The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC e-packet 03-16-06 33 ARROYO DRIVE March 16, 2006 7:30 P!\1 WELCOME If this is the first time you have been to a Commission meeting, perhaps you'd like to know a little about our procedure. Under Oral Communications, at the beginning of the meeting, persons wishing to speak on any subject not on the Agenda will have 3 minutes to discuss their item. The Clerk will read the name and type of application to be heard in the order in which it appears on the Agenda. A staff person will then explain the proposal. The first person allowed to speak will be the applicant, followed by persons in favor of the application. Then persons who oppose the project or who wish to ask questions will have their turn. If you wish to speak, please fill out a card (which is available near the entrance door) and give it, as soon as possible, to the Clerk at the front of the room. When it is your turn, she will announce your name for the record. The Commission has adopted a policy that applicants and their representatives have a maximum time limit of 20 minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non-applicants may speak a maximum of 3 minutes on any case. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time. When the Commission is not in session, we'll be pleased to answer your questions if you will go to the Planning Division, City Hall, 315 Maple Avenue or telephone (650) 877-8535 or bye-mail at web- ecd@ssf.net. William Zemke Chairperson Mary Giusti Commissioner Eugene Sim Commissioner Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Secretary to the Planning Commission Steve Carlson Senior Planner John Prouty Commissioner Judith Honan Vice-Chairperson William Romero Commissioner Marc C. Teglia Commissioner Susy Kalkin Principal Planner Michael Lappen Senior Planner Gerry Beaudin Associate Planner Chad rick Smalley Associate Planner Bertha Aguilar Clerk DI,.....~,.. T........ "',..11. .1..... D....,.. ....,...... ^........ D___...... n&& .).) Jo\~~UTU U~IVE:. March 16, 2006 Time 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 1070 Associates, LLC/Owner Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc./Applicant 1080 San Mateo Avenue P06-0007 & UP06-0002 (Continue to April 6, ~006) Use permit to allow a rental car fleet maintenance use, including construction of a maintenance building, car wash and related site improvements, at 1080 San Mateo Avenue in the M-1 Industrial Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.30.030 2. Edna's Ichiban (Ben Ramos)/applicant American National Ins. Co./owner 2234 & 2236 Westborough Blvd. P02-0001: UPM05-0005 (Continue to April 6, 2006) Modification of a Use Permit to expand the range of entertainment options and expand an existing restaurant with alcoholic beverage service and hours of operation past midnight within 200 feet of a residential zone in the Retail Commercial (C-1) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.91. PUBLIC HEARING 3. COMERICA BANK Hernandez, Jose J & Rita/Owner 401 Grand Avenue (APN 012 305 260) P05-0168: UP05-0030, OR05-009S, SIGNS06-0002 a. Use Permit application to allow financial services at 401 Grand Avenue in the Downtown Commercial (D-C-L) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.26,20.81 & 20.85 Applicant: Comerica b. Type "C" Sign Permit to allow a master sign program for a multi-tenant building at 401- 405 Grand Avenue in the Downtown Commercial (D-C-L) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chanters 20.76 II II 4. GENENTECH INC - owner / applicant 390 Point San Bruno Blvd P05-0092: DR05-0053 & ND05-0003 Review of the construction of the new San Francisco Bay Trail extension for Genentech Inc. Phase II portion to include parcels 015-092-250, 015-092-260, 015-092-280, 015-093-080 and 015-260-030. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. Stacey Chiaro/applicant H.A. Krouse Trust/owner 434 N. Canal St. #14 P05-0031 UP05-0009 6Month Review of Use Permit to allow a cheerleading gym (indoor sports & recreation use) in a 2,550 sf warehouse unit within the Spruce Business Park, 434 No. Canal S1., in the P-I Planned Industrial Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.32.030 & Chapter 20.81 ITEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM COMMISSION ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ADJOURNMENT Thomas C. Sparks Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting April 6, 2006, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. Staff Reports can now be accessed online http://www.ssf.netldepts/comms/plannina/aaenda minutes.asp TCS/bla ::ita]] Hepart DATE: March 16, 2006 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Use Permit Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc. - to allow a rental car fleet maintenance use, including construction of a maintenance building, car wash and related site improvements, at 1080 San Mateo Avenue in the M-1 Industrial Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.30, 20.06, and 20.81. Owner: 1070 Associates LLC Applicant: Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc. Case Nos.: P06-0007, UP06-0002 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue the matter to the meeting of April 6, 2006. BACKGROUND: Staff requested further background about proposed operations at the site. ~raJJ J(epon DATE: March 16, 2006 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Edna's Ichiban Restaurant - Use Permit Modification application to allow modifications to an existing Use Permit at 2234A & 2236 Westborough Boulevard in the Retail Commercial (C-l) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22 and 20.81 Owner: Westborough Square Shopping Center Applicant: Ben Ramos Case Nos.: P02-0001: UPM05-0005 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue this matter to the meeting of April 6, 2006. BACKGROUND: The applicant needs more time to provide additional information about the proposed use. .~~ Ge'rry Beaudin, Associate Planner Staff Report DATE: March 16,2006 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Type C Sign Permit allowing a master sign program for the multi-tenant building at 401-405 Grand Avenue and 215-219 Maple Avenue in the Downtown Commercial (D-C-L) Zone in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.26, 20.85 & 20.86. Owner: Rita Hernandez Applicant: Rita Hernandez! AdImpact Site Address: 401-405 Grand Avenue and 215-219 Maple Avenue Case Nos. P05-0168 (Signs 06-0002) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve a Type C Sign Permit allowing a master sign program for the multi-tenant building at 401-405 Grand Avenue/215-219 Maple Avenue, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The subject two-story building is located on the southwest corner of Maple Avenue and Grand Avenue and contains a variety of tenants. The applicant is seeking approval of signs for the building. In accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.76 multi-tenant buildings require a sign program to ensure consistency. Because the total square footage of proposed signs exceeds 100 square feet, a Type C Sign permit is required. Exterior building signage is proposed for the four tenant spaces on the first floor. The second floor tenant spaces are currently identified by the building address, existing door decals, and an existing business directory located in the second floor entrance lobby. As stated, there is potential for four first floor tenant spaces, three of which face Maple Avenue. The proposed sign program is as follows: Tenant Signage Details March 16, 2006 Page 2 . One Primary Identification sign consisting of illuminated aluminum framed channel letters on a raceway. The raceway shall match the color of the building. The sign is to be centered above the tenant space. The maximum height of the signage shall be IS-inches and the maximum square footage shall be 23. The location, height and maximum square footage outlined above will ensure that the signs have a consistent appearance. . One under canopy sign/flag mount sign. Two of the three tenant spaces have an overhang that is suitable for an under canopy sign, the tenant space closest to Third Lane does not have an building overhang over the entrance, and can accommodate a flag sign to match the under canopy signs. The under canopy signs shall be a maximum of six and one half inches tall and two and one half feet wide, hung on five inch long square tubing. The closest edge of the sign shall measure six inches to the building wall. The flag sign will be a maximum of six and one half inches tall and two and one half feet wide. It will be attached to the building using an aluminum covered bracket (filler) that holds the sign a maximum of 2 inches of the building wall. Both the under canopy and the flag signs shall be double faced aluminum signs that are faced with a vinyl overlay. The under canopy signs shall be located above the door to the tenant space and the flag sign shall be mounted within two feet of the west building wall at a similar height to the under canopy SIgns. . One tenant door decal with a maximum size of two square feet. Content and materials to be approved by the Chief Planner. Should any of the tenant spaces be consolidated, then the maximum square footage for the primary identification sign would increase by one and one half times. All other signage details would remain unchanged with one under canopy or flag mounted sign and one door decal per tenant. Comerica Bank - Comer Tenant The major tenant space at the comer of Maple Avenue and Grand Avenue is proposed to be3 occupied by Comerica Banle It has 72 feet and 50 feet of building frontage respectively. Staff recommends the following signage for this tenant space: . One Primary Identification sign consisting of illuminated aluminum framed channel letters on a raceway on the Grand Avenue frontage and one Primary Identification sign consisting of illuminated aluminum framed channel letters on a raceway on the Maple Avenue frontage. The raceway shall match the color of the building. The Grand Avenue March 16,2006 Page 3 . One under canopy sign. The under canopy sign shall be a maximum of six and one half inches tall and two and one half feet wide, hung on five inch long square tubing. The closest edge of the sign shall measure six inches to the building wall. The under canopy shall be double faced aluminum that is faced with a vinyl overlay. The under canopy signs shall be located on the Orand Avenue frontage above the main entry door to the tenant space. . One door decal with a maximum size of two square feet (as shown on page 7 of the plans). All future sign applications are be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for consistency with the sign program prior to the issuance of permits. Second Floor Tenants All second floor tenants are currently identified with an existing door decal and an existing directory within the building. The proposed window decal is redundant information and shall be removed. The second floor tenants shall be identified using the municipal address and the indoor sign directory. Master Sign Program Implementation At this time, only one of the four ground floor tenant spaces is occupied. The existing signage for the lone ground floor tenant does not conform to the master sign program being proposed. To ensure proper implementation of the master sign program, staff is recommending that no signs shall be permitted under this approval until the non-complying signs are removed. This requirement should ensure implementation of the master sign program occurs in a timely manner. A condition of approval has been drafted to this effect. Additionally, aside from the implementation of the new sign program, all signage found within second story window must be removed from the building. Staff understands that the building owner has been proactive in their effort to have tenants remove these signs, but many still remain. These signs must be removed or this matter will be referred to Municipal Code Enforcement. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD On February 21, 2006 the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the plans for the proposed - . - ~ - - March 16, 2006 Page 4 1. Internally illuminated "can" signs are not consistent with the City's downtown design guidelines (alternative plans were then presented by the applicant at the meeting). 2. Based on the alternative plans presented, the applicant must make the exposed raceway as small as possible and paint the raceway to match the building The applicant has revised the plans to remove all reference to "can" signs and they have noted that he proposed raceway for the illuminated signs will be painted to match the building. The DRB minutes are attached to the staff report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW City staffhas determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the provisions of Class 11, Accessory Structures, Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the project has been determined to be exempt, the Planning Commission is not required to take any action on the environmental document. CONCLUSION The master sign program proposed for the building complies with the City's development standards and will improve the overall aesthetic of the building. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Type C Sign Permit application allowing a master sign program for the building at 410-405 Grand A venue/215-219 Maple Avenue. Staff has drafted finding and conditions of approval per the recommendations outlined in the staff report. ~ Ge'~ 'eauflin, ASS~ciate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Design Review Board Minutes, February 21,2006 Plans, dated 02/23/06 401-405 GRAND A VENUE/215-219 M APLE AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff March 16, 2006) As required by the "Sign Permit Procedures:'(SSFMC Chapter 20.86), the following findings are made in approval P05-0164 Type C Sign Permit allowing a sign program consisting of two (2) new building fayade signs on the west and east elevations, and the exclusion of the fayade sign proposed for the south elevation, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: Plans prepared by Adlmpact dated 02/23/06, submitted in association with P05-0168; Design Review board meeting of January 21, 2006; Design Review Board minutes of January 21, 2006; Planning Commission staff report dated March 16, 2006; and Planning Commission meeting of March 16,2006: 1. The master sign program for the building located at 401-405 Grand Avenue is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element, which designates this site for Downtown Commercial, a category allowing for a variety of pedestrian friendly mixed-use activities including retail and visitor-oriented uses, and businesses and personal services; 2. The master sign program is consistent with the SSFMC Chapters 20.76 and 20.86: a. The proposed master sign program meets all the general sign standards set in SSFMC Section 20.76.150. Most signs are applied directly to the building. The under canopy and flag signs proposed project over the public right-of-way by a maximum of 36-inches. b. The materials, graphic style, and illumination have been well integrated with the architectural features of the building and are compatible with other signage in the downtown. c. The Design Review Board was specifically supportive of the design of the signs, noting that they are consistent with other signage previously approved in the downtown. 3. The master sign program will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The sign program will result in a consistent level of sign quality, which reflects and complements the simple architecture of the existing buildings, and will be compatible with other signage in the downtown. * * * TYPE C MASTER SIGN PROGRAM 401-405 GRAND AVENUE/215-219 MAPLE AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff ftfarch 16, 2006) A. PLANNING DIVISION requirements shall be as follow: 1. The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as amended by the conditions of approval. 2. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval including the sign plan prepared by AdImpact in association with P05-0 168, dated 02/23/06. 3. The text on the plans related to future tenant signage shall be amended to read "subject to City approval" and all reference to "landlord approval" shall be removed from the plans. 4. Signage for each tenant spaces fronting Maple Avenue shall be limited to: a) One Primary Identification sign consisting of illuminated aluminum framed channel letters on a raceway i. The raceway shall be painted to match the color of the building); 11. The sign is centered above the tenant space; 111. The maximum height of the signage shall be 18-inches; IV. The maximum square footage shall be 23; and v. The sign copy, font and color shall be approved by the Chief Planner. b) One under canopy sign/flag mount sign. i. The under canopy signs shall be a maximum of six and one half inches tall and two and one half feet wide; 11. The under canopy signs shall be hung on two pieces of five inch long square tubing; 111. The closest edge of the under canopy signs shall measure six inches to the building wall; IV. The flag sign shall be a maximum of six and one half inches tall and two and one half feet wide; v. The flag sign shall be attached to the building using an aluminum covered bracket (filler) that holds the sign a maximum of two inches of the building wall; VI. The under canopy signs shall be located above the door to the tenant space and the flag sign shall be mounted within two feet of the west building wall at a similar height to the under canopy signs; a) One Primary Identification sign consisting of illuminated aluminum framed channel letters on a raceway on the Grand Avenue frontage and one Identification sign consisting of illuminated aluminum framed channel letters on a race\X/ay on the J\1aple Avenue frontage. i. The raceway shall match the color of the building; 11. The Grand Avenue sign shall be centered above the tenant space; 111. The Maple Avenue sign shall be centered between the front wall of the building and the building overhang on Maple Avenue (as shown on page three in the plans; and IV. The maximum height of each sign shall be 21-inches and the maximum square footage shall be 36. b) One under canopy sign. i. The under canopy sign shall be a maximum of six and one half inches tall and two and one half feet wide; 11. They shall be hung on two pieces five inch long square tubing; 111. The closest edge of the sign shall measure six inches to the building wall; IV. The under canopy shall be double faced aluminum that is faced with a vinyl overlay; and v. The under canopy signs shall be located on the Grand Avenue frontage above the main entry door to the tenant space. c) One door decal with a maximum size of two square feet (as shown on page 7 of the plans dated 2/23/06. 6. Signage for the second floor tenants shall be limited to: a) An indoor directory sign. 7. No signs shall be permitted under this approval until the non-complying signs are removed from the building. 8. On-site advertising signs outside of the master sign program are not permitted. No additional signs or revisions shall be placed on the site without prior approval from the Planning Commission. 9. Future changes of sign copy, font, or color shall be submitted to the Chief Planner for reVIew. Planning Division contact Gerry Beaudin, Associate Planner, 650/877-8353 A. Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. B. Signage Requirements 1. At least 70% of the window space must be clear at all times. Signage may not be placed that would obscure 70% of the window, to maximize natural surveillance. 2. The Design Review Board must approve all signage prior to its being placed in windows. No signage such as banners may be placed on the building at any time. 3. Sandwich boards or A-frame advertising is prohibited. No signage, merchandise, or any form of advertising, promotion or marketing may be placed in or encroach upon the public right of way. Police Department contact, Sgt. E. Alan Normandy (650) 877-8927 C. Engineering Division conditions of approval are as follows: 1. The applicant shall provide accurate site plans for the locations of the proposed overhang signs to include property lines and City right-of-way lines. Signs within the City right-of-way will require a revocable encroachment permit from the City's Engineering Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Engineering Division contact, Michelle Bocalan, 650/829-6652 APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Ken Ibarra 225 Del Monte Ave P06-0009 & DR06-00 13 Expansion of Single Family Dwelling (Case Planner: Gerry Beaudin) DESCRIPTION Design Review of an addition and remodel to an existing single family dwelling in the Single Family Residential (R-1-E) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.16 & 20.85 The Board had the following comments: 1. Add one additional window to the right side (west) elevation. 2. Change the roof over the entry from a flat roof to a gable. 3. Maintain a minimum garage depth dimension of 40' (interior clear). 4. Show a new/repaired fence around the property on the construction plan submittal. No need to come back to DRB. 10. OWNER Hernandez, Jose J & Rita APPLICANT Comerica / Ad Impact Corporate Signage ADDRESS 401- 405 Grand Ave PROJECT NUMBER P05-0 168 & SIGNS06-0002 PROJECT NAME Type "C" Sign - Comerica (Case Planner: Gerry Beaudin) DESCRIPTION Type "C" Sign Permit to allow a master sign program for a multi- tenant building at 401-405 Grand Avenue in the Downtown Commercial (D-C-L) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.76 & 20.86 The Board had the following comments: 1. Internally illuminated "can" signs are not consistent with the City's downtown design guidelines (alternative plans were presented by the applicant). 2. Based on the alternative plans presented, the exposed raceway should be as small as possible and painted the raceway to match the building. 11. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION Will & Remy Balancio Will & Remy Balancio 424 Zamora Dr P06-0014 & DR06-0012 Balancio Residence - 2nd Story Addition (Case Planner: Gerry Beaudin) Design Review of a 2nd story addition to an existing single family dwelling in the Single Family Residential (R-1-E) Zone R QU ST F T PE 'c' SIGN PE MITS APPLICANT: ADIMPACT CORPORATE SIGNAGE 19772 MACARTHUR BLVD. SUITE 110 IRVINE, CA 92612 PREPARED BY: ADIMPACT CORPORATE SIGNAGE JUAN URBINA (DESIGNER) AZAD GOLSHANI (PROJECT MANAGER) OWNERS: JOSE AND RITA HERNANDEZ 475 PARKWAY S. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 401-405 GRAND AVE., SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 VICINITY MAP I REV #0 1 1102-23-06 I SIDEWALK 0) I en oq- b I N tmlDl ~ -I ~ W o (j) NOTE: ALL PRIMARY ELECTRICAL TO SIGN LOCATIONS TO BE SUPPLIED BY G.C. 71'-10 % " w ~ o z <( 0:: <9 NORTH @ 12'-0" ~ ~Dl 2ND FLOOR ENTRANCE ....) 1]1 TENANT TENANT COMERICA BANK TENANT SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=30 ' I rI ! I I I --------------------------------------~----------- - - -- --------- - - ------- - -------- --- ------ --- MAPLE AVE. uth San Francisco, CA 94080 19772 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 476-0015 fax. (949) 476-0029 I" 23'-4 " TENANT SPACE l 23'-4 " TENANT SPACE 23'-4 " TENANT SPACE l l Ii1I t;! " " " " SIGN TYPE " " " " " " " " " SOUTH ELEVATION . . SIGN TYPE Ii1I SIGN TYPE SIGN TYPE IiII SIGN TYPE SIGN TYPE SIGN TYPE Azad DESIGNER 71'-10 %" COMERICA SPACE M" 17'.1 %" rill SIGN TYPE " d w ~~ .' I N (V) " " " " " " a w " " " " " " "- " " " " " Scale: 3/32"=1 '-0" 19172 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 476-0015 fax. (949) 476-0029 JCU uth San Francisco, CA 94080 Grand Avenue an Francisco, CA 94080 Ell SIGN TYPE a w -[t <0 ~ I I c,., N a w SIGN TYPE 1 36'-4 % " COMERICA SPACE 1 EO. 17'-1 %" 1 EO. 1 " D~DD~'D~D " " " " " " " " " " " Scale: 1/8"=1'-0" ISI SIGN TYPE N NUMBER 19772 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 476-0015 fax. (949) 476-0029 1 17'-112" 1 10'-10 " f f 5'-9%" ~[ :: :: ~ ~ """ I I N - ~ .._... PRIMARY ID SIGN / IllUMINATED CHANNEL lETTERS l1li SCALE: 1/2" = 1 '-0" 35.61 SQ. FT. SPECIFICATIONS: MANUFACTURE AND INSTALL NEW FABRICATED ALUMINUM LETTERS WITH 5" DEEP RETURNS AND ACRYLIC TRIM-CAPPED FACES. INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED WITH NEON. SHEET METAL SCREW HI---- 5" (PAINT TO I MATCH RETURN) 1"TRIMCAP ~ COMERICA BANK: FACES - 3M "BRISTOL BLUE" VINYL (3630-97) ON WHITE ACRYLIC #7328 TRIMCAP - COLOR TO MATCH FACES RETURNS - COLOR TO MATCH FACES NEON ILLUMINATION - 6500 WHITE 3/16" ACRYLIC FACE ~ TUBE SUPPORT RACEWAY: PAINT TO MATCH BUILDING. INSULATED BOOT ..- I N SLEEVING (COVERS GTO WIRE) NON-METALLIC BUSHING 15MM NEON PAINT INTERIOR OF LETTER WHITE ALUMINUM : DRAIN HOLE ~ 8" @b) LISTED FASTENER (DETERMINED BY WALL CONSTRUCTION) r SIDE VIEW SECTION DETAIL 1 1J2"=1' -0" o ." -Jo. I\.) South San Francisco, CA 94080 u 19772 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 476-0015 fax. (949) 476-0029 I" 2' -6 " 1 ~" H PI' to %" SQ. TUBE ::: ~~ EI. ;~;L~~1D:~~,~~, SIGN I UNDER CANOPY SIGN SPECIFICATIONS: MANUFACTURE NEW ALUMINUM DOUBLE-FACE UNDER CANOPY SIGN WITH VINYL OVERLAY. COLORS: BACKGROUND: PAINTED TO MATCH 3M "BRISTOL BLUE" (3630-97) COpy & BORDER: 3M WHITE VINYL (7725-10) SIDE VIEW 3/4" X 3/4 " SQ. TUBE .125" ALUMINUM U CHANNEL - ~ .