROEBLING ROAD
1ST ADDENDUM
TO THE 2012 RECIRCULATED
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER
Economic &
OAD PROJECT
ECIRCULATED IS/MND
UMBER 2009022013
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
Lamphier–Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
May
Lead Agency:
Prepared By:
Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
May 2020
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page i
Table of Contents
I. Project Characteristics ................................................................................................ 1
II. Background, Purpose, and Organization .................................................................. 2
III. Project Description ...................................................................................................... 4
IV. Summary of CEQA Findings ..................................................................................... 10
V. Environmental Checklist ........................................................................................... 11
Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 11
A. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................. 12
B. Agricultural and Forest Resources ............................................................................................... 14
C. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 15
D. Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................ 18
E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 19
F. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................. 20
G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 22
H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfire .................................................................... 24
I. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 27
J. Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. 29
K. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................. 30
L. Noise ....................................................................................................................................................... 31
M. Population & Housing .................................................................................................................... 33
N. Public Services & Recreation ........................................................................................................ 34
O. Transportation and Circulation .................................................................................................... 35
P. Utilities and Service Systems and Energy ................................................................................. 38
Q. Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................................................................... 40
Attachments
A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B: Updated Cultural Records Searches
C: Climate Action Plan Preliminary Compliance Checklist
D: Fehr & Peers Traffic Operations and Vehicle Miles Assessments
E: Sewer Demand Estimates
Page ii Oyster Point Phases 2, 3, and 4 Project Addendum
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 1
I. Project Characteristics
1. Project Title: 328 Roebling Road Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Billy Gross, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco, Economic & Community
Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
Phone: 650-877-8535
4. Project Location: 328 / 340 Roebling Road and 233 East Grand
Avenue, South San Francisco
5. Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses: Healthpeak Properties
950 Tower Lane, Suite 1650
Foster City, CA 94404
6. Existing General Plan Designations: Business and Technology Park
7. Existing Zoning: Business and Technology Park (BTP)
8. Requested Approvals: Design Review Modification, Development
Agreement Amendment
Page 2 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
II. Background, Purpose, and Organization
Background
On January 28, 2009, the City of South San Francisco published an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) as the Lead Agency for the 328 Roebling Road (Britannia Modular Labs 3)
Project in the East of 101 Area of South San Francisco. That document concluded that, although the
proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, the potentially significant
effect could be reduced to less than significant levels through incorporation of mitigation measures.
A Recirculated IS/MND was subsequently circulated on July 2009. This document had been revised
in response to comments received from public agencies and recirculated per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15073.5(b)(1) because a new potentially
significant effect was identified (vehicle queuing at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue U.S. 101
off-ramp) along with mitigation to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Neither the original January 2009 IS/MND, nor the July 2009 Recirculated IS/MND were adopted by
the Lead Agency. Because of the time that had gone by and changes to various conditions and
analysis techniques, the Lead Agency decided to recirculate the IS/MND in 2012. The 2012
Recirculated IS/MND was certified and adopted along with project approval in 2012. This constitutes
the “Prior MND” (State Clearinghouse Number 2009022013) for purposes of this analysis.
As detailed in Section IV: Project Description, project-level details have been revised since the 2012
Project analyzed in the Prior MND.
Purpose
The purpose of this CEQA document is to analyze the current Project to determine if it qualifies for
an Addendum pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section
15164 such that no additional environmental review is required.
The current Project is a modification of the 2012 Project located on the same site. The 2012 Project
was approved in 2012 along with adoption of the Prior MND in which it was assessed. The Prior
MND is hereby incorporated by reference and can be obtained from the City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department at 315 Maple Avenue in South San Francisco,
and on the City of South San Francisco website at: https://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/ under Planning
/Environmental Reports.
CEQA Guidelines section 15164 specifies that an addendum to an adopted negative declaration may
be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration
have occurred.
Section 15162 specifies that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless one or more of the
following conditions are met:
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 3
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) 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 previous EIR or negative
declaration was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the
following:
A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
C) 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 mitigation
measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
The Environmental Checklist contained in this document summarizes the impact findings of the Prior
MND, which is the underlying negative declaration for the proposed project, and assesses whether
impacts of the proposed project would fall within those identified in the Prior MND or whether new
or more significant environmental impacts than those identified in the Prior MND are identified
which would trigger the need for a Subsequent EIR.
Organization
Section I, Project Characteristics presents a quick reference of the project details.
Section II, Purpose and Organization (this section).
Section III, Project Description details the proposed project.
Section IV, Summary of CEQA Findings summarizes the findings of this document.
Section V, Environmental Checklist details the potential environmental impacts of the project,
including the impact findings of the Prior MND and relevant Mitigation Measures (MMs) and
explains whether the current project would cause new or more significant environmental impacts
than those identified in the Prior MND.
Attachment A includes full text of the MMs applicable to the current project in the proposed
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Page 4 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
III. Project Description
Project Site and Vicinity
The approximately 3-acre (2.97-acre) Project site is located on Roebling Road, a cul-de-sac off of East
Grand Avenue, in the “East of 101 Area”, the traditional and continued core of South San Francisco’s
industrial and technology businesses, including Research and Development (R&D) offices. The site is
in a Business and Technology Park area, with similar uses nearby. The location of the project is
shown in Figure 1.
The East of 101 Area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on
the east side, U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the
north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The area has a mix of land uses,
including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and
development facilities. The area is separated from the majority of residential uses by U.S. 101,
though some houseboats are permitted at the nearby Oyster Point and Oyster Cove Marinas. While
the East of 101 Area has little vacant land, redevelopment remains extremely active as existing
facilities are upgraded as industry continues to evolve toward high-technology and research and
development uses.
Adjacent and to the east of the Project site is the location of a recent office and R&D project at 249-
279 East Grand Avenue. The property to the west of the Project site, across Roebling Road, is the
site of another recent office and R&D redevelopment project at 213 – 221 East Grand Avenue.
The project site is physically the same as it was during review of the 2012 Project in the Prior MND.
Three office/warehouse buildings currently occupy the Project site totaling 79,501 square feet, as
shown in Figure 2. The addresses are 233 East Grand Avenue, 328 Roebling Road, and 340 Roebling
Road. Since approval of the 2012 Project, tenants have been vacating the buildings in preparation of
anticipated demolition. Partial or total vacancy in preparation of redevelopment is a common
occurrence during CEQA review of a project and it is standard practice to consider the baseline use
to be the normal use of the site before vacancies were begun to be initiated for development.
Because the buildings currently remain and could be re-occupied with uses consistent with those
historically located in these buildings with no need for additional approvals, the baseline use for
purposes of CEQA analysis remains the same as it was in the Prior MND.
Construction is projected to take approximately 24 months to complete. The applicants noted a
target start date of January 2021, but a later start date would not change the conclusions in this
document.
Proposed Project and Comparison to 2012 Project
The Prior MND analyzed the 2012 Project, which proposed demolition of existing buildings and
construction of two buildings with a total of 105,536 square feet of office and R&D above several
stories of underground parking.
The current Project description has been revised to include one building with up to 129,919 square
feet of Office/R&D and a separate parking structure on the site. The current project plans are shown
on Figure 3 and the previous 2012 Project plan is included for comparative purposes as Figure 4.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 5
Figure 1: Project Location
Source: Prior MND
Page 6 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
Figure 2: Existing Site
Source: Applicants, dated 3/23/2020
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 7
Figure 3: Current Project Site Plan
Source: Applicants, dated 3/23/2020
Page 8 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
Figure 4: 2012 Project Site Plan (for comparison)
Source: Applicants, dated 3/23/2020
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 9
Figure 5: Current Project Elevations
Source: Applicants, dated 3/23/2020
Page 10 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
IV. Summary of CEQA Findings
Given the substantial evidence included in this Addendum document and attachments and the Prior
MND, the current project would not require subsequent analysis to the Prior MND pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162, for the following reasons and supported by the analyses and conclusions of
the environmental checklist contained herein:
(1) The current project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) There are no changes in circumstances that would result in the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; and
(3) There is no new information resulting in a new significant effect not discussed in new significant
environmental effects, a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects, or a change in the feasibility (or acceptance) of mitigation measures.
While the project has been revised since the Prior MND, this assessment has determined that this
Addendum, in conjunction with the Prior MND, serve to satisfy requirements under CEQA and no further
documentation is required per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164 and 15162. This addendum only
includes necessary minor technical changes and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guideline
section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
_______________________________________ _____________________
Sailesh Mehra, Chief Planner Date
City of South San Francisco
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 11
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Overview
The Abbreviated Environmental Checklist below compares potential environmental impacts of the
project to the findings of the Prior MND, notes whether the project would result in new significant
impacts or impacts substantially greater or more severe than those previously identified in the Prior
MND, and includes an explanation substantiating the findings for each topic. It uses the abbreviation LTS
for less-than-significant, LTS w/ MMs for impacts that are reduced to LTS with implementation of
identified mitigation measures (MMs), and NI for when No Impact was identified in the Prior MND.
The checklist also lists mitigation measures applicable to the current project impacts. A full list of the
MMs applicable to the current project can be found in Attachment A, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP). More detail regarding the significance criteria used in this document and
the environmental impacts of implementation of the project is available in the Prior MND available from
the City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department at 315 Maple Avenue
in South San Francisco, and on the City of South San Francisco website at: http://weblink.ssf.net under
Planning/Environmental Reports.
When a dash (--) appears in the checklist below, it means that the Prior MND did not identify any MMs
related to that environmental impact.
Page 12 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
A. Aesthetics
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Scenic Vistas LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Scenic Resources NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
c. Visual Character LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
d. Light or Glare LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Aesthetic Changes from the 2012 Project
As under the 2012 Project, existing buildings on the project site would be demolished and replaced with
new buildings. Visual models and renderings of the proposed development can be seen in Figures 3
through 5.
The 2012 Project was described as consisting of two modest buildings intended for younger-stage
companies and each would have reached a height of about 73’ (including rooftop equipment and
screening), including two floors for office/R&D and one partially subterranean level of parking.
The current Project has a more modern campus-style look with different massing than those shown in
the Prior MND and would include a 5-story office/R&D building at the East Grand Avenue frontage
reaching a height of 106’ (including rooftop equipment and screening) with a 3-story parking garage
(including rooftop parking as the 4th level) behind that reaching a height of approximately 30’.
Scenic Vistas
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion as there are no scenic vista viewpoints in the area and therefore the potential to
impact views is generally the same as under the 2012 Project despite revisions to the specifics of building
massing and location.
As noted in the Prior MND, San Bruno Mountain is a prominent visual landmark in South San Francisco,
and can be seen from many locations throughout the city, including many portions of the East of 101
Area. Construction of the proposed Project may block a small portion of the existing views to the north
from locations to the south. However, the areas from which views of the mountain may be blocked are
not designated scenic overlooks; and are not places where people gather in order to gain a view of San
Bruno Mountain. Therefore, blockage of existing views by the proposed Project, particularly given the
Project site’s urban setting, would be considered less-than-significant. The conclusion of less-than-
significant in regard to scenic vistas would remain the same even with the specific massing and location
of buildings proposed with the current project.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 13
Scenic Resources
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact
conclusion related to scenic highways, as the lack of scenic designation of the nearby highways is the
same as under the 2012 Project.
Visual Character
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant impact conclusion as re-development consistent with applicable design criteria would not be
considered a degradation of character or quality of the environment.
The visual character of the East of 101 area consists of a mixture of older and newer office and industrial
buildings, with differing amounts of associated landscaping. Development of the current project would
involve replacement of older office/warehouse buildings with new construction of modern buildings
with a modern design including landscaping and pedestrian improvements. While the heights and
massing will substantially increase over the existing conditions, the proposed conditions are within that
allowed under the zoning and consistent with other office/R&D development in the East of 101 area.
Therefore, consistent with conclusions of the Prior MND, while the site would look different following
construction, the construction of modern buildings meeting or exceeding the City’s design criteria would
not “degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site” or have a significant adverse impact in
this regard.
Light and Glare
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion as the proposed lighting levels and potential for light and glare would be
consistent with lighting standards and design guidelines and typical of existing surrounding
commercial/industrial urban development.
While the development proposed with the current project has different specific building massing and
locations, as specified in the Prior MND, building materials are required to have low glare potential and
new lighting would be required to conform to standards that limit the amount of light that can spill over
to other properties, all of which would be imposed as standard conditions of project approval. The
potential for light and glare impacts would remain substantially the same as under the 2012 Project and
less-than-significant.
Page 14 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
B. Agricultural and Forest Resources
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Convert Farmland NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
b. Conflict with
Agricultural
Designation
NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
c. Conflict with
Forest Designation
NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
d. Convert Forest NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
e. Indirect
Conversion of
Agricultural or
Forest Land
NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
Discussion
Same Conclusion (NI): There have been no changes in circumstance or new information related to
agriculture and forest resources, which do not occur in the project area, and there would be no change to
the no impact conclusion related to these topics.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 15
C. Air Quality
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Conflict with Air
Quality Plan
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Criteria Air
Pollutants
LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ MM AIR-1: Basic Construction Best
Management Practices
LTS w/MM
c. Sensitive
Receptors
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
d. Odors LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Air Quality Setting Changes from the 2012 Project
Since the 2012 Project, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has updated its CEQA
Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD Guidelines), which assist lead agencies in evaluating and mitigating air
quality impacts. The latest draft of the BAAQMD guidelines was issued in May 2017 and includes
thresholds consistent with those assessed in the Prior MND.
Since the 2012 Project, the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan updated the 2010 Clean Air Plan utilized in the
Prior MND assessment. The latest update to the Clean Air Plan includes similar but updated control
measures as discussed below.
Conflict with Air Quality Plan
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion related to conflict with an Air Quality Plan.
BAAQMD recommends analyzing a project’s consistency with current air quality plan primary goals and
control measures. The impact would be significant if the project would conflict with or obstruct
attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control measures.
The primary goals of the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan are:
• Attain all state and national air quality standards
• Eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from toxic air contaminants
• Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (This standard is
addressed in Section 8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions.)
The Project would be required to comply with all applicable rules and regulations related to emissions
and health risk and would therefore not result in a new substantial source of emissions or toxic air
contaminants (see topics below) or otherwise conflict with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Page 16 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are targeted to area-wide improvements, large stationary
source reductions, or large employers, and these are not applicable to the proposed Project. However,
the Project would be consistent with all rules and regulations related to construction activities and the
proposed development would meet current standards of energy and water efficiency (Energy Control
Measure EN1 and Water Control Measure WR2) and recycling and green waste requirements (Waste
Management Control Measures WA3 and WA4) and does not conflict with applicable control measures
aimed at improving access/connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians (Transportation Control Measure
TR9) or any other control measures.
The Project, therefore, would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan and have a less than significant
impact in this regard. While the Clean Air Plan and BAAQMD recommendations for determining
consistency have been updated since the Prior MND, this conclusion is consistent with the Prior MND.
Criteria Air Pollutants
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Air-1
and the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion related to construction-period emissions and
dust.
As noted in the Prior MND, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of fugitive
dust, criteria pollutants, and diesel exhaust particulate matter generated by demolition, grading,
hauling, and other construction related activities. While the proposed size of development has gone up
from 105,536 square feet to 129,919 square feet, this remains well below the BAAQMD construction
screening size of 277,000 square feet. As noted in the Prior MND, despite construction-period emissions
levels below BAAQMD thresholds, BAAQMD considers construction emissions and dust generated to be
a significant impact unless controlled by best management practices. These basic measures are included
in Mitigation Measure Air-1, which would be applicable to the current Project to reduce the potential
impact of construction dust and emissions to a less-than-significant level.
For operational emissions, the Prior MND quantified operational emissions using the URBEMIS model
and found them to be well below threshold levels. While the URBEMIS model is no longer used, a
comparison to the BAAQMD screening table shows that the project size of 129,919 square feet of office-
type uses remains well below the BAAQMD operational screening size of 346,000 square feet and can
therefore be assumed to have a less-than-significant impact related to operational criteria pollutant
emissions, consistent with the Prior MND conclusions.
Sensitive Receptors
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion related to exposure of sensitive receptors.
As noted in the Prior MND, the Project could result in emissions related to health risks from construction
equipment emissions and stationary equipment. BAAQMD requires appropriate permitting consistent
with health and safety requirements for any stationary equipment that may be installed. For CEQA
analysis, BAAQMD recommends assessment of health risk for sources/sensitive receptors within a 1,000
foot radius. As noted in the Prior MND, an office/R&D project is not itself considered a sensitive
receptor and the Project site is within an industrial/commercial area with no sensitive receptors located
within 1,000 feet of the Project. Therefore, it can be concluded that construction-period and
operational-period health risk would be less-than-significant, consistent with conclusions in the Prior
MND.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 17
Odors
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion related to odors.
As noted in the Prior MND, office/R&D uses are not the types of uses that generate frequent or
substantial odors, nor are there sensitive receptors to odors in the vicinity. Therefore, consistent with
the Prior MND, the impact related to odors would be less-than-significant.
Page 18 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
D. Biological Resources
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Special-Status
Species
LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Bio-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird
Survey
LTS w/MM
b. Riparian/Sensitive
Habitat
NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
c. Wetlands NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
d. Wildlife Corridors/
Nursery Sites
NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
e. Conflict with Local
Biological Policies
NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
f. Conflict with
Conservation Plans
NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
Discussion
Special-Status Species
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/MM): The current project would not change Impact Bio-1
and the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion related to the potential to disturb nesting birds.
As noted in the Prior MND, the Project site is characterized by an urban setting and is entirely
surrounded by like development. The General Plan EIR identified no biological habitat or occurrences of
sensitive species on or adjacent to the Project site. The site and its vicinity has little or no habitat value
and would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
special status species, except for possibly migrating birds, as discussed below.
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code of California protect special-status bird
species year-round, as well as their eggs and nests during the nesting season. The list of migratory birds
includes almost every native bird in the United States. On-site or adjacent trees could be used by
protected birds. Construction activities could adversely affect nesting birds protected by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and/or Fish and Game Code of California. Surveying for nesting birds and appropriate
protections if found, as detailed in Mitigation Measure Bio-1, would continue to be applicable to the
current Project to reduce the potential impact on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level.
All Other Topic Areas
Same Conclusion (NI): There have been no changes in circumstance or new information related to
biological resources - which do not occur in the project area - and there would be no change to the no
impact conclusion related to these topics.
As noted in the Prior MND, the Project site is located in an industrial/commercial area, on a site that has
previously been developed, and is predominantly covered with asphalt and buildings. The existing
limited vegetation consists of parking lot and screening landscaping and there are no significant
biological resources or conservation plans on the Project site.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 19
E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a-e. Historical
Resources,
Archaeological,
Paleontological,
Tribal Cultural
Resources, and
Human Remains
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Setting Changes from the 2012 Project
There have been no changes to the cultural and tribal cultural resources environmental setting of the
project site, and the details of the current project do not change the potential for cultural and tribal
cultural resources impacts.
Since the Prior MND, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act (Assembly Bill 52) was
passed, which is intended to minimize conflict between Native American and development interests. AB
52 adds "tribal cultural resources" to the specific cultural resources analyzed under CEQA. As had been
standard practice at the time, the Prior MND considered tribal cultural resources as part of the cultural
resources analysis, so they are discussed here.
Updated records searches were performed in 2020 to confirm no new information had become
available since the Prior MND, including a records search by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC)
at Sonoma State University, part of the California Historical Resources Information System, and a search
of the Sacred Lands Files by the Native American Heritage Commission (both included in Attachment B).
No tribes requested consultation under AB52.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion related to cultural and tribal cultural resources.
As under the Prior MND, the project site has been previously disturbed and is covered with paving and
buildings. Updated records searches confirmed no known cultural or tribal cultural resources at the
project site. As noted in the Prior MND, there are no historic resources on the site and while currently
unknown underground resources could be unexpectedly discovered during ground disturbance, such
discoveries are required to be handled appropriately according to Section 21083.2 of the Public
Resources Code dealing with the treatment and handling of underground cultural/tribal cultural
resources, Section 21084.1 dealing with the treatment of handling of historical resources, and Section
7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code/ Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code dealing with
discovery of human remains. Consistent with the conclusions in the Prior MND, with adherence to
applicable regulations, impacts related to accidental discovery of cultural/tribal cultural resources would
be less-than-significant.
Page 20 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
F. Geology and Soils
Impacts
Related To: 1
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Seismic Hazards LTS w/ MM ☒ ☐ Geo-1a: Compliance with California
Building Code
Geo-1b: Compliance with a design-
level Geotechnical Investigation and
with Structural Design Plans
Geo-1c: Obtain a Building Permit
Geo-2a: Compliance with a design-
level Geotechnical Investigation and
with Structural Design Plans
Geo-2b: Obtain a Building Permit
Geo-3: Compliance with
recommendations of a Geotechnical
Investigation
LTS w/ MM
b. Soil Erosion LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Geo-4: Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
LTS w/MM
c. Unstable Soil LTS w/ MM ☒ ☐ Geo-5: Investigate unstable fill soils
and Bay Mud
LTS w/ MM
d. Expansive Soil LTS w/ MM ☒ ☐ Geo-6: Compliance with
recommendations of a Geotechnical
Investigation and in conformance with
Structural Design Plans
LTS w/ MM
e. Septic Tanks NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
1 Note that the current CEQA Guidelines include paleontological resources in this section. These have been addressed
under Section E. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources as they were in the Prior MND.
Discussion
Geology and Soils Setting Changes from the 2012 Project
There have been no changes to the geology and soils environmental setting of the project site, and the
details of the current project do not change the potential for geological and soils impacts.
The current project would be required to meet current rules and regulation, including the updated
California Building Code. These regular updates to regulatory documents would not change the
conclusions of the Prior MND.
Seismic Hazards
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impacts Geo-2
through Geo-3, mitigation measures Geo-2a through Geo-3, or the less-than-significant with mitigation
conclusion as the known seismically active character of the region and potential for seismically induced
ground failure has not changed since the 2012 Project. The current project would also not change Impact
Geo-1 or the less-than-significant conclusion related to fault hazards as there are no known faults at the
site, and this has not changed since the 2012 Project.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 21
Consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, while there are no known faults at the project site, the
region where the project is located is known to be seismically active and the project will need to comply
with the California Building Code and project-specific geotechnical recommendations and building
permit requirements to address the potential for seismic hazards as detailed in mitigation measures
Geo-1a, Geo-1b, Geo-1c, Geo-2a, Geo-2b, and Geo-3.
Soil Erosion
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Geo-4,
mitigation measure Geo-4, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the potential for soil
erosion and requirement to include best management practices to reduce soil erosion potential have not
changed since the 2012 Project.
Unstable Geologic Unit and Expansive Soils
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impacts Geo-5
and Geo-6, mitigation measures Geo-5 and Geo-6, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion
as the need to account for unstable or expansive underlying fill soils and Bay Mud have not changed
since the 2012 Project.
Septic Tanks
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact
conclusion related to septic systems as the project area is serviced by the city’s sewer system, which has
not changed since the 2012 Project.
Page 22 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. GHG Emissions LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Conflict with GHG
Reduction Plans
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Setting Changes from the 2012 Project
Since the 2012 Project, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has updated its CEQA
Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD Guidelines), which assist lead agencies in evaluating and mitigating air
quality impacts. The latest draft of the BAAQMD guidelines was issued in May 2017 and includes
thresholds consistent with those assessed in the Prior MND.
Since the 2012 Project, the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan updated the 2010 Clean Air Plan utilized in the
Prior MND assessment. The latest update to the Clean Air Plan includes similar but updated control
measures as discussed below.
Since the Prior MND, the City adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan in 2014, the City of South San
Francisco Climate Action Plan, which includes various reduction measures to meet reduction goals.
GHG Emissions
Same Conclusion (Conclusions remains LTS): The current project is consistent with the Climate Action
Plan, which has been adopted since the Prior MND and would not change the less-than-significant
conclusion related to greenhouse gas emissions.
The relevant BAAQMD Guidelines significance thresholds for operational GHG emissions are:
• Compliance with Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, or
• Emissions at or below 1,100 metric tons (MT) CO2e or at or below an efficiency threshold of
4.6 metric tons (MT) CO2e per service population (residents and employees) per year
The BAAQMD Guidelines do not present a separate significance threshold for construction emissions,
though industry standard has become to divide the construction emissions over the expected lifetime of
the building and add to the annual emissions.
While the Prior MND had included modeling of GHG emissions and found them to be below applicable
threshold levels, since the Prior MND, the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan, which is a qualified
GHG reduction strategy. The Climate Action Plan includes reduction measures to be implemented to
meet city-wide reduction goals and per BAAQMD Guidelines, consistency with this plan is used in place
of project-specific GHG emissions modeling for assessment of project impacts.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 23
Many of the Climate Action Plan’s reduction measures are targeted to city-wide strategies that are not
directly applicable to development projects. The project would include pedestrian/bicycle connections
and participate in a Transportation Demand Management program to promote transit and reduce trips
(contributing to Measures 1.1 through 1.3). The project would include new tree plantings (Measure 3.4)
and would meet current standards of energy and water efficiency (Measures 3.1 and 6.1), and
occupants would participate in recycling for waste reduction (Measure 5.1).
Development projects in the city, including the current project, are required to complete a GHG
Compliance Checklist during the plan review process demonstrating that all applicable requirements are
met. The preliminary checklist demonstrating compliance is included as Attachment C. The current
project will comply with the Climate Action Plan and impacts related to GHG emissions would be less
than significant.
Consistency with GHG Reduction Plans
Same Conclusion (Conclusions remains LTS): The Clean Air Plan has been updated and the South San
Francisco Climate Action Plan has been adopted since the Prior MND but the current project remains
consistent with relevant plans and the no additional impact conclusion remains unchanged from the
Prior MND.
Consistency with the Climate Action Plan is discussed above and the current project would be consistent
with that plan.
BAAQMD recommends analyzing a project’s consistency with current air quality plan primary goals and
control measures. The impact would be significant if the project would conflict with or obstruct
attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control measures. The primary goal of the
2017 Clean Air Plan as it relates to GHG emissions is:
• Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050.
Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are targeted to area-wide improvements, regional
policies, or large stationary source reductions, and these are not directly applicable to the current
project. However, the current project would be consistent with all rules and regulations related to
construction activities and the proposed development would meet current standards of energy and
water efficiency (Energy Control Measure EN1 and Water Control Measure WR2) and recycling and
green waste requirements (Waste Management Control Measures WA3 and WA4) and the required
TDM plans (see Traf-1) will contribute to trip reduction programs (Transportation Control Measure TR2),
and improving access/connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians (Transportation Control Measure TR9).
The current project does not conflict with applicable control measures and is consistent with the Clean
Air Plan as well as the City’s Climate Action Plan. GHG emissions were assessed in this document per the
BAAQMD May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. BAAQMD’s thresholds and methodologies take into
account implementation of state-wide regulations and plans, such as the AB 32 Scoping Plan and
adopted state regulations such as Pavley and the low carbon fuel standard.
Therefore, as determined in the Prior MND, the impact in relation to consistency with GHG reduction
plans would be less-than-significant.
Page 24 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfire
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Routine Hazardous
Materials Use
LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Haz-1a: Registration in the Hazardous
Materials Business Plan Program
Haz-1b: Compliance with US
Department of Transportation, State
of California and local laws, ordinances
and procedures for transportation of
hazardous materials and hazardous
wastes
LTS w/MM
b. Risk of Upset LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and
Permitting
Haz-2b: Additional Soil Sampling of
Site Soils
Haz-2c: Implementation of a Site Soil
Management Plan
Haz-2d: California Accidental Release
Prevention Program (CalARP)
LTS w/MM
c. Hazardous
Materials within a ¼-
mile of a School
LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Haz-3: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a,
Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d
LTS w/MM
d. Hazardous
Materials Site
LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Haz-4: Mitigation Measures Haz-2a,
Haz-2b, Haz-2c, and Haz-2d
LTS
e. Airport Hazards LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
f. Emergency Access
Routes
NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
g. Wildfire 1 NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
1 Note that the current CEQA Guidelines include wildfire as an independent section. This topic has been addressed here as
it was in the Prior MND.
Discussion
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Setting Changes from the 2012 Project
The airport land use plan for the nearby airport has been updated since the Prior MND. The City/County
Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport was published in November 2012 including
updated regulations regarding allowable building heights in the project area.
Since the Prior MND, the CEQA Guidelines have been updated to include more detailed threshold
questions related to wildfire impacts in its own section. As had been standard practice at the time, the
Prior MND considered wildfire risk as part of the hazards and hazards materials section, so this topic is
discussed here. The expanded wildfire considerations apply to projects in areas that are very high fire
severity zones, which does not apply to the project, so are not further detailed.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 25
Routine Hazardous Materials Use
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Haz-1,
mitigation measures Haz-1a and Haz-1b, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion.
Proposed uses under the current project would require routine transportation, use or disposal of
hazardous materials and require compliance with applicable regulations, plans and programs, which
remains unchanged since the Prior MND.
This section pertains to recurring transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of long
term operation. Short-term transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials related to
construction and development is discussed in the following sections.
As noted in the Prior MND, while specific tenants have not yet been identified, R&D laboratories are
likely to handle materials considered to be biological hazards, chemical hazards and/or carry a risk of fire
or explosion. Office uses would involve household hazardous waste such as cleaners and vehicle
components. The risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport,
storage, use and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the public and
environment would be mitigated through compliance with applicable laws and regulations, adherence
to fire and safety codes, and participation in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan program as
applicable, as detailed in the mitigation measures.
Risk of Upset
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Haz-2,
mitigation measures Haz-2a through Haz-2d, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as
the potential for hazardous building materials in structures to be demolished and in site soils and
potential for accidental release of laboratory chemicals during operations remain unchanged since the
2012 Project.
As noted in the Prior MND, due to the age of existing buildings, they could contain hazardous building
materials such as lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials that would need to be abated
prior to demolition per applicable mitigation and site soils could contain contaminants related to historic
industrial use in the area that need to be handled appropriately per applicable mitigation. R&D facilities
are likely to involve hazardous materials stored or used on site, which could lead to an accidental
release if not handled appropriately as detailed in the mitigation. These conclusions are consistent with
the Prior MND.
Hazardous Materials Near Schools
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/MM): The current project would not change impact Haz-3,
mitigation measure Haz-3, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion related to hazardous
materials near schools as the need to handle hazardous materials appropriately has not changed since
the 2012 Project.
As noted in the Prior MND, the closest school-type use is the Gateway Childcare Center located
approximately 0.21 miles from the Project site, with all others being over one quarter mile from the
project site. With implementation of appropriate measures to minimize the potential for release of
hazardous materials, the impact would be less-than-significant, consistent with conclusions in the Prior
MND.
Page 26 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
Hazardous Materials Site
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/MM): The current project would not change impact Haz-4,
mitigation measure Haz-4, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion related to hazardous
materials sites as the need to handle hazardous materials appropriately has not changed since the 2012
Project.
As noted in the Prior MND, the site is not included on the “Cortese List” of hazardous materials sites.
However, because of the industrial history of the site, the site was conservatively considered to have the
potential for listing on such a site and the impact mitigated through appropriate handling of any site
contamination. This conclusion is consistent with the Prior MND.
Airport Hazards
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion related to airport hazardous because the Project remains consistent with the
Airport Land Use Plan, consistent with conclusions for the 2012 Project.
The airport land use plan for San Francisco International Airport has been updated since the Prior MND.
The Project site, is mapped in an area where critical aeronautical surfaces are between approximately
300 and 325 feet, which is well above the proposed building heights, as it was for the 2012 Project. This
is adequate to reach conclusions for this analysis though the applicant is required to comply with any
applicable FAA filing and notification requirements.
Emergency Access Routes
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact
conclusion as the current Project is redevelopment of an existing site and would not substantially change
major access and evacuation routes, which has not changed since the 2012 Project.
Wildfire
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact
conclusion as the project site is in a developed area and the lack of wildfire risk in the vicinity has not
changed since the 2012 Project.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 27
I. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a., e. Water Quality
and Water Plans
LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Hydro-1: Preparation and
Implementation of Project SWPPP
Hydro-3: Mitigation Measure Hydro-1
LTS w/MM
b. Groundwater NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
c. Alter Drainage LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Hydro-2: Mitigation Measure Hydro-1 LTS w/MM
d. Inundation LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Hydrology and Water Quality Setting Changes from the 2012 Project
The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances to
the ground such as excavation and has been updated since the Prior MND, though these changes are
not substantial as they relate to current project development. All construction and Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) activity would be in compliance with the Construction General Permit Order
2009-2009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ.
The California Department of Water Resources presented updated sea level rise scenarios in their
California Climate Science and Data for Water Resources Management in 2015. The future sea level rise
scenarios associated with planning and permitting development in potentially susceptible areas in the
San Francisco Bay Area are:
• a sea level rise of 24 inches by 2050; and
• a sea level rise of 66 inches by 2100.
These values represent the upper end of the range of sea level rise estimates and are consistent with
preliminary state recommendations for 100-year sea level rise. These values are meant to ensure that
projects take these potentially high estimates into account when planning infrastructure and
development projects and have changed slightly from the 16- and 55-inch assumptions used in the Prior
MND.
Water Quality and Water Plans
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impacts
Hydro-1 and Hydro-3, mitigation measures Hydro-1 and Hydro-3, or the less-than-significant with
mitigation conclusion as the potential for contamination of Bay water due to stormwater pollutants and
erosion or siltation remains substantially unchanged since the 2012 Project.
Construction activities at the site would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by
subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff during construction activities and
the potential for increased erosion and/or parking lot pollutants to impair water quality. These impacts
Page 28 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
would be mitigated through compliance with applicable permitting requirements and a project-specific
stormwater pollution prevention plan as detailed in the mitigation measures.
Groundwater
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact
conclusion related to groundwater depletion as the project area is nearly fully covered with impervious
area under existing conditions and is not used for groundwater supply and therefore development under
the current project would not result in the potential for groundwater depletion, which has not changed
since the 2012 Project.
Alter Drainage
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/MM): The current project would not change Impact Hydro-
2, mitigation measure Hydro-2, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the Project
would be required to meet the same or more stringent control of runoff, which has not substantially
changed since the 2012 Project.
As noted in the Prior MND, the Project site is not located in a flood zone. While the specific design of the
proposed Project has been revised, consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, it would not ultimately
alter the drainage pattern in a manner that would increase erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site,
as the Project is required to adhere to applicable regulations controlling runoff, including those detailed
in the mitigation.
Inundation
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusions related to inundation as the Project site is not subject to inundation hazards,
which has not substantially changed since the 2012 Project.
As noted in the Prior MND, the Project site is not located near an inland body of water (potential source
of seiches), a soil slope susceptible to rapid mass wasting or mudflows, or downstream of a dam or levee
and therefore is not at risk of inundation from these sources. Project site elevations range from 12 feet
to 31 feet above mean sea level, which are above tsunami wave run up inundation estimates (6 feet)
and updated climate change induced sea level rise inundation estimates (5.5 feet). Therefore, there is no
change to the less-than-significant conclusion in the Prior MND.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 29
J. Land Use
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Division of an
Existing Community
NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
b. Conflict with Land
Uses / Land Use
Plans
NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
Discussion
Land Use Setting Changes from the 2012 Project
There have been no substantial changes to the land use environmental setting of the Project site.
Development of the area has proceeded according to area plans and recent development.
Since the Prior MND, the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan was updated in 2015, but would
not substantially change impacts or conclusions for the proposed office/R&D development. The entire
General Plan is currently being updated but the updated document is not yet in effect and is not
anticipated to be substantially revised in relation to the project site and proposed development.
Division of an Existing Community
Same Conclusion (NI): The current Project would not change the no impact conclusion as the Project
would involve construction of on an already urbanized site, which has not changed since the 2012
Project.
Conflict with Land Uses / Land Use Plans
Same Conclusion (NI): The current project would not change the no impact conclusion as there are no
conflicts with land uses/land use plans, which has not changed since the 2012 Project.
As noted in the Prior MND, the proposed office/R&D use is specifically permitted by right and
encouraged for the area in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. While more square footage than the
2012 Project, the current Project remains within the allowable development intensity at a Floor Area
Ratio of 1.0.
Page 30 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
K. Mineral Resources
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Loss of Mineral
Resources
NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
b. Loss of Mineral
Recovery Sites
NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
Discussion
Same Conclusion (NI): There have been no changes in circumstance or new information related to
mineral resources, which do not occur in the Project area, and there would be no change to the no
impact conclusion related to mineral resources.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 31
L. Noise
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Noise LTS w/MM
☒ ☐ Noise-1: Construction Noise
Abatement and Limitation of
Construction Hours
LTS w/MM
b. Vibration NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
c. Airport Noise LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Noise Setting Changes from the 2012 Project
While the noise environment has not changed substantially from that assessed in the Prior MND and
remains primarily characterized by ambient noise, local traffic noise generated along arterial streets and
U.S. 101, and aircraft over-flights associated with San Francisco International Airport. The types and
locations of noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity have not substantially changed since the Prior MND.
The nearest noise sensitive receptors are over 1,000 feet away.
Noise
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/MM): The current project would not change Impact Noise-
1, mitigation measure Noise-1, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the potential for
loud construction activities has not substantially changed since the 2012 Project.
As noted in the Prior MND, the type of use and operational noise is consistent with that in the existing
environment and would not result in a significant impact. Operation of heavy construction equipment
could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels, but these would be mitigated
through construction noise abatement and construction hours limitations as detailed in the mitigation.
These conclusions are consistent with those made for the 2012 Project.
Vibration
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact
conclusion as the potential for groundborne vibration has not changed since the 2012 Project.
As noted in the Prior MND, the proposed uses are not the type that will generate substantial
groundborne vibration during operations and construction activities are of the type and distance from
existing structures that there is no potential for significant vibration impacts.
Airport Noise
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion as the site is outside the area significantly impacted by aircraft noise, which has
not changed since the 2012 Project.
Page 32 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
The airport land use plan for San Francisco International Airport has been updated since the Prior MND,
but the Project site remains well outside the airport’s noise-affected 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The
exterior noise environment at the Project site resulting from aircraft would be considered compatible
with proposed uses.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 33
M. Population & Housing
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Population Growth LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Displacement of
Housing or People
NI ☒ ☐ -- NI
Discussion
Population and Housing Setting Changes from the 2012 Project
The relevant planning document for this project and the analysis at issue is the City’s Housing Element
under its General Plan. The Housing Element was last adopted in 2015 and incorporates the Association
of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for South San Francisco.
Like other local and regional planning documents, the City’s Housing Element and General Plan are
regularly updated.
Population Growth
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact Pop-1 or the
less-than-significant conclusion as the potential for indirect population growth due to increased
employment has not changed since the 2012 Project.
The 2012 Project was assessed to have the potential to support between 192 and 264 employees. The
current Project is slightly larger and using the same methodology, could support between 236 and 325
employees. An increase in employees in the city could result in an indirect increase in population and
demand for housing. Consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, the project would increase
employment and contribute to the high jobs to housing ratio in the city but would be consistent with
local and area planning and would therefore have a less-than-significant impact related to indirect
population growth.