- .125" ALUMINUM FACE WI PAINTED CD SURFACE AND VINYL OVERLAY H 1 ~" SIDE VIEW SECTION DETAIL 3"=1' -0" r lo 12'-0 " SIDEWALK PROPOSED UNDER CANOPY SIGN 2'-6" 6" 3'-6" OVERHANG SCALE: }2" = 1 '-0" ~ ~ ~ <.9 z o -.J :::> 0) = -::;t I N ~ .1 o " cisco, CA 94080 19772 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 476-0015 fax. (949) 476-0029 f 18" f Co j;:: ("f) N ~ LOBBY HO{!J!Pd~ ~ l'l ~ M(Q)l11d]~~ ~: (0)(0) ~m = 6): (Q)(Q) ~m ~ ~ llU]~~d]~~ ~: (Q)(Q) ~m = 6): (Q)(Q) ~m l'l ~ ~ W~d]l11~~d]~~ ~: (Q)(Q) ~m = 6): (Q)(Q) ~m ~ ~ lh (U] [j~d] ~~ ~: (Q)(Q) ~m = 6): (Q)(Q) ~m ~ ~ f[j~d]~~ ~: (Q)(Q) ~m = (6: (Q)(Q) ~m l'l ~ (0 I ~ ~~~(U] [jd]~)f ~: (Q)(Q) ~m = ~ : (Q)(Q) ~m in J 15 3/8" J COMERICA DOOR DECAL SCALE: 3" = 1 '-0" SPECIFICATIONS: DOOR HOURS AND LOGOS. LOGOS TO BE APPLIED TO BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF DOOR SURFACES AND TO ALIGN WI EACH OTHER TO PREVENT SEEING THE BACK OF THE VINYL. LOGO: 3M "BRISTOL BLUE" #3630-97 VINYL BACKGROUND WI WHITE VINYL COpy AND BORDER #7725-10. LOBBY HOURS: FIRST SURFACE 3M WHITE VINYL #7725-10. n Francisco, CA 94080 , EO., , EO., I EO., , EO., COMERICA DOOR DECAL SCALE: 3/4" = 1 '-0" 19772 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 476-0015 fax. (949) 476-0029 __. PRIMARY 10 SIGN / ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS ilill SCALE: y,," = 1 '-0" 23.00 SQ. FT. OR (ONE 8Q.FT PER LINEAR FOOT OF FRONTAGE) SPECIFICATIONS: MANUFACTURE AND INSTALL NEW FABRICATED ALUMINUM LETTERS WITH 5" DEEP RETURNS AND ACRYLIC TRIM-CAPPED FACES. INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED WITH NEON. COLORS: CHOSEN BY TENANTS. SHEET METAL SCREW ~1--511 (PAINT TO I MATCH RETURN) 1"TRIMCAP ~ 8" 3/16" ACRYLIC FACE ~ RACEWAY: PAINT TO MATCH BUILDING. TUBE SUPPORT INSULATED BOOT SLEEVING 9 (COVERS GTO WIRE) N NON-METALLIC BUSHING 15MM NEON PAINT INTERIOR OF LETTER WHITE ALUMINUM : DRAIN HOLE SIDE VIEW SECTION DETAIL 1 %"=1'-0" o TI ([) LISTED FASTENER (DETERMINED BY WALL CONSTRUCTION) + \- PRIMARY ELECTRICAL SOURCE 1/2" CONDUIT Francisco, CA 94080 19772 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 476-0015 fax. (949) 476-0029 I~ ?' -~ " '- -v 1 ~" H --I Ln %" SQ. TUBE :: ~ <0 TENANT [is.. SECONDARY 10 SIGN I UNDER CANOPY SIGN . SCALE: 1 %" = 1 '-a" SIDE VIEW SPECIFICATIONS: MANUFACTURE NEW ALUMINUM DOUBLE-FACE UNDER CANOPY SIGN WITH VINYL OVERLAY. COLORS: FUTURE TENANTS TO SUPPLY COLORS, SUBJECT TO LANDLORD APPROVAL. 3/4" X 3/4 " SQ. TUBE .125" ALUMINUM U CHANNEL - ~ '-.125" ALUMINUM FACE WI PAINTED CD SURFACE AND VINYL OVERLAY H 1 ~" SIDE VIEW SECTION DETAIL 3"=1' -0" n Francisco, CA 94080 JCU r Ln I.. 12'-0" SIDEWALK PROPOSED UNDER CANOPY SIGN TENANT 2' -6" 3'-6" OVERHANG <.9 z o .....J ::> OJ = ~ I N ~ ., SCALE: %" = 1 '-a" 19772 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 476-0015 fax. (949) 476-0029 IEO'I IEO'I DOOR DECAL lEi TENANT DOOR DECAL SPECIFICATIONS: FIRST SURFACE DOOR DECAL, NOT TO EXCEED 250/0 OF GLASS AREA <0 , in ARTWORK & COLORS: FUTURE TENANTS TO SUPPLY ARTWORK AND COLORS, SUBJECT TO LANDLORD APPROVAL. TENANT DOOR DECAL rancisco, CA 94080 19772 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 476-0015 fax. (949) 476-0029 I" 3'-0 " ALUMINUM FILLER 1 12" H :: T N NT ~ I'- SECONDARY 10 SIGN / FLAG MOUNT SIGN SCALE: 1 %" = 1'-0" SIDE VIEW SPECIFICATIONS: MANUFACTURE NEW ALUMINUM DOUBLE-FACE FLAG MOUNT SIGN WITH VINYL OVERLAY. COLORS: FUTURE TENANTS TO SUPPLY COLORS, SUBJECT TO LANDLORD APPROVAL. 12'-0" SIDEWALK PROPOSED UNDER CANOPY SIGN TENANT I... 3'-0" SCALE: %" = 1 '-0" .1 ~ f'. (!) z o .....J :::> OJ = ~ ~ _I ~ ~ .1 CA 94080 19772 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 476-0015 fax. (949) 476-0029 1m: EXISTING DIRECTORY SIGN FOR SECOND FLOOR TENANTS illi EXISTING DOOR DECALS FOR SECOND FLOOR TENANTS ~ DATE G> m z c s: m ~ Shown BRANCH # Azad DESIGNER n Francisco, CA 94080 JCU 19772 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 476-0015 fax. (949) 476-0029 ~c 3" 4'-1 1/8" 3'-7 1/8" 2'-9 1/8" 10" 3" ATM SURROUND ELEVATION 1 "= l' -0" ~"'rv1 Sl...J~~G)l...JfsJlJ) SPECIFICATIONS: 3.21 SQ. FT. MFR. AND INSTALL (1) ATM SURROUND. ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION. PAINT TO MATCH #3630-97 BRISTOL BLUE VINYL WITH LITE STIPPLE FINISH. en ~ INTERIOR ILLUMINATED HEADER PANEL. WHITE LEXAN FACE WITH BLUE VINYL BACKGROUND CUT OUT FOR WHITE LOGO. WHITE LEXAN DOWN LIGHT LENS. FULL COLOR NETWORK LOGO GRID. ;q - ~ (1) 8 1h" X 11" POSTER AD-PANEL. CORIAN WRITING SURFACE SHELVES. N ~ (1) TRASH DISPENSER WITH HINGED DOOR. in ~ PROJECT MANAGER Azad DESIGNER CA 94080 JCU 19772 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 476-0015 fax. (949) 476-0029 Staff Report DATE: March 16,2006 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Comerica Bank - Use Permit application to allow financial services at 401 Grand Avenue in the Downtown Commercial (D-C- L) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.26, 20.81 & 20.85 Owner: Applicant: Case Nos.: Rita Hernandez Comerica Bank - Lynn Beteag/Pollack Architecture - Todd Levine P05-0168: UP05-0030, DR05-0098, PE05-0006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve application P05-0168 for Use Permit UP05-0031 and Design Review file DR05-0098 based on the attached Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND: Comerica Bank, a full service financial services company, has applied to occupy 2,400 square feet of space within the multi-tenant building 401-405 Grand Avenue. In accordance with policies in the General Plan, banks are permitted in ground floor tenant spaces subject to approval of a Use Permit. DISCUSSION: Comerica Bank proposes to remodel and occupy an existing 2,400-square-foot space within a multi-tenant building at 410-405 Grand Avenue in the Downtown area previously occupied by Panaderia Hernandez. The application includes interior improvements to the space and an A TM facing Grand Avenue. Their hours of operation include 9am to 5pm Monday to Thursday, 9am to 6pm Friday, and 9am to 1 pm Saturday. Comerica Bank is a subsidiary of Comerica Incorporated. Comerica Bank offers a range of services, including business banking, small business and personal financial services, and wealth management. March 16, 2006 Page 2 of 5 Signage A separate application (SIGN06-0002) has been submitted for the Planning Commission's consideration of a master sign program for the multi-tenant building at 401-405 Grand Avenue. The signage shown on the elevations in the plans is representational only. Zoning & General Plan/Redevelopment Plan Consistency The property is located within the D-C- L Downtown Commercial Zone District, which allows "financial services" as a permitted commercial use. However, the General Plan specifically states that within the Downtown area "the Municipal Code may allow with a use permit non- residential service oriented establishments (such as banks, travel agencies, and real estate offices) on the first floor." With the approval of a parking exception, as discussed, the proposed project meets all Zoning Ordinance development standards. Parking The existing building and site cannot accommodate any parking on-site. The tenant space was most recently occupied by a retail use, which required a total of five (5) parking spaces in accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance regulations (1 space per 500 square feet of floor area occupied). The proposed use requires a total of eight (8) parking spaces, or one space per 300 square feet of floor area occupied. Because no on-site parking can be provided, the applicant requested and was granted a 3 space parking exception by the Parking Place Commission on January 10, 2006. Design Review Board The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at their meeting of December 20,2005. The Board was generally supportive of the proposed design and recommended approval, but added a few comments including: 1. Revise plans to include 2 separate restroom facilities since there will be more than 4 employees. 2. Include the corridor exit door on the plans. 3. Consider planting 3 to 4 street trees on Maple Avenue once the existing conditions location of existing utility vaults are surveyed. March 16, 2006 Page 3 of 5 Based on the Board's recommendations, the applicant has revised the plans to address the first two comments. The applicant has also illustrated three street trees on the Maple Avenue frontage. However, the feasibility of planting these trees requires further investigation on the part of the applicant in conjunction with the City's Engineering Division. A condition of approval has been included to address street trees on Maple Avenue. The minutes of the Design Review Board are attached to this staff report. CEQA The proposed development has been determined to be categorically exempt under the provisions ofCEQA. (Class 1, Section 15301: Minor alteration to existing facilities.) CONCLUSION: The proposed project meets the intent of the General Plan and complies with the development standards outlined in the Municipal Code. The proposed use will promote pedestrian traffic in the downtown area and occupy a space that is currently vacant. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve application P05-0 168 for Use Permit UP05-0031 and Design Review file DR05-0098 based on the attached draft Findings and subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval. /{~, Gerry Beaudin, Associate Planner Attachments: Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Design Review Board Minutes - December 20,2005 Parking Place Commission Staff Report - January 10,2006 Plans COMERICA BANK 401 GRAND AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff March 16, 2006) As required by the "Use Permit Procedures" (SSFMC Chapter 20.81) the following findings are made in support of allowing a financial services use at 401 Grand Avenue, in D-C- L Downtown Commercial District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.26, 20.81, & 20.85 based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to the: Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Building Elevations prepared by Pollack Architecture dated November 30,2005; Design Review Board meeting of December 20,2005; Design Review Board meeting minutes of December 20, 2005; Parking Place Commission meeting of January 10, 2006; Parking Place Commission staff report of January 10, 2006; Planning Commission staff report, dated March 16, 2006; and Planning Commission meeting of March 16,2006: 1. The financial services use in a 2,400 square foot tenant space within the building at 401 Grand Avenue will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, or detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The project has been designed in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Design Guidelines to provide an adequate quality of fit with the existing surrounding industrial development. The parking supply has been addressed and approved by the Parking Place Commission and will be adequate to meet proj ected parking demand. Conditions of approval are required which will ensure that the development complies with local development standards. 2. The proposed project complies with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of "Downtown" by providing, with a use permit, non-residential service-oriented establishment, such as banks within the City's downtown. 3. The proposed project complies with the standards and requirements of the D-C Zone District with the exception of parking, which was addressed by the Parking Place Commission on January 10, 2006. * * COMERICA BANK 401 GRAND AVENUE (As recommended by City Stallon March 16, 2006) A. Planning Division requirements shall he as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Division's standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial Industrial and Multi-family Residential Projects. 2. The project shall be completed and operated substantially as indicated in the plans prepared by Pollack Architecture, dated 11/30/05. 3. Signs shall require the approval of a separate sign permit. 4. The applicant shall install or place trash receptacles in the direct vicinity of the A TM machine, subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining a litter free public right-of-way directly adjacent to the tenant space they occupy. 6. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall work with the City's Engineering Division to determine whether street trees can be accommodated within the Maple Avenue public right-of-way based on the location of the existing utilities. The location and type of trees shall be approved by the Chief Planner. Planning Division contact Gerry Beaudin, Associate Planner, (650) 877-8353 B. Police Department conditions of approval are as follows: A. Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. B. Signage Requirements 1. At least 70% of the window space must be clear at all times. Signage may not be placed that would obscure 70% of the window, to maximize natural surveillance. Page 2 of 8 2. The Design Review Board must approve all signage prior to its being placed in windows. No signage such as banners may be placed on the building at any time. 3. Sandwich boards or A-frame advertising is prohibited. No signage, merchandise, or any form of advertising, promotion or marketing may be placed in or encroach upon the public right of way. C. Parking / Armored Car Delivery Requirements So as not to create additional parking issues in the downtown area, the applicant agrees that no armored car deliveries will occur between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on any given day. D. Camera Surveillance Required CCTV cameras must be placed to monitor the following areas: 1. Safe room entry and approach 2. Cashier's areas 3. Manager's Office 4. Approach to ATM, as well as installed within the ATM CCTV camera must be of adequate quality to ensure the ready identification of subjects and vehicle license plates approaching the aforementioned locations, and provide realistic color rendition. CCTV recordings will be maintained for no less than 60 days, and this system must be operational at all times, or this Use Permit may be immediately revoked. E. Safe Requirements A drop safe for incoming monies is required. This drop safe should be rated at no less than a TL-15 rating. F. Alarms The business plant, safe and A TM must individually alarmed, and monitored by a central station. A robbery alarm at the cashier's locations is also required. Page 3 of 8 G. 6, 12, and 18-Month Review After initial approval, this Use Permit is subj ect to Planning Commission Review at 6, 12 and 18-month intervals. Police Department contact, Sgt. E. Alan Normandy (650) 877-8927 C. Engineering Division conditions of approval are as follows: 1. The applicant shall provide accurate site plans for the locations of the proposed overhang signs to include property lines and City right-of-way lines. Signs within the City right-of- way will require a revocable encroachment permit from the City's Engineering Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The applicant shall submit landscaping plans for the proposed trees along Maple Avenue to include the proposed irrigation system, types of trees and tree pit details for the approval of the Superintendent of Parks and Facilities Maintenance. 3. Upon completion of the building construction and site improvements, the developer shall clean, repair, or reconstruct (if necessary), any damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveway approach along the entire frontage of the site, as may be required by the Engineering Division staff, as needed to conform to current City standards. Engineering Division contact, Michelle Bocalan, 650/829-6652 APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Jean E Sinclair 242 Shaw Rd P05-0 166 & DR05-0099 W oofgangs Doggie Day Care (Case Planner: Gerry Beaudin) DESCRIPTION Use Permit application to allow a dog daycare center at 242 Shaw Road in the Industrial (M-1) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.30 and 20.81 The Board had the following comments: 1. Only one handicap parking stall is required on the property. Considered combing space #2 & #3 to be handicap spaces. Also create a pedestrian walkway from the building to the street. 2. The Board recommended the applicant plant three street trees along the street frontage. No need to come back to DRB. Consider comments for Conditions of Approval. 7. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Hernandez, Jose J & Rita Comerica/Lynn Beteag 401 Grand Ave P05-0 168, UP05-0030, DR05-0098 & PE05-0006 Use Permit - Comerica (Case Planner: Gerry Beaudin) DESCRIPTION Use Permit application to allow financial services at 405 Grand Avenue in the Downtown Commercial (D-C-L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.26, 20.81 & 20.85 The Board had the following comments: 1. Revise plans to include 2 separate restroom facilities since there will be more than 4 employees. 2. Include the corridor exit door on the plans. 3. Consider planting 3 to 4 street trees on Maple Avenue once the existing conditions location of existing utility vaults are surveyed. No need to come back to DRB. Consider comments for Conditions of Approval. 8. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Raymond Law Wing Lee 628 Miller Ave P05-0137 & DR05-0081 In-Law Unit (Case Planner: Gerry Beaudin) - --- - --- -v - ----- Staff Report DATE: January 10,2006 TO: Parking Place Commission SUBJECT: Parking Exception for three (3) spaces for a financial services use at 405 Grand Avenue in the Downtown Commercial (D-C- L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.74.080. Applicant: Comerica Bank (Lynn Beteag) Property Owner: Jose J. & Rita Hernandez Site Address: 405 Grand Avenue Case No. P05-0168/PE05-0006 RECOMMENDATION: That the Parking Place Commission approve Parking Exception application P05-0168/PE05-0006 to allow a three (3) space exception in order to permit a financial services use, based on the findings. BACKGROUND: The subj ect building contains four units; the subj ect tenant space is the only space currently unoccupied. The previous use in the subject tenant space was retail- SSFMC requires one space for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant is proposing a Comerica Bank branch within the 2,400-square-foot space. The floor plan submitted to the City on November 29,2005 show that the bank branch will provide a range of financial services including an A TM, tellers, as well as office space (see attached floor plans). Due to existing site constraints, no tenants in the four-unit building provide on site parking. DISCUSSION: The subject tenant space is located at the comer of Maple Avenue and Grand Avenue. The gross floor area of the space is 2,400 square feet. For "Financial Services and Offices" Chapter 20.74.060 of the SSFMC requires one parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area occupied. Since the previous use was retail, which required five (5) spaces, the parking exception for the financial services use is for three (3) parking spaces. '-'UCl\.< 1. 'lV.. .r VJ-V 1 VOl r DV.J-VVVO Subject: Parking Exception for 405 Grand Ave. January 10, 2006 Page 2 of3 There are two district parking lots (lots 12 and 14) located less than 300 feet from the subject site (see attached Downtown Parking District Map). Lots 3, 5, 8, and 10 are also within one block of the subject site. Lots 12 and 14 have 36 and 16 metered and permitted spaces respectively. Collectively, lots 3, 5, 8, and 10 have 100 metered and permitted spaces. In addition to the 152 metered and permitted parking spaces in the aforementioned district parking lots, there is metered parking on both sides of Grand Avenue and Maple Avenue in the vicinity of the subj ect site. Staffbelieves that the amount of parking in the nearby parking lots and on the street will be sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed use. CONCLUSION: The applicant is proposing renovate a 2,400 square foot tenant space for financial services at 405 Grand Avenue. By Code, the proposed use requires eight (8) parking spaces; however the previous use required five (5) spaces. The result is a parking exception application for three (3) spaces. There are two district parking lots (Nos. 12 and 14) less than 300 feet from the site, containing a total of 52 metered and permitted spaces. In addition to lots 12 and 14, there are five other district parking lots with 100 metered and permitted parking spaces within one block of the subj ect site. Finally, there is also metered parking along both sides of Grand Avenue and Maple Avenue. Staffbelieves that there is ample parking in the immediate vicinity to allow the parking exception, and recommends that the Commission make the required findings and approve Parking Exception Application P05-0168/PE05-0006 based on the attached findings of approval. Ge Beaudin, AICP, MCIP Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Findings of Approval (1 page) Parking Exception Application (1 page) Downtown Parking District Map (1 page) Downtown Parking Space Count (1 page) 1:'1.........._ Dl ~_ ~ TI_.~ _4-~_ _ ___.:I r-;, _ ._ . FINDINGS OF APPROVAL 405 GRAND AVE. PARKING EXCEPTION P05-0168/PE05-0006 (As recommend by City Staff on January 10, 2005) As required by the Parking Exception Application Procedures (SSFMC Section 20.74.080), the following finding is made in support of Application P05-0168/PE05-0006 to allow an eight (8) space exception in order to permit a financial services use at 405 Grand Avenue in accordance with SSFMC 20. 74.080( d), based on public testimony and materials submitted to the South San Francisco Parking Place Commission which include, but are not limited to: Parking Exception Application dated November 29,2005; Plans prepared by the applicant, received November 29, 2005; and Parking Place Commission staffreport dated January 10, 2006: 1. Due to the proximity of public parking lots (Nos.- 3, 5, 8 10, 12, and 14), the presence of metered parking on both sides of Grand Avenue and Maple Avenue, and the relatively small number of spaces required for the proposed use three (3), there is sufficient parking in the vicinity of the proj ect site to meet all of the required onsite parking needs of the proposed use. tjlIDtjL ~[[ 11- --r- -_ I -L ---Ll _ I = ~ =11 I ~ep- =ienu~ ~ ~ ~ =~ i . .~~-~~ 3:tt =m ~ == ~ -..J- ~ =:i] ~t='. IIII~ ;=~ _@= ~= ~i =r: li=fi I. 1-- _ Linden Avenue_ ~ ;~ ;; I!i ~ J _ ~ == ~~ Tnm ~r- _~<D_-r~ ~= .J..J...L11L .-- r-- --- __ L I _ I-- __ ~ ~ -- .J~ess ---=- =--. . - ----- lJAvenue ~" A . -----.-.. ~ 'rpOrt I R^... lliJj~ D~ Spruce ~DI ~== _f-- ~ - - I---- - ~ I---- _ -~ -- -- '"" '--- I---- n - r'\J ~ --r-- [D- - $:I) '--- ~ 0 _ ---..L- s>> ::;- :== I---- 3 - _ Co g:==1---- 3--~ Co i--- ~ en - =c I-- ~ ""'I: )> i--- -_ ~.- < $:I) en I-- == -- -:::s r-- _ _s:: r-- i--- - - - en ~.... ....... 1--- -- .~ :==- ===- ~ - - --,-- - I------l- -- I-- - -- - r--- r- ~~ .t.IIII I o ~ :I: !. J I r-- !-- - - TI~ Ie - - - - - -~ -:::s c: en nrn c o ~ ::::J ... o ~ ::::J ." Q) .., ~ _!!II ::::J (Q C -- en ... .., -. n. ... Lot Number Metered Spaces Permit Spaces Total 1 32 32 (Buon Gusto) 2 14 20 34 (200 Linden) 3 10 10 20 (Miller A ve.lBayview Bank) 4 20 20 (Toppers) 5 20 20 40 (Baden up from State Room) ** 6 37 37 (Miller Ave. lower lot) ** 7 40 40 (Miller Ave. upper lot/Maple) ** 8 20 20 (Next to Lot 3) **10 20 20 (Next to Lot 8) 12 10 26 36 (Baden Ave. next to Lot 5) **13 29 29 (Cypress & Miller) . **14 16 16 ( 432 Baden Ave.) 15 12 12 ( 201 Grand & Cypress) 16 20 20 (616 Linden & Pine) Proposed # 17 ( 178-190 Airport Blvd.) On-Street Grand Avenue 156 156 Walnut Avenue* 39 39 Maple Avenue 38 38 Miller Avenue 64 64 Linden A venue 56 56 Baden Avenue 28 28 Cypress Avenue 54 54 Airport Blvd. 19 19 Lux Avenue 11 11 Spruce Avenue 15 15 - DISTRICT TOTAL 618 Meters 238 Permits 856 Total *Parking by permit also allowed at meters in these areas. **Day Permits allowed. Please Print lObJ Ls\,1\NC (PoC(A:.11:: P$cHrne.cr ult~ ) . . .' a [1\ f\\A'b~ ~~ J SU\l\e 350 ~.r-. cA' (4103 Name of Property Owner: J2 \1A ~~A.N~ 'Z-- Address of Property Owner: 41? r8~ WAI1 Telephone No. of Applicant: 6? o. 872' Z 541 Assessor's Parcel No.: Or 23oSZ5o Street Address: 4-0\ c..~ p,Vf::. Proposed Use of Property: J2aA\ L.- MN~1 N~ Lelt-JA.I0C I ~L- Se-e.Vt c.(c:S \40 I >c r"_ 0 I. ~ t= ~p. Lo CiIi'\i!'S p)r:(2-., l41 fT Size of Lot: . -:;;J No. of Employees: --'full tIme pantlme Hours of Operation: ~O"-l - "\=-t.\ -:: q - S S,A \ -= "... f 4.mount of FIOO; Area of Proposed Use: "21 +0 (> '* ~\L Name of Applicant: Address of Applicant: square feet. ?revious (or existing) Use: Square footage and nature ofotherusesoc;:z:!ngfhe .\wilding: aa.otJN h O,t.....J ,.:I) YLOo f2-- . \lumber of legal parking spaces proposed on site: ~ "Jumber of additional parking spaces proposed on site: .--e- "fLot>fL ~I L I OFfices " / No S . a. City parking lot located within 2001 of subject property? Yes f so, number of parking spaces existing: metered permit only \mount of vacant land on site which could be improved for parking: ~umber of metered parking spacesdirectfy abutting subject property: ~o * .. .. *" *" ** ** AFF I DAV f T ... ... **,..,..** .;, '* * '* .,.. declare that I am (CIRCLE ONE) the oWne~ttomey of the. owner/or/aperson with the power of attorney from the ownerl of the above roperty involved in this application,. and that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at ~ SAu ~(tAtJ " California, the t; day of Nt) ~~ .1iKJ!2 TO DD LEV/I'6 PRINT NAMl= -. I' I I - ; "'t:: ~ d' 15~ e i:i~ ~.. - I ~ I=!:g ~: ~ 1if~i ~.~ J!i :cd~ !lii is is~:; ~~ .....::;;: Z l:. <( .1 ...J - 0.... .0 o:::~ g ~ Li ~ 0 () en Ll) () 0 z 0 ~ C'\l a:: .0 IJ.. C") 0:: Z w ~ c:o en :;; w > 0 z en w z ::l ~ Z ....J W c.. > 0:: ~ 0 Cl 0 Z ....J ~ u.. a:: Cl 0 ~ Cl Z ::J o 0::: Cl ~ ~ 3nN3^'lf ON'lfl:lE> ---- I I I .. I I I Z b <( J -l - 0..1 O::~ O. g 5 I..t.. III C) Z F (f) X w ---. I I I - ..... CD ~ E c ::J e- m 0 0 ..q- - N w :J Z w > ..: Z b <( .1 -l - 0..1 !"j. 0:: ~ o. o ~ -l 0( I..t.. lil o w (f) o 0.. o 0:: 0.. ll. ..: :::; ~ g I I I ! I m I II ~ I ~ i .. j : I ~ ~ ~ if ; ! II ~ I !l! ; ; ; eeeeee I il!l ~~ ~ . lit i~ ~~ ji".E ~~ .5 =~ ~~ -1 0.. 