Displacement of Housing or People
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The current project would not change the no impact
conclusion as there have been no changes in the lack of existing housing or residents on the site since the
2012 Project.
Page 34 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
N. Public Services & Recreation
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Public Services LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Recreation LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Public Services and Recreation Setting Changes from the 2012 Project
Area-wide development has continued throughout the vicinity and public service and recreation plans
and operations are regularly assessed and updated. The SSFPD operates generally out of one main
station (as opposed to having substations), which is currently located at 33 Arroyo Drive but is planned
to move to the City’s Community Civic Campus project, near the current SSFPD location, once
constructed. The closest Fire Station to the project site will remain #62 at 249 Harbor Way,
approximately 0.6 miles away.
Public Services and Recreation
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion as the potential to increase demand for services and recreation has not changed
since the 2012 Project.
As under the 2012 Project, the current Project will be served by existing facilities (or those relocated
through separate projects), will meet emergency vehicle access standards, and will pay appropriate
development fees toward public services. The conclusion of a less-than-significant impact with respect
to public services remains unchanged for the current Project.
As noted in the Prior MND, while it is possible that some users of the Project site would make use of City
recreational facilities, the increase in daytime worker population would represent a negligible increase
in the use of parks and would not substantially deteriorate existing parks or recreational facilities or
require the construction of new facilities. As under the 2012 Project, the current Project would be
required to pay development fees, including a park in-lieu fee. The conclusion of a less-than-significant
impact with respect to recreation remains unchanged for the current project.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 35
O. Transportation and Circulation
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Conflict with
Circulation Plans or
Policies
LTS
☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Conflict with
Transportation
Impact Reduction
Goals*
LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Traf-1: Airport Boulevard / Grand
Avenue Signal Timing
Traf-3: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling
Road Turn Lane Extension
Traf-3: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling
Road Signalization
LTS w/MM
c. Increase Hazards LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ Traf-4: Improvements to Grade
Crossing Approach Signing &
Pavement Striping
LTS w/MM
d. Inadequate
Emergency Access
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
a State CEQA Guidelines have been revised since the Prior MND such that intersection and roadway specific service level
analysis will be replaced by an analysis of the amount of vehicle miles traveled per CEQA Section 15064.3. However,
such a change does not apply statewide until July 2020, and has not been implemented by City of South San Francisco.
Therefore, it is not further discussed here.
Discussion
Traffic engineers Fehr & Peers prepared a traffic operations review and vehicle miles assessment as
referenced in this document and included in full as Attachment D.
Transportation Setting Changes from the 2012 Project
Area-wide development has continued throughout the vicinity as anticipated under area plans and
included in the cumulative traffic analysis in the Prior MND.
Since the adoption of the Prior MND, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted new
CEQA Guidelines in 2018 to implement the requirements of California Senate Bill (SB) 743 that would
render impacts based on vehicular delay no longer a consideration under CEQA by July 2020.
Specifically, SB 743 and the resulting CEQA Guideline section 15064.3 changed the CEQA transportation
impact analysis significance criteria to eliminate auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measures
of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA
(although a jurisdiction may choose to maintain these measures under its General Plan, as South San
Francisco does). The changes in CEQA Guidelines to implement SB 743 present vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) as an appropriate measure of transportation impacts. However, the requirements of section
15064.3 do not apply statewide until July 2020 and at that point would only apply prospectively. At
present, the City of South San Francisco has not adopted VMT as a transportation impact criterion or
established VMT significance thresholds and they are not yet required to do so. As a result, a VMT
analysis is not included as part of this CEQA analysis.
Page 36 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
Conflicts with Circulation Plans or Policies
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion as the City’s TDM ordinance continues to require alternative mode shift and the
current project would include pedestrian and bicycle facilities meeting applicable requirements and
safety standards as under the 2012 Project.
As under the 2012 Project, per the City’s TDM Ordinance, the current project is required to implement a
TDM Plan to increase use of alternative modes to reduce vehicular trips to/from the project site.
Consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, with implementation of a TDM Plan, the Project’s impact
on adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation would be less-than-
significant.
Conflict with Transportation Impact Reduction Goals
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impacts Traf-1
and Traf-3, mitigation measures Traf-1 and Traf-3, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion
as trip generation under the current project would be substantially the same as under the 2012 Project
and area growth was analyzed under the cumulative analysis in the Prior MND.
Traffic engineers Fehr & Peers prepared a trip generation comparison between the 2012 Project office
and the current Project, as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Updated Trip Generation and Comparison to 2012 Project
Land Use Size (KSF)1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Current Project
Office/R&D2 129.9 77 17 94 12 65 77
TDM Reduction (35%)3 27 6 33 4 23 27
Current Project Trips 50 11 61 8 42 50
2012 Project
Office/R&D2 105.5 63 14 76 10 53 63
TDM Reduction (20%)4 13 3 15 2 11 13
2012 Project Trips 50 11 61 8 42 50
Net Difference in Project Trips5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Baseline Site Trips 6 14 15 29 0 3 3
Net Difference in Trips Added to the
Network7 +14 +15 +29 0 +3 +3
Notes:
1. KSF = thousand square feet
2. A combined Office/R&D rate, based on Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition (2008) rates for land use 710 and 760, and TJKM East of 101
Study (2011), consistent with rates used in the Prior MND
3. 35% reduction in peak hour vehicle trips based on updated City mandated TDM program and Development Agreement
4. 20% reduction to peak hour vehicle trips based on City mandated TDM program at that time
5. Current Project Trips minus 2012 Project Trips
6. Baseline Site Trips are the trips from existing uses that reported in the Prior MND.
7. Because the site has been transitioning to vacant since the previous analysis and approval, it was assumed for the traffic assessment
that there are currently no existing trips at the site. While there is no net difference in Project trips for CEQA purposes, this difference
in trips added to the network was used to assess the project against current roadway network conditions to determine applicability of
mitigation and conclusions.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 37
There have not been substantial changes to the roadway system in the area since the Prior MND was
prepared and certified. However, there has been development in the vicinity during that time and
changes in both the existing and projected traffic levels in the area.
Fehr & Peers used the above trip generation information with recent roadway counts to assess the Prior
MND mitigation measures and conclusions and found them to remain applicable given the current
Project and current roadway conditions. Current roadway levels are within those identified under
cumulative conditions in the Prior MND and as concluded in the Prior MND, identified mitigation would
mitigate impacts under existing and cumulative conditions. Roadway level of service mitigation includes
signal timing at Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue, and signalization and turn lane extension at E. Grand
Avenue / Roebling Road and would remain applicable to the current Project.
While not yet required as the City has not yet adopted applicable thresholds, the project’s VMT was also
assessed by Fehr & Peers. Since the City has not yet established a VMT impact threshold, the most
recent research conducted by California Air and Resources Board (CARB) was used to set an interim
threshold for this informational assessment. CARB’s assessment of progress toward state goals
concluded that the statewide VMT reduction needed to meet long term GHG reduction targets is 16.8
percent below the regional baseline. Therefore, the threshold of 16.8 percent below the regional
average is used and expressed as average home-based work (HBW) VMT per employee across the nine-
county Bay Area. The nine county Bay Area average HBW VMT per employee of 14.2 VMT.
Based on the C/CAG model, which includes detailed roadway network and local land use data for the
Project area, employees in the East of 101 Area have an average HBW VMT of 16.0, which is 13% above
the regional average and therefore would not meet the proposed threshold of 16.8% below the regional
average. Because the C/CAG model is based on existing land use and traffic patterns, it already accounts
for some level of shift to alternative modes under the TDM Plans of existing uses and therefore cannot
be fully discounted by the Project’s required TDM Plan reductions. That being said, the enhanced 35%
reduction required under the current TDM Ordinance would likely further reduce the project’s VMT
reported here.
Note that there would be no difference in the VMT numbers between the 2012 Project and the current
Project because it is based on project location and type and not the specific amount of square footage
or design.
Hazards and Emergency Access
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change Impact Traf-5,
mitigation measure Traf-5, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the site has been
designed to meet safety standards and would be substantially the same as under the 2012 Project.
As concluded in the Prior MND, Project traffic would exacerbate an existing safety hazard caused by lack
of appropriate signs and markings at the nearby at-grade railroad crossings running diagonally across
the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection and the Project would be required
to contribute toward all needed sign and pavement markings. This remains applicable to the current
Project.
Fehr & Peers also assessed circulation of the current Project site plan and determined it would not result
in site hazards or lack of emergency access. This is consistent with the conclusions of the Prior MND.
Page 38 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
P. Utilities and Service Systems and Energy
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. New or Expanded
Facilities
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Water Supplies LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
c. Wastewater
Capacity
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
d-e. Solid Waste LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
f. Energy 1 (LTS)1 ☒ ☐ -- LTS
1 Note that the current CEQA Guidelines include energy as an independent section. Energy was not formally assessed in
the Prior MND, which under CEQA is a presumption of a less-than-significant impact as discussed below.
Discussion
Utilities and Service Systems Setting Changes from the 2012 Project
Area-wide development has continued throughout the vicinity and utilities plans and service are
regularly assessed and updated, including Cal Water’s South San Francisco District Water Supply and
Facilities Master Plan, the City’s Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), and contracts and operations
related to solid waste.
California Assembly Bill (AB) 341 requires businesses that generate 4 or more cubic yards of waste per
week to recycle. AB 1826 requires all businesses to subscribe to organics recycling service. The City of
South San Francisco has implemented these requirements through programs run by the South San
Francisco Scavenger Company.
New or Expanded Facilities
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion related to new or expanded facilities as the need for new or expanded facilities has
not changed since the 2012 Project.
As under the 2012 Project, the current project will be served by existing facilities (or those relocated
through separate projects). As with the 2012 Project, the current Project would not itself require new or
expanded off-site facilities. The conclusion of a less-than-significant impact with respect to new or
expanded utility facilities remains unchanged for the current project.
Water Supply
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion as the current project would not substantially change projected increases in water
demand.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 39
The size of the project does not trigger a need for a project-specific Water Supply Assessment, and as
noted in the Prior MND, the proposed project is consistent with development potential of the site,
which is included in local and regional water supply planning. The conclusion of a less-than-significant
impact with respect to water supply remains unchanged for the current Project.
Wastewater
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion as the current project would not substantially change projected wastewater
generation or planned capacity.
The applicant has submitted a Sewer Demand Assessment taking into account the previous and current
project details and current water usage and wastewater standards and demonstrated that wastewater
generation of the project would be marginally less than what would have been anticipated under the
2012 Project (average flow of 0.01650 million gallon per day compared to 0.01657 under the 2012
Project). The Sewer Demand Assessment is included as Attachment E. As noted in the Prior MND, the
proposed project is consistent with development potential of the site, which is included in local and
regional wastewater capacity planning. The conclusion of a less-than-significant impact with respect to
wastewater capacity remains unchanged for the current Project.
Solid Waste
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion as the project would comply with applicable solid waste regulations.
The Prior MND determined that the Project would utilize solid waste services provided in South San
Francisco and would comply with applicable recycling standards intended to meet applicable regulations
or goals. While specific requirements for commercial solid waste service are regularly updated, the
current project would meet all current requirements and the impact would remain less-than-significant
and consistent with Prior MND conclusions.
Energy
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The Prior MND did not explicitly address energy (assumed
LTS) but both the 2012 Project and the current Project are consistent with area-wide planning and would
comply with applicable energy efficiency regulations.
The Project would be considered to have a significant impact related to energy use if it would violate
applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations relating to energy standards and/or if energy
consumption increases resulting from the Project would trigger the need or expanded off-site energy
facilities.
The current project would be required by the City to comply with all standards of Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations and the new California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN), as
applicable, aimed at the incorporation of energy-conserving design and construction. PG&E
infrastructure exists on the current project site, and any on-site and immediately adjacent
improvements and extensions required to accommodate the redevelopment would be determined in
consultation with PG&E prior to installation. The Project is consistent with area planning and by itself
would not result in the need for new or expanded off-site facilities. As a result, although the Project
could incrementally increase energy consumption, it would not result in a significant impact related to
the provision of energy services.
Page 40 328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum
Q. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Impacts
Related To:
Prior MND
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to Prior
MND Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or
Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Quality of the
Environment
LTS w/MM
☒ ☐ See checklist topics above LTS w/MM
b. Cumulatively
Considerable
Impacts
LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ See checklist topics above LTS w/MM
c. Adverse Effects on
Human Beings
LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ See checklist topics above LTS w/MM
Discussion
Quality of the Environment
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change the impacts,
mitigation measures, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusions from the Prior MND and,
with mitigation, would not significantly degrade the quality of the environment.
Consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, while Project implementation could lead to development
with the potential to adversely affect the environment in terms of impacts to various CEQA issue topics,
as demonstrated in this document, impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with
mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not degrade the quality and extent of the
environment provided all policies, rules, and regulations of all relevant governing bodies are adhered to,
and the mitigation measures contained within this document are implemented.
Cumulative Impacts
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change the impacts,
mitigation measures, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusions from the Prior MND and,
with mitigation, would not result in cumulatively considerable significant impacts.
As noted in the Prior MND, while the East of 101 Area is substantially built-out, redevelopment of sites
with higher-intensity uses occurs throughout the area, as it is on this site, and would be considered the
cumulative context. Through conformity with applicable regulations and design-level plans, the
potentially significant Project-specific impacts would be reduced below significance levels, which include
those related to nesting birds, seismic ground shaking and other geological hazards, erosion and
pollutant runoff, hazardous materials, water quality, drainage, noise, and traffic impacts. With the onsite
reduction of these impacts, the Project’s contribution to cumulative increases in these areas would not
be considered cumulatively considerable. Consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, cumulative
impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with mitigation.
328 Roebling Road Project 1st IS/MND Addendum Page 41
Adverse Effects on Human Beings
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The current project would not change the impacts,
mitigation measures, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusions from the Prior MND and,
with mitigation, would not result in adverse effects on human beings.
Consistent with conclusions in the Prior MND, while human beings could be affected by a variety of
impacts described above, as demonstrated in this document, impacts of the Project are considered to be
less than significant with mitigation. Impacts with the potential to adversely affect humans, including
those in topics of noise, hazardous materials, air quality, and traffic would be less than significant with
mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in adverse effects on human
beings provided all policies, rules, and regulations of all relevant governing bodies are adhered to, and
the mitigation measures contained within this document are implemented.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment A
to the
328 Roebling Road Project
1st Addendum to the Recirculated IS/MND
328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 1
328 Roebling Road Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (May 2020)
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Air-1: Basic Construction Best Management Practices. The
Project shall demonstrate proposed compliance with all applicable
regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition,
building or grading permits, including implementation of the
following BAAQMD “Basic Construction Mitigation Measures”.
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two
times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-
site shall be covered.
c. 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.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e. 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.
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5
minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations
[CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers
at all access points.
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly
tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All
equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person
to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This
person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.
During
construction
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Verify
requirements
are met during
construction
SSF Building
Division
PAGE 2 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
Bio-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Pre-construction
surveys for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California within 100 feet of
a development site in the Project area shall be conducted within 30
days of initiation of construction activities. If active nests are found,
the Project shall follow recommendations of a qualified biologist
regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of
nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity. The
buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and
left the nest. If there is a complete stoppage in construction activities
for 30 days or more, a new nesting-survey shall be completed prior to
re-initiation of construction activities.
Prior to
construction if
during nesting
period
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Completion of
survey and, if
birds present,
provision of
buffer
SSF Planning
Division
Geo-1a: Compliance with California Building Code. Project
development shall meet requirements of the California Building
Code as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions
adopted by the City of South San Francisco. Incorporation of seismic
construction standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic
effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure.
Prior to
construction
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Adherence to
code,
completion of
report and
issuance of
permit
SSF Building
Division
Geo-1b: Compliance with a design level Geotechnical
Investigation report and with Structural Design Plans. Proper
foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in
accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical
Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical design and a
Registered Structural Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in
structural design.
The structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic
parameters as outlined in the California Building Code. The Project
Geotechnical Investigation shall establish the seismic design
parameters, as determined by the geotechnical engineer in
accordance with requirements of the California Building Code.
Prior to
construction
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Adherence to
code,
completion of
report and
issuance of
permit
SSF Building
Division
328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 3
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Geo-1c: Obtain a building permit and complete final plan
review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through
the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of
planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building
Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned
commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of
South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan,
Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to
catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will
allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong
earthquake.
Prior to
construction
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Adherence to
code,
completion of
report and
issuance of
permit
SSF Building
Division
Geo-2a: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical
Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans.
A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the
site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical
Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering,
and shall include analysis for liquefaction potential of the underlying
sediments. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be
performed in accordance with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be
reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by
the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer, or civil
engineer experienced in structural engineering shall prepare Project
structural design plans. Structures shall be designed to minimize the
effects of anticipated seismic settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer
shall review the Structural Design Plans and provide approval for the
geotechnical elements of the plans. The design plans shall identify
specific mitigation measures to reduce the liquefaction potential of
surface soils. Mitigation measures may include excavation and
replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation loading, and
ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or pressure
grouting.
Prior to
construction
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Completion of
adequate
report,
adherence of
plans to the
report and
issuance of
permit
SSF Building
Division
Geo-2b: Obtain a building permit and complete plan review. The
Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of
South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned
Prior to
construction
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
Completion of
adequate
report,
SSF Building
Division
PAGE 4 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division
for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial
and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San
Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical
Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic
collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of
occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake.
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
adherence of
plans to the
report and
issuance of
permit
Geo-3: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical
Investigation. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be
prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered
Geotechnical Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering, and shall include analysis of the site slope
stability. Proper foundation engineering and retaining wall design
shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be
reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by
the City Engineer.
Prior to
building
permit
issuance
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Completion of
adequate report
SSF Building
Division
Geo-4: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In
accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources
Control Board, the Applicant shall file a SWPPP prior to the start of
construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best management
practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage
under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated
with Construction Activity.
Prior to
construction
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Verification
that adequate
plan prepared
SSF Building
Division
Geo-5: Investigate unstable fill soils and Bay Mud. A Design
Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be performed to determine the
depth and extent of potentially unstable fill soil and Bay Mud. Based
on results of this study, the Geotechnical Engineer shall determine
appropriate measures to stabilize the potentially unstable site soils.
Consolidation testing of any Bay Mud soils present shall be
performed, as part of the Design Level Geotechnical Investigation,
and estimates of settlement for the site shall be developed.
Prior to
building
permit
issuance
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Completion of
adequate report
SSF Building
Division
328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 5
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Methods of unstable soil stabilization may include construction of
driven pile foundations that support structures on materials located
below fill soils and Bay Mud, and other methods as recommended by
the Geotechnical Engineer.
Geo-6: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical
Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans.
A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the
site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical
Engineer and shall include analysis for expansion potential of the site
soils. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be
performed in accordance with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be
reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and by
the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer shall prepare
Project structural design plans. The design plans shall identify
specific mitigation measures to reduce the effects of expansive
surface soils. Mitigations measures may include the following:
Excavate expansive soils and replace with at least one foot of non-
expansive fill. Design and construct structures to withstand expected
stresses by the implementation of the following: minimize use of
slab-on-grade floors; support buildings and slabs on non-expansive
materials; chemically treat expansive materials to reduce expansion
potential; avoid siting structures across soil materials of substantially
different expansive properties; extend foundations below the zone of
seasonal moisture change; utilize pier-and-grade-beam foundation
systems where appropriate; utilize special bending resistant design;
and prevent accumulation of surface water adjacent to buildings.
Prior to
building
permit
issuance
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Completion of
adequate report
SSF Building
Division
Haz-1a: Registration in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan
Program. Qualifying businesses occupying and/or operating at the
development must submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for
the safe storage and use of chemicals to the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department prior to the start of operations,
and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once
every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Plans
shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health
Prior to the
start of
operations by
businesses
using
hazardous
materials
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Verification of
adherence to
measures
SSF Building
Division
PAGE 6 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Business Plan Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363-4305
for more information.
Businesses qualify for the Hazardous Materials Business Plan
Program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than
the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons
for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard
temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Exemptions include
businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods; medical
professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in
quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and
whom store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that
store no more than 55 gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and
for which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons
for all types of lubricating oil. These exemptions are not expected to
apply to Class A laboratory facilities.
The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous
materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous
materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of
using these materials, included in material safety data sheets for each
material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan,
employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency
contact information.
Haz-1b: Compliance with US Department of Transportation,
State of California and local laws, ordinances and procedures for
transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All
transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and
from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation, State of
California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures including
placards, signs and other identifying information.
During
operations by
businesses
using
hazardous
materials
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Adherence to
stated laws and
regulations
SSF Fire
Department
Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A demolition plan with
permit applications shall be submitted to the City of South San
Francisco Building Department for approval prior to demolition. The
Demolition Plan for safe demolition of existing structures shall
Prior to
demolition
and soil
disturbance
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
Preparation of
adequate plan
SSF Building
Division
328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 7
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
include asbestos dust control and incorporate recommendations from
the site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building
materials, as well as additional surveys when required by the City.
The Demolition Plan shall address both on-site worker protection and
off-site resident protection from both chemical and physical hazards.
All contaminated building materials shall be tested for contaminant
concentrations and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed
landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building
materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and
asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in
accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The
Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust
particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension
of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior
to obtaining a demolition permit from BAAQMD, an asbestos
demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the
requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2.
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Haz-2b: Additional Soil Sampling of Site Soils. The applicant shall
retain a licensed Civil Engineer or Professional Geologist to
complete additional surface and subsurface soil sampling to
determine if elevated levels of toxic metals, herbicides, motor oil, or
wood preservatives are present in site soils. These tests shall take
place throughout the Project site. If contamination exceeding
commercial/industrial guidelines including the Regional Water
Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels for
commercial/ industrial sites, USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals
for commercial/ industrial sites, and the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control Human Health Screening Levels is
detected, then a Site Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety
Plan shall be prepared and implemented, as discussed in Mitigation
Measure Haz-2c.
Prior to
demolition
and soil
disturbance
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Preparation of
adequate plan
SSF Building
Division
Haz-2c: Implementation of a Site Soil Management Plan. If
contamination of site soils is detected, then results shall be submitted
to the State of California EPA, pursuant to the Brownfield
Memorandum of Agreement, Request for Oversight of a Brownfield
Prior to
demolition
and soil
disturbance
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
Preparation of
adequate plan
SSF Building
Division
PAGE 8 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Site process, and a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in
accordance with recommendations of the environmental consultant
and established procedures for safe removal. Specific mitigation
measures designed to protect human health and the environment will
be provided in the plan. At a minimum the plan shall include, but not
be limited to the following:
(1) Documentation of the extent of previous environmental
investigation and remediation at the site.
(2) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs)
to be prepared by all contractors at the Project site. This includes
a HASP for all demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as
well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall
include appropriate training, any required personal protective
equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine
exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and approved by a
Certified Industrial Hygienist.
(3) Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of
previously unidentified hazardous materials that could be
encountered during Project development, including engineering
controls that may be required to reduce exposure to construction
workers and future users of the site.
(4) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would
minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination found to
occur. This shall include treatment and disposal measures for
any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations,
trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines.
(5) Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine
suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state
licensed landfill facility.
(6) Restrictions limiting future excavation or development of the
subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development
if determined necessary through coordination with California
EPA.
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 9
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
(7) The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the responsible
jurisdiction prior to issuance of any demolition, grading and
construction permits for the Project.
Haz-2d: California Accidental Release Prevention Program
(CalARP). Future businesses at the development shall check the
state and federal lists of regulated substances available from the San
Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD).
Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public
health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic,
flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to use
in consultation with the SMCEHD.
Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a
CalARP registration form and submit it to Environmental Health.
Following registration, they shall submit a Risk Management Plan
(RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure
that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency
response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that
store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated
substance must develop a RMP and follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the
environment in the event that a regulated substance is released near
schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs
must include procedures for: keeping employees and customers safe,
handling regulated substances, training staff, maintaining equipment,
checking that substances are stored safely, and responding to an
accidental release.
After
construction,
prior to start
of operations
by businesses
using
hazardous
materials
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Assurance
qualifying
businesses
prepare RMP
SSF Planning
Division
Hydro-1: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP.
Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall develop
a SWPPP to protect water quality during construction and submit the
SWPPP as part of project application submittals with the Planning
Permit Application and Building Permit Application. The Project
SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation
measures for the construction period:
Prior to
construction
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Verification
that adequate
plan prepared
SSF Building
Division
PAGE 10 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
1) Grading and earthwork shall be allowed with the appropriate
SWPPP measures during the wet season (October 1 through April
30) and such work shall be stopped before pending storm events.
2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw
mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and
hydro-seeding, shall be utilized, in accordance with the
regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments
Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures.
Silt fences used in combination with fiber rolls shall be installed
down slope of all graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in
the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and
around storm drain inlets.
3) “Best management practices” (BMPs) for preventing the
discharge of other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside
sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, trash, etc.) to downstream waters
such as covered and contained storage areas, contained wash-out
areas, and prompt and appropriate disposal.
4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be
inspected for accumulated sediment and trash, and these drainage
structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment.
In accordance with the handbook C.3 Stormwater Technical
Guidance, permanent mitigation measures for stormwater shall be
submitted as part of project application submittals with the Planning
Permit Application and Building Permit Application. Elements that
shall be addressed in the submittals include the following:
5) Description of potential sources of erosion, sediment, and trash at
the Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and
chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site should
be described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing
and potential pollutant sources.
6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based
on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources,
including non-point source pollutants. Emphasis shall be placed
on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed.
328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 11
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
7) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan.
Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully
described including vector control, clearing of clogged or
obstructed inlet or outlet structures, trash removal,
vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters,
regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc.
Wastes removed as a result of the BMPs described above may be
hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to
include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared
of debris that may enter the storm drain system on a daily basis.
8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at
the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South
San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and
submitted annually to the State Water Resources Control Board.
The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any
inadequacies identified through the monitoring.
9) Proposed locations and sizing of stormwater treatment measures
shall be included.