0::: o o -1 u.. o "<t c <e ~~ w~ ffi~ ;;!;C5 r:ui I-<n <nO <e-' wz ~c;j 4 0 1 GRAN A V E t\j I I U r- t: o SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO C AI APPLICANT: fl COmenrA \ 75 EAST TRIMBLE ROAD SAN JOSE, CA95113 408.556.5410 CONTACT: LYNN BETEAG PLANNING SUBMISSION NOVEMBER 30,2005 ASS E S 0 R' SPA R eEL N U M B E R: 0 1 2 3 0 5 2 8 0 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: TnnrItlx.J.i Cro\\'~ mlt1an~: 2635 BROWN STREET NAPA, CA 94558 707.255.6706 707.255.6708 FAX CONTACT: KIMBERLY SMITH ARCHITECT: Richard Pollack & Associates Architecture Interior Design 111 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 350 San Francisco, CA 94108 415.788.4400 415.788.5309 FAX CONTACT: DAVID LINK TODD LEVINE ill ":::3 Z ill > <( ill -1 D- <( r N ct 75 EAST TRIMBLE ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 95113 40<3 GRAND AVENUE ill Z q -l o 0[ I jf- 40' (2)" x ill -l O- r () u OL ill jf- Z ill U \) > u EXISTING SIDEWALK Q , Q MAPLE AvENUE ci1 ill v- =:3 <i Z ill ill ~ > ~ q ~ 0 ~ z q OL \j ct FLOOR PLANS NOVEMBER 30,2005 401 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ~ NORTI-I SITE PLAN SCALE = 1/16" = 1'-0" Richard PollucR & Associates Architecture Interior Design 111 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 350 San Francisco, CA 94108 I I (E) RETAIL AREA OF WORK 2 AiZliZl SQ. FT. I I I I ---- GROUND FLOOR PLAN SCALE = 1/8" = 1'-12''' FLOOR PLANS NOVEMBER 30,2005 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Richard ~Pollack & Associates I COmerrA ~ 401 GRAND AVENUE Architecture Interior Design 111 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 350 San Francisco, CA 94108 75 EAST TRIMBLE ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 95113 nCA 75 EAST TRIMBLE ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 95113 · Tl-iERE IS NO WORK TO BE PERFORMED ON Tl-iIS FLOOR SeCOND FLOOR FLAN SCALE = 1/8" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLANS NOVEMBER 30,2005 4 0 1 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Richura Politick &, Associates Architecture Interior Design 111 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 350 San Francisco, CA 94108 ,---------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L______________________ · TI-IERE IS NO WORK TO BE PERFORMED ON TI-IIS FLOOR FLOOR PLANS 75 EAST TRIMBLE ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 95113 BASEMENT PLAN SCALE = 1/8" = 1'_0" NOVEMBER 30,2005 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 401 GRAND AVENUE RicHCltd Pollack & Associates Architecture Interior Design 111 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 350 San Francisco, CA 94108 I I I I 2,400 square feet w :::> z w > ..: i 3 I I I I -- Cl z ..: 0:: (!) MAPLE AVENUE EXISTING FLOOR PLAN SCALE= 1/S" = 1'-0" G) NEW Al.UMINUM FfO!..<V1E WINDOW SYSTEM o NEW STUCCO PANEL.S W/Al.UMINUM EXPANSION JOINTS. REVEAl. o NEW STUCCO PANEL. WIREVEAl. AND BACKLIT SIGNAGE o NEW Al.UMINUM FfO!..<V1ED ENTR'r D~ o NEW ATM o NEW SPANDREL. GL.ASS WI BACKLIT SIGN CD NEW TREE IN Fl..ANTER O>men~ ~ a I /- I ( I I I I I L ~N'S ADA J RE~09M BRANCH MANAGER ~~II JI . II L~n;~~~:m;~J TELLER WORK AREA /~ <~ MONITOR /l / /("\ /~/\ ABOVE l.::.>.~.:,:::...,.j ) \'(~~" ... -<')' ~/ '-./ o EXISTING SIDEWALK MAP L E A V E N U E PROPOSED FLOOR PLA~ SCALE= 1/4" = 1'-( FLOOR PLANS NOVEMBER 30,2005 FRANCISCO 75 EAST TRIMBLE ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 95113 4 0 1 Architecture Interior Design 111 MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 350 San Francisco, CA 94108 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN ~ --! <r:: S w o (f) C) Z I- (f) X W EXISTING MAPLE AVENUE EL VATION SCALE = 1/8" = 1'-0" NEW MAPLE AvENUE ELEvATION SCALE = 1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING GRAND AvENUE EL 'v SCALE = 1/8" = l' CD NEW ALUMINUM FR.6ME WINDOW SYSTEM WI ElPAND~L GLASS TRANeot1 o NEW STUCCO PANELS W/ALUMINUM EXPANSION JOINTS. I'lEVEAL o EXI5TINGs BRICK ~ 8) NEW STUCCO PANEL WII'!EVSAL o NEW ALUMINUM FR.6MED ENTRY DOORS o NEW ATM o EXISTINCi Elrucco SILL o NEW BACKLIT SIGN NEW GRAND AvENUE ELEv;, SCALE = 1/8" = l' EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS NOVEMBER 30,2005 I o>menrA \ Architecture Interior Design m MAIDEN LANE, SUITE 350 San Francisco, CA 94108 401 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 75 EAST TRIMBLE ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 95113 EXISTING GRAND AVE. / MAPLE STREET CORNER ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE EXISTING MAPLE STREET CORNER ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE EXISTING GRAND AVE. ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS IRidHlld l'ollm!R ~ 11\',',0(1011", NOVEMBER 30,2005 401 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Ardh:Ue kBb'DaII lIIlW1N ~ am: fi) BIn F'11nlill:o. CA_ 4I5.7B8A4OO 415.7I8.mFAX 75 EAST TRIMBLE ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 95113 PROPOSED GRAND AVE. / MAPLE AVE. CORNER ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED MAPLE AVE. CORNER ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED GRAND AVE. ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I(lcl1wd I loll CId< g; n~(,OCf(ftl'{} NOVEMBER 30,2005 401 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO kdidn ktrir De9 m tMDlHNf,UlEB 8Iln~CAMD 4I5.7l.44OO 4I1lImI FAX 75 EAST TRIMBLE ROAD SAN JOSE, CA 95113 Staff Report DATE: March 16,2006 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael Lappen, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Genentech San Francisco Bay Trail II Project Case Numbers: Applicant/Owner: P05-0092, DR05-0053 & MND05-0003 Genentech, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, MND05-0003, and approve the Genentech Bay Trail II Project, P05-0092. BACKGROUND: On November 16, 2000, the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission approved Use Permit UPOO-064 and Mitigated Negative Declaration MNDOO-064 to allow the construction of the Founders Research Center II facility on the former Merck site in the Mid-campus area of the Genentech campus. The Planning Commission Staff Report, which includes the Mitigated Negative Declaration, addressed the need for the construction of the San Francisco Bay Trail adjacent to the new research facility. The Staff Report states: "The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission has jurisdiction over the shoreline band adjacent to the project site. According to Genentech's site plans, the FRC II will not encroach into the 100 feet shoreline area. However, the applicant will provide amenities that are designed to improve access to the Bay." "The developed portions of the Bay Trail are located in areas north (Genentech campus north of the point) and south (the Materials Recovery Station and Transfer Station south of the Slough) of the proposed site. Due to difficult site conditions, Genentech and the adjacent property owner will be required to work with the City and BCDC in determining the location of the Bay Trail. Genentech agrees that the Bay Trail will be developed and has hired a landscaping firm to prepare the concept plan for the entire campus. The Conditions of Approval for this Use Permit ~_~1,,;J~ ~ _~~,,~_~~~_+ +1-~+ r"1____+__1... __+__ ~_L_ _~ ___________L ___~LL L1-_ r'1~L__ ___..1 L1__ _..1~____L Page 2 of5 property owner to cooperate in the preparation of the Bay Trail concept plan for the shoreline area from the Fuller O'Brien property to the existing public access on the Genentech campus." Condition 9 in the Conditions of Approval for UP-00-064 states: "Prior to approval of a future development project in the Mid-campus subarea, the applicant shall prepare a concept plan for future development of the San Francisco Bay Trail and submit it to the Chief Planner for review. " Project Location The Project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. The project site is part of the 120-acre Genentech biotechnology campus, within the Genentech designated Upper Facility area. The Project site is bounded the south and east by the San Francisco Bay (between Point San Bruno and Point San Bruno Knoll), the Founders Research Center site to the west, two manufacturing buildings (Buildings 1 and 4) to the north, and a temporary parking area and the Britannia East Grand to the west and south DISCUSSION: Genentech, Inc. has submitted an application for approval to construct a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail roughly adjacent to Founders' Research Center II. The trail will join the recently refurbished Bay Trail located adjacent to Buildings 1 & 4 on the Lower Campus area. The proposed trail extension will be approximately 2,225 linear feet and 12 feet wide. The trail begins at the end of the existing trail, located at Point San Bruno, runs west parallel to an existing parking lot and then south along the bluff overlooking the Bay to the south end of the Genentech campus. The proposed Bay Trail would meet the new trail on the Slough property (Britannia East Grand) on the beach. All construction would occur outside of the BCDC 100 foot Shoreline area and no fill would be used to construct the proj ect. The subject trail will be a 12-foot-wide asphalt pathway, which will provide pedestrian access along the east shoreline of the Genentech Campus. To accommodate the handicapped, the proposed trail would include a maximum five percent slope from the lowest point (just above sea level) to the San Bruno Bluff (approximately 40 feet above the Bay). As indicated on the project drawings, the southern limits of the pathway will be near the shoreline adjacent to the east- northeast end of the Slough property, whereas the northern end of the pathway will be at the Buildings 1 and 4 parking lots (not elevated). The overall length of the trail will be approximately 2,225 feet. The trail will be surfaced with 3 inches of asphaltic concrete underlain by 8 inches of Class 2 aggregate base. The upslope edge of the trail will contain a vegetated Page 3 of5 As shown on the project plans, a 12-inch-diameter HDPE storm drain some 3 to 4 feet in depth will be constructed beneath the swale extending from Station 5+50 through 12+50. The north end of the new storm drain will be connected to the existing 42-inch RCP at Station 5+50. The swale will contain periodic drop inlets to allow surface runoff to flow into the storm drain pipe. The proposed plan includes the installation of new benches and litter units, landscaping and boulders, BCDC signage, post and cable safety rails, and a "vendura" wall system along the new trail. Several benches and litter units would be clustered at the bluff so that visitors could view the Bay. Public Assess and Parking Genentech does not propose to add any additional public parking spaces along the Bay Trail extension. The proposed plan also indicates that the public access points, as well as public parking, would be located on Point San Bruno at the north end of the new trail area (which contains a total of 15 parking spaces) The applicant states that public may also use six parking spaces located at Britannia East Grand (owned by Slough Estates) which is near the south end of the trail extension area. Genentech maintains a temporary parking lot for employees only at Point San Bruno Knoll (the highest point along the proposed Project site). However, the applicant does not propose to allow the public to use the temporary parking area or to add any additional public parking spaces along the Bay Trail extension. The South San Francisco Municipal Code does not prescribe a specific number of parking spaces that should be reserved for public access. Generally the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) will determine the locations and appropriate number a parking spaces that would be necessary for adequate public access. Mitigation Measure XV -1 in the Mitigated Negative Declaration requires that the applicant shall submit updated plans to the City following approval of the BCDC permit. The revised plans shall indicate the specific locations for the existing public parking, show the location for the existing temporary parking lot on the plans, and if determined by BCDC, show the locations and number of additional public parking spaces on the Genentech campus. Design Review Board On September 20, 2005, the Design Review Board reviewed the application and found that the Page 4 of5 Design Element policies. The Design Review Board suggested that the applicant add more benches near the point, provide additional amenities along the trail, and add additional landscaping adjacent to the path. The DRB agreed that the applicant could work with City staff to refine the design issues. The applicant submitted the revised trail and landscaping plans in November 2005. Mitigated Negative Declaration A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the proposed project and distributed to all interested agencies and individuals on February 14, 2006. A Geotechnical Investigation and a Noise Study were prepared to address potential impacts related to the development of the site. The MND identified mitigation measures for Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Transportation and Traffic. The mitigation measures are incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the approval of the Design Review application. The City received one comment from Genentech, Inc. to clarify on the extent of the grading and the type of fill on the project site. The comment does not affect the proposed mitigation measures identified in the MND. Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Review and Permit Following approval of the Genentech Bay Trail II Project by the Planning Commission, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) will review a separate application to construct and maintain the bay trail. BCDC will issue a permit subject to separate conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, MND05-0003, and approve the Genentech Bay Trail II project, P05-0092. Respectfully Submitted, /1 ~--- Michael ~ Senior Plann\9r , if - - -- - -- - - - -- .- -.-- - - -.-- - -- - - - --.I - - ---- -- - - -.J - - - DATE: March 16, 2006 Page 5 of5 1. Location Map 2. Proposed Conditions of Approval 3. Design Review Board comments, September 20, 2005 4. Email correspondence, Shar Zamanpour, March 3,2006 5. Genentech Bay Trail II plans, dated August 26,2005 & November 17,2005 6. Mitigated Negative Declaration GENENTECH BAY TRAIL II P05-00092, DR05-0053 and MND05-0003 (As approved by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2006) A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The project shall be constructed substantially as indicated on the attached "Genentech Bayshore II Trail Proj ect" site plan, landscape plan, and elevations, dated August 26, 2005 and November 17, 2005, prepared MP A Design, Wilsey Ham and Gensler. 2. The applicant shall follow the City of South San Francisco, Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division, Standard Conditions and Limitations for CommerciaL Industrial and Multi-Family Residential Proiects. 3. The applicant shall comply will all mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, MND05-0003. 4. Prior to receipt of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall receive the appropriate permits from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). 5. All future signage shall be consistent with the approved Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan and "sign program" that is recognized by the City and subject to separate review and approval by the Planning Division. 6. The final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Chief Planner for approval prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. 7. There shall be no outside storage of materials and equipment. All outside storage shall be within building structures or other enclosed areas approved by the Chief Planner. (Planning Division Contact Person: Michael Lappen, Senior Planner (650) 877-8535) B. Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. The developer shall comply with the applicable conditions of approval for commercial proj ects, as detailed in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Commercial and Industrial Developments", contained in our "Standard Development Conditions" booklet, dated January 1998. This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division. Engineering Division's building permit application plan submittal requirements, including the submittal of a grading, drainage and utility plan for the retaining walls. II. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. New storm water pollution control devices and filters shall be installed within the existing and new site drainage facilities located within the areas subj ect to travel by guests, as required to prevent pollutants deposited on the impervious surfaces or into the bay. Plans for these facilities and a SWPPP plan shall be prepared by the applicant's consultant and submitted to the Engineering Division and to the City's Environmental Compliance Coordinator, for review and approval. 2. The developer's consultant shall prepare a report on the site drainage system and submit it to the City Engineer for review and approval. The applicant shall clean and improve any existing site storm drainage system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division and the City's Environmental Compliance Coordinator, in accordance with the approved site drainage report. 3. The developer's structural engineer shall sign and stamp plans for the proposed retaining wall when submitting for a building permit. Structural calculations shall also be submitted for the design and construction of the proposed trail to support a standard pick-up truck. (Engineering Division Contact Person: Dennis Chuck, Senior Engineer (650) 829-6652) C. Police Department requirements shall be as follows: A. Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code; "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. B. Signage The applicant shall post signs for a 15 mph bicycle speed limit, as well as "Bicyclists shall yield to Pedestrians" sign age, in accordance with and with the approval of BCDC. (Police Department contact, Sergeant Alan Normandy (650) 877-8927) The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater and!or Pretreatment pro grams: 1. A plan showing the location of all storm drains 2. The on site catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo. 3. Storm water pollution preventions devices are to be installed. A combination of landscape based controls (e.g., vegetated swales, bioretention areas, planter/tree boxes, and ponds) and manufactured controls (vault based separators, vault based media filters, and other removal devices) are preferred. Existing catch basins are to be retrofitted with catch basin inserts or equivalent. These devices must be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a permit. If possible, incorporate the following: . vegetated! grass swale along perimeter . catch basin runoff directed to infiltration area . notched curd to direct runoff from parking area into swale . covered maintenance yard/service areas 5. The applicant must submit a signed maintenance schedule for the stormwater pollution prevention devices installed. 6. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted. 7. Please have applicant contact Cassie Prudhel at Water Quality Control with any questions. (650) 829-3840. (Water Quality contact: Cassie Prudhel, Interim Environmental Compliance Coordinator (650) 829-3840) MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Harris, Nelson, Nilmeyer and Williams Ruiz Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Patti Cabano, Administrative Assistant I 1. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 2. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION SSF Redevelopment Agency SSF Redevelopment Agency 380 Alta Vista Dr P05-0 140 & DR05-0084 Exterior and Interior Remodel (Case Planner Tom Sparks) Design Review of a remodel of a single family dwelling in the Single Family Residential (R-1-H) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.16 and 20.85 The Board had the following comments: 1. The board chose the clean and simple design-gable both ends of the roof. 2. Consider 2 colors to scale down the house. 3. New site perimeter wall-aesthetic uniformity. 4. Put the large coniferous tree in the property comer like in the proposed graphic. 5. Consider more landscape in the existing area on the Conmur side. 6. Stairs need a landing. 7. Board would like to see it again with the proposed elevation. Needs to go back to DRB. 3. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION GENENTECH INC GENENTECH INC-Carla Boragno 390 Point San Bruno Blvd P05-0092 & DR05-0053 BCDC Bay Trail Genentech PHIl (Case Planner Mike Lappen) Review of the construction of the new San Francisco Bay Trail extension for Genentech Inc. Phase II portion to include parcels 015-092-250,015-092-260, 015-092-280,015-093-080 and 015- 260-030 The Board had the following comments: 1. Consider trees and shrubs in the undefined space between the roadway and trail. 2. On the point do more than 2 benches - need to embelish the resting spot--make APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION Dennis & Sherri Kapas 421 Briarwood (plans mislabeled 1112 Sunnyside Dr) P05-0 127 & DR05-0072 Kapas Residence - 2nd story addition (Case Planner Susy Kalkin) Design Review of a 2nd story-addition to an existing dwelling unit in the Single Family Residential (R-1-E) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.16 & 20.85. The Board had the following comments: 1. Change the gable on the front elevation to a hip roof & add trim elements. 2. Hip the roof over the projecting bay window at the breakfast room. 3. Make sure the walkway aligned with the front door and add a planter to wrap around the comer below the window. 4. Add a large tree in the front of the house. Revise plans and submit a copy to planning prior to applying for building permits. 5. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION Rios, Frank F & Sharrin L Robert S. George 211 Arroyo Dr P05-0131 & DR05-0076 Rios Residence Family Addition (Case Planner Susy Kalkin) Design Review of an addition to an existing single family dwelling with a new 3-car garage in the Single Family Residential (R-1-E) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.16 & 20.85 The Board had the following comments: 1. Verify with the Engineering Division whether the backup and turnaround distances work for the new garages. The driveway turnaround has to work without using the adj acent property. 2. Garage has to be 40 ft deep for tandem parking for a 3 car garage. Clarify the whether hat is being provided is 3 side by side or tandem spaces and include clear dimensions on plans. Revise plans and submit a copy to planning prior to applying for building permits. . .--.... -..-.. --....-...,.---. L-_III_II......-_I._I'_'~:::J-"_.""'_."J Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11: 12 AM To: Lappen, Mike Cc: Douglas Bibby; Shar Zamanpour Mike, As we reviewed the Bay Trail N eg Dec, we have some questions which I am hoping you can clarify: 1.? Pg 6 1 st Paragraph Last Sentence under Proposed Project? States that ?all construction would occur outside of the BCDC 100 ft shoreline and no fill would be used to construct the project.?? As shown on the drawings most of the project will occur within the 1 OOft BCDC shoreline and no ?IMPORTED? fill will be used.? We do have some fill on site but will use cut from the site.? This statement is repeated also on page 16 and 24. 2.? Peer Review.? Since the document requires Genentech to comply with the peer review (page 9), will you please give us a copy of the Peer review. 3.? Noise Study:? The?Noise study conducted by SMW, indicates noise?measurements at seven locations along the Bay trail including FRCII utility yard ( map is attached and was included in the report). Please identify any other locations you require noise evaluation. 4. ?Light or Glare? on page 25, 2nd paragraph indicates that new light standards will be installed.? The drawings do not indicate any new lights along this path.? Some existing light fixtures will be relocated to?accommodate the path. Thanks Shar INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENENTECH SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL PROJECT GENENTECH, INC. ApPLICANT/OWNER CASE NUMBER: POS-0092 FEBRUARY 14, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ................................................................................................5 APPUCATION....................................................... ...................................................................................................... 5 APpuCANT ...................................................................................................................................................... .......... 5 PROJECT OBJEC1T\TE............................ ~..................................................................................................................... 5 LOCA. TION ...................................................................................................................................................... ........... 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................................. ................ 5 ENVIR.ONMENTAL FACTORS POTEN'TIAIl.. Y AFFECTED ................ ....... ..... ....... ............... ........ ............. ....................... 8 0nEF PLANNER'S DE~ATION ....... .... .... ....... ......... ........................ ....... .... .... .................... .... .... .................. .....8 PtJBLIC REVIEW.......... ...... ....... ...... ..... .......................... .... ............... ..... .. . .. ........ .................. ...... ..... .. .. ............... .... .. 12 LEAD AGmcy ............................ ............. .......... ................................................ ..................................................... 12 DETER.M:J:!'.iA. TION ......................................................................................................;....................... ................... ... 12 INITIAL S'fUDY ... ....................................... ......................... ...................................................................... 14 PROJECT SITE DESCRlPTION ............. ....... ......... ........................... ..................... ...................... ............ ................. .... 14 Location an.d Setting........................................................................................................................................... 14 Circulation Characteristics................................................................................................................................... 14 Zoning.................................................................................................................................................... ............ 15 Site Ownership................................................................................................................................................ ... 15 PROJECT CoNTEXT' .AND DESCRIPTION. ............................... .... ....... ........ ....... .................. ...... ...... ... ..... ................... 15 Required Discretionaty" Approvals......................................................................................................... .............. 19 INITIAL S'fUD Y CHECKLIST........... ........................................................................................................ 22 .AEs'TE-:IETICS .............................................................................................................................. .......... ....... .. .. 22 AGRICUL1tJRE RESOURCES............................................................................................................................. 26 AIR. QUALITY .............................................................................................................................. .......... .. ... . ... 27 BIOLOGICAL REsOURCES............................................................................................................................... 35 CUI. 1URA.L RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................. .... 37 GEOLOGY .AND SOILS .... ......... ........ ....................... ........ .... ...... ... ....... ..... ........ ...................... ......... ............. ... 38 I-lAZARDs .AND HAzARoous MA 1'ER.IALS ....................................................................................................... 54 HYDROLOGY .AND W A'TER. QU.AIITY ............. .............. ......... ..... ...... ......... ....... .............. ......... ........................ 57 l.AND USE .AND PLANNWG ............ ............... .......... ................ ..... ............ .... ........................ ..... ..................... 62 M:I:r\rE:RAL RESOtJRCES .................................................................................................................................... 63 NOISE...................................................................................................................................... ...................... 64 PnPT ITA TTnN ANn HnTT"TN~ HU U HHUUUWU H H~UH HUU H H HU~ U~~ __u______~~______~____ ~ __uw____~____ ~____~__~uuuu hR REF ERENCES ...................... .... ...................................... ............................. ............................................... 77 BIBilOGRAP!fY .............................................................................................................................................. .......... 77 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................. 79 LIST OF FIGURES 1. PROJECT LOCA.TION .......................................................................................................................................... . 16 2. PROJECT SITE PLAN. ................... ........ ...... ......... ........... .................. ..... ... ..... ............................. .... .......... ....... ... ... 17 This page was intentionally left blank. l'-dITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIOl~ APPLICATION This Negative Declaration (Application Number P05-0092) is for the proposed Genentech San Francisco Bay Trail Project. APPLICANT The Project Applicant is Genentech, Inc. PROJECT OBJECTIVE The project will consist of construction of the extension to the San Francisco Bay Trail between Point San Bruno and Britannia East Grand project (owned by Slough Estates). The construction of the proposed project would result in linking the various segments of San Francisco Bay Trail in South San Francisco, provide exceptional view to the Bay, and improve public access and recreation along the shoreline. LOCATION The Project site is located in an eastern portion of South San Francisco, the east of US 101 area, and adjacent to the San Francisco Bay between Point San Bruno and Point San Bruno Knoll. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purpose of the Proposed Project On November 16, 2000, the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission approved Use Permit UPOO-064 and Mitigated Negative Declaration MNDOO-064 to allow the construction of the Founders Research Center II facility on the former Merck site in the Mid-campus area of the Genentech campus. The Planning Commission Staff Report, which includes the Mitigated not encroach into the 100 feet shoreline area. However, the applicant will provide amenities that are designed to improve access to the Bay. The developed portions of the Bay Trail are located in areas north (Genentech campus north of the point) and south (the Materials Recovery Station and Transfer Station south of the Slough) of the proposed site. Due to difficult site conditions, Genentech and the adjacent property owner will be required to work with the City and BCDC in determining the location of the Bay Trail. Genentech agrees that the Bay Trail will be developed and has hired a landscaping firm to prepare the concept plan for the entire campus. The Conditions of Approval for this Use Permit include a requirement that Genentech enter into an agreement with the City and the adjacent property owner to cooperate in the preparation of the Bay Trail concept plan for the shoreline area from the Fuller O'Brien property to the existing public access on the Genentech campus. 1" Condition 9 in the Conditions of Approval for UP-00-064 states: "Prior to approval of a future development project in the Mid-campus subarea, the applicant shall prepare a concept plan for future development of the San Francisco Bay Trail and submit it to the Chief Planner for review." Proposed Project In July 2005, Genentech, Inc. submitted an application for Design Review approval to develop a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail roughly adjacent to Founders' Research Center II. The trail will join the recently refurbished Bay Trail located adjacent to Buildings 1 & 4 on the Lower Campus area. The proposed trail extension will be approximately 2,225 linear feet and 12 feet wide. The trail begins at the end of the existing trail, located at Point San Bruno, runs west parallel to an existing parking lot and then south along the bluff overlooking the Bay to the south end of the Genentech campus. The proposed Bay Trail would meet the new trail on the Slough property (Britannia East Grand) on the beach. All construction would occur outside of the BCDC 100 foot Shoreline area and no fill would be used to construct the proj ect. The subject trail will be a 12-foot-wide asphalt pathway, which will provide pedestrian access along the east shoreline of the Genentech Campus. To accommodate the handicapped, the proposed trail would include a maximum five percent slope from the lowest point (just above sea level) to the San Bruno Bluff (approximately 40 feet above the Bay). As indicated on the project drawings, the southern limits of the pathway will be near the shoreline adjacent to the east- northeast end of the Slough property, whereas the northern end of the pathway will be at the Buildings 1 and 4 parking lot (not elevated). The overall length of the trail will be approximately 2,225 feet. The trail will be surfaced with 3 inches of asphaltic concrete underlain by 8 inches of As shown on the project plans, a 12-inch-diameter HDPE storm drain some 3 to 4 feet in depth will be constructed beneath the swale extending from Station 5+50 through 12+50. The north end of the new storm drain will be connected to the existing 42-inch RCP at Station 5+50. The swale will contain periodic drop inlets to allow surface runoff to flow into the storm drain pipe. The proposed plan includes the installation of new benches and litter units, landscaping and boulders, BCDC signage, post and cable safety rails, and a vendura wall system along the new trail. Several benches and litter units would be clustered at the bluff so that visitors could view the Bay. The proposed plan also indicates that the public access points, as well as public parking, would be located on the north (which contains a total of 15 parking spaces in the public parking area set aside for Bay Trail users at Point San Bruno) and another six. spaces located on another property (owned by Slough Estates) south of the Project site. Genentech does not propose to add any additional public parking spaces along the Bay Trail extension. ENVIRONMENTAL tfACTORS rOTENTIALLY AFFECTED Environmental factors, which may be affected by a project, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filled in block (x) were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that has been identified as a "Potentially Significant Impacf', as indicated in the Initial Study Checklist and related discussion that follows. Factors which are unmarked (D) were determined to not be significantly affected by the Project, based on discussion also provided in the Checklist. OAesthetics OAgriculture Resources OAir Quality o Biological Resources x Hazards and Hazardous Materials X Hydrology and Water Quality OLand Use and Planning [llV[llrreralResources o Population and Housing OPublic Services ORecreation X Transportation and Circulation OUtilities and Service Systems X Cultural Resources X Geology and Soils X Noise CmEF PLANNER'S DETERMINATION After due consideration, the Chief Planner of the City of South San Francisco has found that with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in this Negative Declaration, the proposed Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the Project will not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be met by the preparation of this Negative Declaration. 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, 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 because: 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 _~ _~.c: _~_"" ~__~~""~ c. 