The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on
industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions
from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed
to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum the information
shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b)
proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate
disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of
any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm
drains.
Noise-1: Construction Noise Abatement and Limitation of
Construction Hours. Construction hours shall be limited to the
hourly restrictions specified in the City Noise Ordinance, and the
Project sponsor shall require by contract specification that
construction best management practices be implemented by
contractors to reduce noise levels to the 90-dBA at 25 feet noise limit
specified in the City Noise Ordinance. Required practices shall
include but not be limited to:
During
construction
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Adherence to
measures
during
construction
SSF Building
Division
PAGE 12 328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
• Ensuring that construction equipment is properly muffled
according to industry standards,
• Implementing noise attenuation measures such as noise barriers
or noise blankets, and
• Requiring heavily loaded trucks used during construction to be
routed away from noise and vibration sensitive uses.
Traf-1: Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue Signal Timing.
Adjust signal timing to the approval of the South San Francisco
Public Works Department in order to reduce Base Case + Project
95th percentile vehicle queuing for the left turn movement on the
southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Grand Avenue to a
shorter distance than Base Case queuing for this movement.
Prior to
occupancy
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Coordinate to
implement
SSF Public
Works
Department
Traf-2: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Turn Lane Extension.
The following improvement is not included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the
Project’s traffic impact fee contribution for this program. The Project
proponent will be responsible for implementation of the following
improvement:
Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound E. Grand Avenue approach
to Roebling Road from 75 feet to a minimum of 125 feet and a
maximum of 175 feet (as determined by the City Engineer).
Prior to
occupancy
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Coordinate to
implement
SSF Public
Works
Department
Traf-3: E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road Signalization. The
following improvements are not currently included as part of the East
of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded
via the Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The
Project proponent will be responsible for implementation of the
following improvement or fair-share reimbursement (as determined
by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to
initiation of construction for this Project:
Prior to
occupancy
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Payment of
fair share
contribution or
coordinate to
implement
SSF Public
Works
Department
328 ROEBLING ROAD PROJECT MMRP, MAY 2020 PAGE 13
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
a) Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signal
at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way.
b) Lengthen the single left turn lane on the westbound E. Grand
Avenue approach to the Forbes/Harbor intersection to a minimum
of 225 feet and a maximum of 260 feet (as determined by the
City Engineer). Prohibit left turns to/from all driveways along E.
Grand Avenue between these two locations.
If this Project implements the above improvements, the City would
determine appropriate fair-share reimbursement from the 213 East
Grand Avenue project if/when that project proceeds (as determined
by the City Engineer.)
Traf-4: Impacts to Grade Crossing Approach Signing &
Pavement Striping. The Project shall provide a fair share
contribution towards all needed signs and pavement markings on the
approaches to the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor
Way intersection “at grade railroad crossing” to meet minimum State
Public Utilities Commission requirements as detailed in the 2003
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by the Federal Highway
Commission.
Prior to
occupancy
Applicant for the
development
(Private developer
for private
development
projects, City for
City development
projects)
Payment of
fair share
contribution
SSF Public
Works
Department in
coordination
with California
Public Utilities
Commission
Updated Cultural Records Searches
Attachment B
to the
328 Roebling Road Project
1st Addendum to the Recirculated IS/MND
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 2
March 12, 2020
Sharon Wright, Environmental Planner
Lamphier-Gregory
Via Email to: swright@lamphier-gregory.com
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public
Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09,
21084.2 and 21084.3, 328 Roebling Road Revised Project, San Mateo County
Dear Ms. Wright:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes
that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed
project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or
mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public
agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”)
Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to
consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies
of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with
the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public
Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:
Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a
public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the
designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated
California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by
means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed
project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the
California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.
The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes
that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for
notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation
as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural
resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.
The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their
notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been
completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:
1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of
the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
COMMISSIONER
Marshall McKay
Wintun
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Joseph Myers
Pomo
COMMISSIONER
Julie Tumamait-
Stenslie
Chumash
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
NAHC.ca.gov
Page 2 of 2
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the
APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the
Information Center as part of the records search response;
• Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural
resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded
cultural resources are present.
2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.
All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary
objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure
in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.
3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission
was negative.
4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and
5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.
Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative
response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only
source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.
This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having
the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your
assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: Sarah.Fonseca@nahc.ac.gov.
Sincerely,
Sarah Fonseca
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
April 7, 2020 NWIC File No.: 19-1586
Sharon Wright
Lamphier-Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
Re: Record search results for the proposed 328 Roebling Project
Dear Ms. Sharon Wright:
Per your request received by our office on March 10, 2020, a records search was
conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information
Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-
period maps, and literature for San Mateo County. Please note that use of the term
cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or
structures.
Review of this information indicates that there have been no cultural resource
studies that cover the 328 Roebling project area. This 328 Roebling project area contains
no recorded archaeological resources. The State Office of Historic Preservation Built
Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD), which includes listings of the California
Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State
Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, lists no
recorded buildings or structures within or adjacent to the proposed 328 Roebling project
area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no recorded buildings
or structures within the proposed 328 Roebling project area.
At the time of Euroamerican contact the Native Americans that lived in the area
were speakers of the Ramaytush language, part of the Costanoan language family (Levy
1978: 485). There are no Native American resources in or adjacent to the proposed 328
Roebling project area referenced in the ethnographic literature (Nelson 1909, Bocek
1991).
2
19-1586
Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with
known sites, Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been
found in areas marginal to San Francisco Bay, inland near the base of hills, and near
freshwater courses. The 328 Roebling project area is located south of San Bruno
Mountain at the southern base of hills located just West of San Bruno Point. The project
area contains lands near the edge of former marshland just north of San Bruno Canal.
Given the similarity of these environmental factors, there is a moderate potential for
unrecorded Native American resources to be within the proposed 328 Roebling project
area.
Review of historical literature and maps gave no indication of the possibility of
historic-period activity within the 328 Roebling project area. Historic San Mateo County
maps indicated the project area was located within the lands of South San Francisco
Land & Improvements Co.,but did not indicate any buildings or structures within those
lands (Bromfield 1894). With this in mind, there is a low potential for unrecorded historic-
period archaeological resources to be within the proposed 328 Roebling project area.
The 1947 San Francisco South USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle depicts
one or more buildings or structures within the 328 Roebling project area. If present, these
unrecorded buildings or structures meet the Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum
age standard that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historic al
value.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) There is a moderate potential of identifying Native American archaeological
resources and a low potential of identifying historic-period archaeological resources in the
project area. Given the potential for archaeological resources in the proposed 328
Roebling project area, our usual recommendation would include archival research and a
field examination. The proposed project area, however, has been highly developed and
is presently covered with asphalt, buildings, or fill that obscures the visibility of original
surface soils, which negates the feasibility of an adequate surface inspection.
Therefore, prior to demolition or other ground disturbance, we recommend a
qualified archaeologist conduct further archival and field study to identify archaeological
resources, including a good faith effort to identify archaeological deposits that may show
no indications on the surface. Field study may include, but is not limited to, hand auger
sampling, shovel test units, or geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common
methods used to identify the presence of buried archaeological resources. Please refer
3
19-1586
to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at
http://www.chrisinfo.org.
2) We recommend the lead agency contact the local Native American tribe(s)
regarding traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of
tribes in the vicinity of the project, please contact the Native American Heritage
Commission at 916/373-3710.
3) If the proposed project area contains buildings or structures that meet the
minimum age requirement, prior to commencement of project activities, it is
recommended that this resource be assessed by a professional familiar with the
architecture and history of San Mateo County. Please refer to the list of consultants who
meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.
4) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only
those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered
comprehensive.
5) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should
be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid
altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has
evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel
should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or
obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing
shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period
resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with
square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies.
6) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR
523 historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic
Preservation’s website: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351
4
19-1586
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource
reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic
Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be
available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical
resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have
historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information
System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American
Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California
Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to
maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and
federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers,
and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the
interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such
recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State
Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal
and state law.
Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any
questions, (707) 588-8455.
Sincerely,
Jillian Guldenbrein
Researcher
5
19-1586
LITERATURE REVIEWED
In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of
the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed:
Bromfield, Davenport
1894 Official Map of San Mateo County, California
General Land Office
1854, 1866, 1868 Survey Plat for Township 3 South/Range 5 West.
Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair
1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and
Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Levy, Richard
1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of
North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Nelson, N.C.
1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):309-356. Berkeley.
(Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, 1964)
Nichols, Donald R., and Nancy A. Wright
1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California.
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, D.C.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks
and Recreation, Sacramento.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation
1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department
of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
State of California Office of Historic Preservation **
2019 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through December 17, 2019).
State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
**Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National
Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California
Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have
undergone Section 106 review.
Climate Action Plan Preliminary Compliance Checklist
Attachment C
to the
328 Roebling Road Project
1st Addendum to the Recirculated IS/MND
Billy Gross/City of South San Francisco 3 /25/2020
To Date
Joseph Marshall 19419
From Flad Project Number
Climate Action Plan Items Response 328 Roebling
Subject Project Name
1 of 4
Copies Page
C:\Users\jmarshall \Desktop\Healthpeak\19419-00 \adm \pm\Planning \2020_03_25_CAP Response.docx
The following matrix is built from an email from Billy Gross/SSF to Joseph Marshall dated of items that the City will
incorporate into in the subsequent Conditions of Approval. These are our responses to those items in the first section of
the following table. The second portion of the table deals with the project team’s responses to the questions asked of new
commercial construction above 5000 sf in Appendix E of the City of S outh S an F rancisco Climate Action Plan adopted
2/13/2014.
For Commercial Projects: Prior to issuance of any building or
construction permits, the developer shall revise the development
plans to include the following Climate Action Plan requirements,
subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee:
A) Electric Vehicle Charging Installations Measure 2.1, Action 5:
Require new large-scale nonresidential developments to provide
conduit for future electric vehicle charging installations, and
encourage the installation of conduits or electric vehicle charging
stations for all new development.
The project includes 23 (6%) parking spaces
for eV stations in the parking structure.
B) Heat Island Reductions Measure 3.4, Action 1: Encourage the use
of high-albedo surfaces and technologies as appropriate, as
identified in the voluntary CALGreen standards.
The project will utilize high-albedo roofing with
a Solar Reflectance Index rating of 78
minimum.
C) Alternative Energy Facilities Measure 4.1, Action 2: Require the
construction of any new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000
square feet or more, or the conversion of unconditioned space
5,000 square feet or more, to comply with one of the following
standards:
i) Meet a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity
needs with on-site renewable energy sources. To
calculate 50% of building electricity needs for the new
conditioned space, the applicant shall calculate building
electricity use as part of the Title 24 compliance process.
Total electricity use shall include total use for the new
conditioned space excluding process energy.
Please see item ii) below.
ii) Participate in a power purchase agreement to offset a
minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity use.
The project will comply with this measure
through a power purchase agreement.
Billy Gross/City of South San Francisco 3 /25/2020
To Date
Joseph Marshall 19419
From Flad Project Number
Climate Action Plan Items Response 328 Roebling
Subject Project Name
2 of 4
Copies Page
C:\Users\jmarshall \Desktop\Healthpeak\19419-00 \adm \pm\Planning \2020_03_25_CAP Response.docx
Building electricity use shall be calculated using the
method identified above.
iii) Comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency
requirements to exceed mandatory energy efficiency
requirements by 20% or more. For additions to existing
development of 5,000 square feet or more, CALGreen
Tier 2 shall be calculated as part of the Title 24
c ompliance. Existing building space already permitted
shall not be subject to CALGreen Tier 2 requirements.
Please see item ii) above.
d) Solar Wiring Installation Measure 4.1, Action 3: Require all
new development to install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar.
The project will have conduit for a future solar
array in the parking structure.
e) Water Demand Reduction Measure 6.1, Action 2: Revitalize
implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance by undertaking the following:
i) Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water
features.
The project does not have any water features
on site.
ii) Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m.
and two hours after sunrise.
Irrigation controllers are part of project and will
restrict use as required.
iii) Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors.
The project includes irrigation controllers with
rain sensors.
iv) Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants. Drought tolerant planting is used in the project.
v) Installing drip irrigation systems. The project includes drip irrigation.
vi) Reducing impervious surfaces. Project pervious site area includes 25,000sf of
planted area and 14,300sf of specialty site
finishes which is approximately 30% of project
site.
From Appendix E: SSF Climate Action Plan adopted 2/13/2014
Does the project include bicycle facilities Bicycle parking will be included in the parking
structure.
Billy Gross/City of South San Francisco 3 /25/2020
To Date
Joseph Marshall 19419
From Flad Project Number
Climate Action Plan Items Response 328 Roebling
Subject Project Name
3 of 4
Copies Page
C:\Users\jmarshall \Desktop\Healthpeak\19419-00 \adm \pm\Planning \2020_03_25_CAP Response.docx
Will the project support bike sharing/rental programs The project is not supporting bikeshare
programs currently.
Will there be a commute shuttle or public transit stop on-site or within
500 feet?
There is a transit bus stop (Stop ID 3643643)
at 230 E. Grand, approx.. 300 feet from the
southeast corner of our site.
Is the project within ¼ mile of a Caltrain or Bart stop Yes, the site is within ¼ mile of the CalTrain
platform at 590 Dubuque Ave, South San
Francisco, CA 94080.
Will the project include high-density housing and a diverse range of
housing
The project has no housing.
Will the project provide traffic calming treatments Roebling Road is a dead-end street and will not
have significant traffic.
Is the project paying a traffic impact fee to fund bicycle and
pedestrian improvements?
The project is paying traffic impact fees.
Will the project provide shared or reduced parking? Parking will meet city zoning requirements for
quantity.
Will the project provide designated parking spaces for electric
vehicles, carpool vehicles, or other low emission vehicles
The project includes designated spaces for
electric vehicles.
Will the project have any ground level commercial space No commercial ground level space is planned
for the core & shell building, but a future
tenant may elect to provide something that is
accessible by the public.
Does the project include any alternative fuel stations The project includes eV charging stations.
Will the project have any pre-wiring or conduit construction to easily
add electric vehicle charging stations or alternative energy facilities at
a later date?
Project will include electric vehicle charging
stations in the parking structure.
If this project is replacing an existing building, is the building being
replaced more than 30 years old?
Yes, we are replacing a structure on site
beyond that age threshold.
Will certification of the building be sought under LEED or any other
green building criteria?
The project is seeking LEED Silver.
Will the project include any high-reflectivity roof or surface paving? The project will include high albedo roofing.
Will there be a net increase in the number of mature trees on-site
when the project is completed?
The project will include a net add of mature
trees.
Billy Gross/City of South San Francisco 3 /25/2020
To Date
Joseph Marshall 19419
From Flad Project Number
Climate Action Plan Items Response 328 Roebling
Subject Project Name
4 of 4
Copies Page
C:\Users\jmarshall \Desktop\Healthpeak\19419-00 \adm \pm\Planning \2020_03_25_CAP Response.docx
Will any renewable energy system be installed as part of this project? No, but we will participate in a renewable
energy purchase plan.
Is the project a new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 sf or
more?
Yes.
Will this project use renewable energy generated off-site? Yes.
Will there be compost collection on-site? Yes.
Will any water fixtures exceed CALGreen standards? The project will comply with CALGreen
standards.
Will the project incorporate low-impact development (LID) practices? Yes, the project is using stormwater
management practices from LID guidelines.
Will any xeriscaping be installed? Yes.
Will captured rainwater or greywater be used for irrigation? No.
END.
Fehr & Peers Traffic Operations and Vehicle Miles Assessments
Attachment D
to the
328 Roebling Road Project
1st Addendum to the Recirculated IS/MND
332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790
www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 8, 2020
To: Rebecca Auld, Lamphier-Gregory
From: Mike Hawkins, PE, Fehr & Peers
Subject: 328 Roebling Road Transportation Assessment Comparison
SF19-1030
This memorandum presents the results of the transportation assessment comparison for the
proposed development at 328 Roebling Road (the “Project”). The Project was previously studied
and environmentally cleared in 2009 and 2012; the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) was originally circulated in February 2009, was revised and recirculated in July 2009, and
was revised and recirculated again in February 2012, ultimately adopted in 2012. A Transportation
Impact Study (TIS) was prepared by Crane Transportation Group in October 2011 to identify
potential significant impacts of the Project on the transportation system as input to the 2012
recirculated IS/MND. The TIS is included as an attachment to this memo. The currently proposed
Project is slightly larger than the Project in 2012. Fehr & Peers reviewed the previously prepared
TIS, prepared trip generation estimates for the current Project, compared the results to the trip
generation estimates in the TIS, and used the results to assess whether new or more severe
transportation impacts are likely. Fehr & Peers also prepared a vehicle mile traveled (VMT)
assessment.
Project Characteristics
The Project site spans approximately three acres and is located at 328 Roebling Road, near East
Grand Avenue in South San Francisco. The Project site includes several vacant industrial/warehouse
buildings scheduled for removal. Vehicular access to the site would be provided via Roebling Road
and East Grand Avenue. The Project site is located slightly more than one-half mile from the South
San Francisco Caltrain Station within the East of 101 Area.
The IS/MND TIS prepared in 2011 analyzed a Project that included two buildings with a total of
105,536 square feet of office and research and development (R&D) above several stories of
Lamphier-Gregory
April 8, 2020
Page 2 of 12
underground parking. The Project description has been revised to include one building with up to
129,919 square feet of Office/R&D and a separate parking structure on the site.
Trip Generation Comparison
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of vehicular traffic a project might
add to the roadway network. Estimates for the peak one-hour periods during the weekday morning
(AM) and evening (PM) commute periods, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically at
their highest, are analyzed to represent the worst-case scenario.
The IS/MND TIS used a blended trip generation rate based on values published in Trip Generation
Manual, 8th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers - ITE, 2008) and rates published in a Traffic
Study for the East of 101 Area (TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011) to estimate trip generation
for the Project, based on the combined office/R&D rates. ITE contains data based on research
conducted at sites throughout the United States over the past several decades for various land use
types while the TJKM study included local roadway data collected in the East of 101 Area of South
San Francisco.
The IS/MND TIS, for purposes of trip generation, assumed that all 105,536 square feet of the Project
would be used as Office/R&D space. The TIS also included a 20 percent reduction in peak hour trips
to account for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and a reduction to account
for existing (2011) activity on the site. Table 1 summarizes the Project trip generation as presented
in the TIS. As shown in Table 1, the TIS assumed that the Project would generate 32 additional AM
trips (+36 inbound, -4 outbound) and 47 additional PM trips (+8 inbound, +39 outbound) after
subtracting the existing site trips at the time.
Lamphier-Gregory
April 8, 2020
Page 3 of 12
Table 1: IS/MND Trip Generation
Land Use Size (KSF)1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Office/R&D2 105.5 63 14 76 10 53 63
TDM Reduction3 13 3 15 2 11 13
Total Project Trips 50 11 61 8 42 50
Existing Site Trips4 14 15 29 0 3 3
Net New Project Trips 36 -4 32 8 39 47
Notes:
1. KSF = thousand square feet
2. A combined Office/R&D rate, based on Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition (2008) rates for land use 710 and 760,
and TJKM East of 101 Study (2011)
3. 20% reduction to peak hour vehicle trips based on City mandated TDM program
4. Based on driveway counts at the existing site in 2011
Source: Crane Transportation Group, 2011; Fehr & Peers, 2020
The City of South San Francisco has updated their TDM requirements for the East of 101 Area with
a more aggressive 35 percent reduction in vehicle trips through TDM measures, as required in the
City’s Municipal Code 1 . This more robust TDM requirement is also written into the Project’s
Development Agreement (DA). Table 2 summarizes the Project trip generation for the revised
Project description, using trip rates and methodologies consistent with those used in the 2011 TIS
for office/R&D uses and updated TDM requirements.
As shown in Table 2, with an additional 24,383 square feet of Office/R&D space but also higher
TDM requirement (35% reduction requirement compared to the previous 20% reduction
requirement), the revised Project would be expected to generate the same amount of trips as the
IS/MND Project.
However, the IS/MND TIS subtracted the trips from existing uses at the time, now referred to as
Baseline Site Trips. While the site could return to that level of use in the existing buildings with no
approvals required, the site has been transitioning to vacant as the owners prepare to demolish the
old buildings and it is assumed there are currently no trips to/from the site. Therefore, to more
conservatively assess the increase in trips added to the transportation network, this analysis has
1 As stated in the FAR of 1.0 in the Business and Technology Park district, Section 20.400.003, 35 percent
reduction in peak hour vehicle trips is the minimum requirement.
Lamphier-Gregory
April 8, 2020
Page 4 of 12
compared the IS/MND Project Trips with the Baseline Site Trips subtracted to the Current Project
Trips with no Baseline Trips subtracted. This results in 29 additional AM and 3 additional PM peak
hour vehicle trips compared to the trip estimates analyzed in the IS/MND when accounting for
updated TDM rates and zero existing site trips.
Table 2: Updated Trip Generation Estimates and Comparison to the IS/MND
Land Use Size (KSF)1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Office/R&D2 129.9 77 17 94 12 65 77
TDM Reduction3 27 6 33 4 23 27
Total Trips 50 11 61 8 42 50
IS/MND Project Trips4 50 11 61 8 42 50
Net Difference in Project
Trips5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Baseline Site Trips4, 6 14 15 29 0 3 3
Net Difference in Trips
Added to the Network +14 +15 +29 0 +3 +3
Notes:
1. KSF = thousand square feet
2. A combined Office/R&D rate, based on Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition (2008) rates for land use 710 and 760,
and TJKM East of 101 Study (2011), consistent with rates used in the 2011 TIS
3. 35% reduction in peak hour vehicle trips based on updated City mandated TDM program and Development
Agreement
4. See also Table 1 for a breakdown of IS/MND Project Trips.
5. Current estimates minus IS/MND Project Trip estimates
6. Baseline Site Trips are the trips from existing uses that were counted in 2011 and reported in the IS/MND.
Because the site has been transitioning to vacant since the previous analysis and approval, it is assumed for this
traffic assessment that there are currently no existing trips at the site and therefore, the net difference in trips
added to the transportation network adds back in the previous Baseline Site Trips.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020
Impact Determination
The IS/MND TIS studied ten intersections surrounding the Project site. As previously mentioned,
the original IS/MND was completed and published in 2012; intersection turning movement counts
used in the transportation analysis were taken in March or June 2008. Additional intersection counts
were collected in 2019 at the ten study intersections. The results of 2019 counts were compared to
Lamphier-Gregory
April 8, 2020
Page 5 of 12
the 2008 counts to assess whether the traffic volumes have changed considerably which could result
in new significant impacts.
The change in peak hour volumes at study intersections varies between -4 percent to +19 percent
when comparing 2008 volumes to 2019 volumes, with the majority of study intersections seeing
approximately a ten percent change in volumes or less, generally considered to be within the range
of daily fluctuation in traffic. The overall change in volumes for all study intersections is +9 percent
and +11 percent during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Considering that the revised
project is expected to generate a similar level of vehicle trips, and the overall intersection volumes
have not substantially changed since the time of the TIS, similar impacts and mitigation measures
can be expected.
The IS/MND TIS identified 24 potential impacts to site circulation, study intersections, queueing,
and freeway ramps and mainline operation. Impacts were analyzed under Existing (2011), Baseline
(2015), and Future Cumulative (2035) scenarios. Of the 24 potential Project impacts, six were
identified as significant. Mitigation measures for all six significant impacts were identified and were
sufficient to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels. The significant impacts identified by
the TIS are summarized in Table 4.
Mitigation measures related to physical changes to the transportation network (Impacts 5, 13, 19)
are still expected to be relevant and necessary in order to mitigate to less-than-significant levels
and the project should still be responsible to contribute their fair share towards the improvements.
Mitigation measures related to vehicle queuing (Impacts 8, 14, 20) are still expected to be relevant
and necessary to mitigate to less-than-significant levels and the project should still be responsible
for adjusting the signal timing and lengthening turn pockets as identified in the TIS. All mitigation
measures listed in Table 4 are likely to still be required by the revised Project and are likely still
adequate to mitigate impacts to less-than-significant levels after implementation.
Lamphier-Gregory
April 8, 2020
Page 6 of 12
Table 4: 2011 IS/MND TIS Impact Determination
Impact
# Impact Description Impact
Determination Mitigation Measure
TIS Impact
Determination
after Mitigation
Still Relevant
and Adequate
to Mitigate
Revised
Project
Impact
5
Grade Crossing
Approaches Missing
Signing and
Pavement Striping
Significant
Contribution
towards signing
and striping
Less than
Significant Yes
Impact
8
Existing + Project
95th Percentile
Vehicle Queuing
Significant
Adjust signal timing
at Airport/Grand;
Extend turn lane at
Grand/Roebling
LTS Yes
Impact
13
2015 Intersection
Signalization Needs Significant
Contribution
towards signalizing
Grand/Roebling;
Extend turn lanes at
Grand/Roebling
and
Grand/Forbes/Harb
or
LTS Yes
Impact
14
2015 95th Percentile
Vehicle Queuing Significant
Adjust signal timing
at Airport/Grand;
Extend turn lanes at
Grand/Roebling
LTS Yes
Impact
19
2035 Intersection
Signalization Needs Significant
Contribution
towards signalizing
Grand/Roebling;
Extend turn lanes at
Grand/Roebling
and
Grand/Forbes/Harb
or
LTS Yes
Impact
20
2035 95th Percentile
Vehicle Queuing Significant
Adjust signal timing
at Airport/Grand;
Extend turn lanes at
Grand/Roebling
LTS Yes
Source: Crane Transportation Group, 2011; Fehr & Peers, 2020
VMT Assessment
California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) requires California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) assessment
of a project’s impact on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in relation to state greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction planning goals, multimodal transportation, and land use diversity. Additionally, the
Lamphier-Gregory
April 8, 2020
Page 7 of 12
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued a technical advisory
memorandum in December 2018 that includes general guidance and information for lead agencies
to use in implementing SB 743. Lead agencies have until July 1, 2020 to be fully compliant with SB
743. South San Francisco is currently working to establish citywide VMT threshold(s) as part of the
ongoing General Plan update. Since VMT does not need to be included as part of the impact
analysis until July 2020 and because the City is yet to establish a threshold of significance, this VMT
assessment for the 328 Roebling project is provided for informational purposes only.
Fehr & Peers has developed the following approach to assess VMT for the project prior to the City’s
planned adoption of a general VMT impact threshold:
1. Determine if the project could potentially be screened from detailed VMT analysis based
on relevant criteria identified in the OPR Technical Advisory.
2. Identify the existing average work-based VMT per employee in the nine-county Bay Area
region using baseline year (2015) model runs of the C/CAG-VTA Bi-County Regional Travel
Demand Model (C/CAG Model).
3. Establish an interim work-based VMT per employee threshold of 16.8 percent less than the
existing work-based VMT per employee average for the nine-county Bay Area, based on
the C/CAG model.
4. Assess the project’s likely average VMT per employee using data from the C/CAG model
for average work-based VMT per employee of existing development in the
East of 101 area.
5. Assess the project’s total effect on VMT compared to existing baseline conditions, by
assessing the total daily work-based VMT associated with the increase in employment, as
compared to similar employment uses with average levels of VMT generation in the
Bay Area.
6. Compare the project’s total effect on VMT and rate of home-based VMT per employee to
the VMT threshold established in Step 2 of this process.
This approach would not involve developing a forecast for project VMT or the project’s effect on
VMT, but rather uses available VMT per employee data for existing employment uses in the East of
101 area as a proxy for the project. The rationale behind the assumptions embedded in this
preliminary conceptual approach is provided below.
Screening Approach
The OPR Technical Guidance (2018) lists two screening approaches:
Lamphier-Gregory
April 8, 2020
Page 8 of 12
Proximity to Transit: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (1), states that “generally,
projects within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop2 or a stop along an existing high quality
transit corridor3 should be presumed to cause less-than-significant transportation impact.” OPR
(2018) advises that the less than significant presumption would not apply, however, if project-
specific or location-specific information indicates the project will still generate significant levels
of VMT.
While the project site is located approximately ½ mile from the existing South San Francisco Caltrain
station as the crow flies, the walking distance to or from the existing Caltrain station is closer to 0.7
to 1.0 miles. There are plans to relocate the Caltrain station approximately 650 feet to the south
and the walking distance between the project site and the future station is 0.9 to 1.1 miles, slightly
longer than to or from the existing Caltrain station. Because of the number of barriers separating
pedestrians and cyclists from the Caltrain Station and the East of 101 area, the project is not fully
within the ½ mile radius identified in the OPR advisory. While lead agencies may have some leeway
in defining how distance to transit is measured, the intent of this screening is to allow access to
transit on-foot within a 7- to 10-minute walk. As such, the project should not be presumed to meet
the proximity to transit screening criteria.
Location in an area of lower VMT: The OPR guidance also lists a map-based screening approach
articulating that residential and office projects located in areas with low VMT and that incorporate
similar features will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. This project site is not located in an area with
low VMT as defined by OPR, and therefore the project should not be presumed to meet the area
of lower VMT screening criteria.
VMT Metrics
OPR recommends office project VMT should be compared to a total work-based VMT/employee
threshold. This metric helps compare the project’s relative transportation efficiency to the regional
average (i.e., all else being equal, does creating new employment in this area result in more or less
VMT per employee than creating it in other areas?). Based on the available data from regional
2 A “major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by
either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of
service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
3 A “high-quality transit corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no
longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.
Lamphier-Gregory
April 8, 2020
Page 9 of 12
models, Fehr & Peers recommends using home-based work VMT (HBW VMT)4 per employee as the
metric for this project’s VMT assessment.
VMT Accounting
OPR recommends the use of tour-based VMT accounting for residential and office projects and
assessing the effect of a project on VMT for retail and transportation projects. However, this method
would require the City to conduct a new model run using the MTC model, which is the sole tour-
based travel demand model available for South San Francisco. The MTC model lacks the level of
local detail for the roadway network and local land use present in the C/CAG model; therefore, we
recommend using work-based VMT per employee multiplied by the expected number of
employees at the project site to reach an estimate of total HBW VMT. The project’s land use
program is similar to existing land uses in the East of 101 area, which allows for the use of existing
per capita VMT data to reasonably assess project VMT.
VMT Impact Threshold
Since the City has not yet established a VMT impact threshold, Fehr & Peers recommends using the
most recent research conducted by California Air and Resources Board (CARB) to set an interim
threshold for this informational assessment. CARB’s assessment of progress toward state goals
concluded that the statewide VMT reduction needed to meet long term GHG reduction targets is
16.8 percent below the regional baseline of total light duty vehicle VMT. Therefore, the threshold of
16.8 percent below the regional average is used and expressed as average work-based VMT per
employee across the nine-county Bay Area. The regional average HBW VMT per employee across
the nine-county Bay Area is 14.2.
VMT Assessment
The VMT assessment for this project is relatively straightforward, as the project has substantially
similar land use characteristics and context to existing development in the East of 101 plan area.
Table 5 shows the average HBW VMT per employee based on the C/CAG model in the 2015 base
year. As shown, the East of 101 area has an estimated HBW VMT per employee that is 13 percent
4 Home-based work VMT (HBW VMT) only accounts for commute trips and does not capture work-based
other trips that may occur throughout the day (e.g., driving to lunch or to meetings during the middle of
the day) due to differences in trip-based and tour-based models, as discussed in more detail under VMT
Accounting Methodology. HBW VMT per employee is an appropriate metric to use since it is normalized
and compared to similar baseline values.
Lamphier-Gregory
April 8, 2020
Page 10 of 12
higher than the regional average. This is an increase over the regional baseline and does not meet
the 16.8 percent below the regional average threshold discussed above.
The City of South San Francisco administers requirements for transportation demand management
(TDM) programs through an ordinance. Based on the C/CAG model data summarized in Table 5,
the model already accounts for a non-drive alone mode share for trips generated in the East of 101
area, which is comparable to the requirements of the TDM ordinance. Because the model already
accounts for this non-drive alone mode share, model outputs were not further adjusted to account
for TDM.
If the project applicant were to strive to reduce VMT to be in line with state goals, the project could
consider implementing additional measures to help reduce VMT. Such measures should focus on
improving alternative mode share access to key destinations, such as contributing towards physical
improvements to connect pedestrian and bicycle access to the Caltrain station.
Table 5: Home-Based Work VMT per Employee, by Location (2015 Estimates)
Location Total HBW VMT Total Employment HBW VMT per Employee
Bay Area Region 60,995,000 4,285,000 14.2
East of 101 Area 572,200 35,800 16.0
Percent Difference +13%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020; C/CAG-VTA Bi-County Transportation Demand Model, 2019.
Note that there would be no difference in the above numbers between the IS/MND Project and the
current Project because it is based on project location and type and not the specific amount of
square footage or design.
While the use of a travel demand model would most accurately assess the project’s effect on
regional VMT, an estimate of the project’s effect on VMT (relative to employment growth in an
“average” location) is shown in Table 6. The proposed project would result in approximately 236
new employees5 at the project site, which is within the East of 101 area. These 236 new employees
are expected to generate a total weekday daily HBW VMT of 3,780 and a net increase of 430
compared to if those employees were added in a theoretical Bay Area “average” location. Total
5 The estimated number of employees follows the same methodology as provided in IS/MND; it assumes 100
percent of the proposed square footage would be Office/R&D space and the average square footage per
Office/R&D employee would be 550.
Lamphier-Gregory
April 8, 2020
Page 11 of 12
project HBW VMT represents an increase of less than one percent for the East of 101 area
(3,780/572,200).
Table 6: Home-Based Work VMT per Employee, by Location (2015 Estimates)
Location Average HBW VMT per Employee HBW VMT for 236 Net New Employees
Bay Area Region 14.2 3,350
East of 101 Area 16.0 3,780
Difference / Project’s Effect on Regional HBW VMT + 430 average weekday HBW VMT
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020; C/CAG-VTA Bi-County Transportation Demand Model, 2019.
Note that because this is based on the number of employees, the above numbers would be different
for the IS/MND Project, but still based on the same HBW VMT per employee rates.
Conclusions
The TIS prepared in 2011 identified several potentially significant impacts to the transportation
network. However, all the significant impacts were reduced to less-than-significant levels with
implementation of the identified mitigation measures, as summarized in Table 4.
The revised Project includes approximately 24,000 square feet more than was originally approved
and environmentally cleared. Factoring in the increased square footage but also more aggressive
TDM requirement, the revised project would generate the same number of AM and PM peak hour
vehicle trips that were analyzed and environmentally cleared in the 2011 TIS and 2012 recirculated
IS/MND. However, because there are currently no existing uses at the site (zero trips), whereas the
previous analysis was able to net out Baseline Site Trips, the current project is expected to add to
the transportation network 29 more AM peak hour vehicle trips and 3 more PM peak hour vehicle
trips when compared to the previous analysis.
Recent intersection counts at several study locations show that vehicle volumes have increased
slightly during the AM and PM peak hours but may be within the realm of daily fluctuation of traffic.
Since the revised project is expected to generate a similar level of vehicle trips, and the overall
intersection volumes have not substantially changed since the time of the IS/MND TIS, similar
impacts and mitigation measures can be expected.
Lamphier-Gregory
April 8, 2020
Page 12 of 12
Of the 24 potential impacts identified in the TIS, six were found to be significant and required
mitigation. The freeway ramp and mainline analysis is unlikely to substantially change due to the
relatively small amount of project trips compared to the large freeway volumes. The site circulation
analysis is also unlikely to substantially change due to the limited changes to site access for the
revised project. No additional site hazards were identified for the current site plan, when compared
to the IS/MND site plan. Intersection signalization is also unlikely to change with the revisions to
the project. All mitigation measures identified in the TIS are likely to still be necessary and required
by the revised project.
The revised project is expected to generate VMT at similar levels to other land uses in the East of
101 area, which is approximately 13 percent higher than the Bay Area regional average, which is
above the 16.8 percent below the regional average threshold. The revised project is expected to
generate a total weekday daily HBW VMT of 3,780 and project VMT represents an increase of less
than one percent within the East of 101 area. The project applicant may consider implementing
additional measures to help reduce VMT such as contributing towards physical improvements to
connect pedestrian and bicycle access to the Caltrain station.
Sewer Demand Estimates
Attachment E
to the
328 Roebling Road Project
1st Addendum to the Recirculated IS/MND
Job No.: 796-018
Author: SAW
Subject: Sewer Demand Assumptions
Sheet 1 of 2
Date: 4/1/2020
ASSUMPTIONS
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE ESTIMATES
2020 Proposed Development (1.0 FAR)
Land Use No. Unit
Bldg A Office/R&D 129,919 GSF
Amenity NA GSF
Parking Structure 0 GSF
2012 Approved Entitlements (0.8123 FAR)
Land Use No. Unit
Bldg A Office/R&D 52,769 GSF
Amenity NA GSF
Bldg B Office/R&D 52,769 GSF
Amenity NA GSF
Phase
Phase
References:
1. "East of Highway 101 Sewer System master Plan Update" by the City of South San Francisco,
dated January 2012.
2. "Water Supply Assessment of the Genentrech Research and Development Overlay District" by
EIP Associates, dated August 2006.
Job No.: 796-018
Author: SAW
Subject: Sewer Demand Assumptions
Sheet 2 of 2
Date: 4/1/2020
WATER USAGE RATES
- cross checked water usage rates against EIR and Genentech study
- sewer rate given as 90% of water usage rate
Water Sewer
Office 59*53 gpd/1000 sf (ref. 1)
R&D (ORD)223*201 gpd/1000 sf (ref. 1)
50% Office/ 50% R&D** - 127 gpd/1000 sf
30% Office/ 70% R&D*** - 157 gpd/1000 sf
gpd= gallons per day
*water usage rate provided by ROMA Design Group, 2009
**buildings proposed in 2020 with combination of office and R&D space use sewer rate consisting of 50% office
and 50% R&D
***buildngs entitled in 2012 with combination of office and R&D space use sewer rate consisting of 30% office and
70% R&D
Job No.: 796-018Author: SAWSubject: Sewer Demand EstimateSheet 1 of 1Date: 4/1/2020255 E. GRAND AVE & 328 ROEBLING DEVELOPMENT - SANITARY SEWER DEMAND ESTIMATE2020 Proposed Development (1.0 FAR)Building Land Use Unit Type # Units Flow rate Unit Avg. Flow Unit Bldg AOffice/R&Dgross sf 129,919127gpd/1000 sf16,500gpd Amenitygross sf NANAgpd/1000 sf0gpd Parking Structuregross sf 00gpd/1000 sf0gpd Σ=16,500 gpd AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (ADF)16,500gpd 0.01650mgd2012 Entitled Development (0.8123 FAR)Building Land UseUnit Type # UnitsFlow rate UnitAvg. FlowBldg AOffice/R&Dgross sf 52,769157gpd/1000 sf8,285Amenitygross sf NANAgpd/1000 sf0Bldg BOffice/R&Dgross sf 52,769157gpd/1000 sf8,285Amenitygross sf NANAgpd/1000 sf0Σ=16,570 gpd AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (ADF)16,570gpd 0.01657mgdTherefore, the 2020 proposed development's ADF is 70 gpd less than 2012 entitled development's ADF.