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. d. Potentially significant impacts have been or would be reduced to a level of less than significant through implementation of the City's existing ministerial requirements and mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. The following mitigation measures are required for the project: Air Quality The proposed proj ect would require significant grading on a slope and the construction of the new retaining wall. The grading on the slope is a construction activity with a high potential for creating air pollutants. In addition to the dust created during grading and construction, substantial dust emissions could be created as debris is loaded into trucks for disposal. This represents a potentially significant impact. The project will be required to comply with Mitigation Meaure ill-I (Dust Suppression Measures), which would reduce the impact to less than significant. Cultural Resources No human remains have been identified on the Project site. However, Mitigation Measure V-I states that if such remains are encountered during site preparation associated with the construction work at the Project site, all work shall be halted in the vicinity, the San Mateo County Coroner shall be informed to determine if an investigation of the cause of death is required, and to determine if the remains are of Native American origin. Geology and Soils The Mitigated Negative Declaration incorporates the BAGG Report and peer review recommendations into the mitigation measures. The Engineering Division has prepared conditions of approval that are also incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified several issues related to slope stability that are considered to have a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures VI-la, VI-Ib, VI-Ic, VI-2, VI-3, and VI-4 require that the applicant comply with the recommendations in the BAGG Report and the Peer Review and submit reports to the City Engineer for review and approval. The proposed Project is located in an area zoned for packaging/manufacturing, research and development and industrial uses. Even though the Project itself would not be handling hazardous materials, the magnitude of the potential risk or upset to individuals using the trail would be reduced to normally acceptable levels by compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. Genentech operates under a permit from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, which regulates the use and disposal of toxic materials. Genentech also has a permit from the California Department of Health Services for the use of radioactive material and Genentech continues to operate under all applicable federal, state and local guidelines governing hazardous waste for all uses and facilities on the campus, the impact to the Project with regards to hazardous waste would be potentially sign ijican t. Mitigation Measure VII.I requires the applicant to prepare and submit a site Health and Safety Plan to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The mitigation measure would reduce the impact to less than significant with mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality The soils at the Project site may be susceptible to erosion during construction activities when soils are disturbed. This represents a potentially ~ignijicant impact associated with the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure VIII-I requires that the applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project. The SWPPP shall include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator. The Project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures, and for the implementation of such measures. Failure to comply with the approved construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a Project stop order. Plans for the Project shall comply with the Conditions of Approval provided by the Storm Water Coordinator and include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. The mitigation measure would reduce the impact to less than signijicant. l\.T ..,.:....... area south of FRC II. The East of 101 Area Plan contains Policy NO-4, which states the following: "New Development shall be designed so that the average noise level resulting from new development does not exceed an Leq of 60 dBA at the nearest open space or recreation area." The Mitigated Negative Declaration for Founders Research Center II contains Mitigation Measure XI.a, which requires the applicant to conduct a noise analysis to determine the project's (FRC II) potential impacts on the open space area and comply with the East of 101 Area Plan Noise policies2. Genentech prepared a noise study that evaluated the potential noise impact from the generator located in the FRC II loading area (Building 15, which is unoccupied). As the proposed Bay Trail will be located adj acent to several sites that may generate noise that may exceed an Leq of 60 dBA. Therefore, the noise impact from existing operations noted above is considered to be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure XI-2 requires that the applicant prepare a noise analysis that measures the noise impact to the future Bay Trail from all operations on the Genentech campus. The report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 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. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. The open space area along the shoreline area is considered to be an existing noise-sensitive receptor that would be affected by Project-generated construction noise. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, depending on the type of equipment. Mitigation Measure XI-I requires that the applicant comply with the City's noise limit and hourly restrictions specified in the City Noise Ordinance, construction-related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant with mitigation. Transportation/Traffic The applicant has indicated that the public can access the Project site from the existing public parking area located on the north side of the Project area (which contains a total of 15 parking spaces at Point San Bruno) and public parking spaces located on another property . (owned by Slough Estates) south of the Project site. Genentech maintains a temporary parking lot for employees only at Point San Bruno Knoll (the highest point along the proposed Project site). However, the applicant does not propose to allow the public to use the temporary parking area or to add any additional public parking spaces along the Bay Trail extension. The South San necessary for adequate public access. Therefore, the impact on parking is considered to be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure XV -1 requires that the applicant shall submit updated plans to the City following approval of the BCDC penrtlt. The revised plans shall indicate the specific locations for the existing public parking, show the location for the existing temporary parking lot on the plans, and if determined by BCDC, show the locations and number of additional public parking spaces on the Genentech campus. PUBLIC REVIEW The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for a 20-day public review period. Written comments may be submitted to the following address: Michael Lappen, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Telephone: 650.877.8535 Fax: 650.829.6639 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 and the South San Francisco City Council. Approval or denial of the Project can take place only after the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted. LEAD AGENCY The Lead Agency for this Mitigated Negative Declaration is the City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development.Determination I fmd that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I fmd that although the proposed Proj ect could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fmd that the proposed Proj ect MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fmd that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed Proj ect could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLA.ltATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Proj ect, nothing further is required. Il~ITIAL STUDY GENERAL INFORMATION Project Title: Application Applicant: Project Sponsor: Genentech, San Francisco Bay Trail Extension Number: P05-0092 Genentech, Inc. Shar Zamanpour, Principal Planner Genentech, Inc. 1 DNA Way South San Francisco, CA 94080 LEAD AGENCY: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Contact Person: Michael Lappen, Senior Planner Phone: (650) 877-8535 Fax: (650) 829-6639 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION LOCATION AND SETTING The regional location of the Genentech campus is shown on Figure 1. The Project site is located on the 120-acre Genentech campus in an eastern portion of South San Francisco, east of US 101, at 390 Point San Bruno Boulevard. The San Francisco Bay Trail project is proposed to be located in the Mid-Facility area of the Genentech campus between the San Francisco Bay and the Founders Research Center site (Mid-Facility) to the west. The Britannia Point Grand research and development project is located south of the project project. CIRCULATION CHARACTERISTICS The Prniect Rite 1~ acce~~lhle rrnm the wes:t via the US 101 off- and on-ramns to Ovster Point GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The site's General Plan designation is "Business and Technology Park" and is part of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. ZONING The Project site is currently zoned Genentech Research and Development Overlay District. SITE OWNERSHIP The Project site is owned by Genentech, Inc. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION Purpose of the Proposed Project On November 16, 2000, the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission approved Use Permit UPOO-064 and Mitigated Negative Declaration MNDOO-064 to allow the construction of the Founders Research Center II facility on the former Merck site in the Mid-campus area of the Genentech campus. The Planning Commission Staff Report, which includes the Mitigated Negative Declaration, addressed the need for the construction of the San Francisco Bay Trail adjacent to the new research facility. The Staff Report states: "The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission has jurisdiction over the shoreline band adjacent to the project site. According to Genentech's site plans, the FRC II will not encroach into the 100 feet shoreline area. However, the applicant will provide amenities that are designed to improve access to the Bay. The developed portions of the Bay Trail are located in areas north (Genentech campus north of the point) and south (the Materials Recovery Station and Transfer Station south of the Slough) of the proposed site. Due to difficult site conditions, Genentech and the adjacent property owner will be required to work with the City and BCDC in determining the location of the Bay Trail. Genentech agrees that the Bay Trail will be developed and has hired a landscaping fmn to prepare the concept plan for the entire campus. The Conditions of Approval for this Use Permit include a requirement that Genentech enter into an agreement with the City and the adjacent development project in the Mid-campus subarea, the applicant shall prepare a concept plan for future development of the San Francisco Bay Trail and submit it to the ~hief Planner for review. " Proposed Project In July 2005, Genentech, Inc. submitted an application for Design Review approval to develop a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail roughly adjacent to Founders' Research Center II. The trail will join the recently refurbished Bay Trail located adjacent to Buildings 1 & 4 on the Lower Campus area. The proposed trail extension will be approximately 2,225 linear feet and 12 feet wide. The trail begins at the end of the existing trail, located at Point San Bruno, runs west parallel to an existing parking lot and then south along the bluff overlooking the Bay to the south end of the Genentech campus. The proposed Bay Trail would meet the new trail on the Slough property (Britannia East Grand) on the beach. All construction would occur outside of the BCDC 100 foot Shoreline area and no fill would be used to construct the project. The subject trail will be a 12-foot-wide asphalt pathway, which will provide pedestrian access along the east shoreline of the Genentech Campus. To accommodate the handicapped, the proposed trail would include a maximum five percent slope from the lowest point Gust above sea level) to the San Bruno Bluff (approximately 40 feet above the Bay). As indicated on the project drawings, the southern limits of the pathway will be near the shoreline adjacent to the east- northeast end of the Slough property, whereas the northern end of the pathway will be at the Buildings 1 and 4 parking lot (not elevated). The overall length of the trail will be approximately 2,225 feet. The trail will be surfaced with 3 inches of asphaltic concrete underlain by 8 inches of Class 2 aggregate base. The upslope edge of the trail will contain a vegetated drainage swale and the down slope edge will have a safety rail. As shown on the project plans, a 12-inch-diameter HDPE storm drain some 3 to 4 feet in depth will be constructed beneath the swale extending from Station 5+50 through 12+50. The north end of the new storm drain will be connected to the existing 42-inch RCP at Station 5+50. The swale will contain periodic drop inlets to allow surface runoff to flow into the storm drain pipe. The proposed plan includes the installation of new benches and litter units, landscaping and boulders, BCDC signage, post and cable safety rails, and a vendura wall system along the new trail. Several benches and litter units would be clustered at the bluff so that visitors could view the Bay. The proposed plan also indicates that the public access points, as well as public parking, would be located on the north (which contains 15 parking spaces in the public parking lot at Point San Bruno) and south (which would contain six parking spaces on Slough Estates' property) portions of the property. Genentech does not propose to add any additional public Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan and Research & Development Overlay District The San Francisco Bay Trail extension will be located in the Ivliddle-Facility Area of the Genentech campus, which is subject to growth, development and design standards established in the Genentech Research and Development Overlay Zone of the Municipal Code. The impacts related to the Genentech campus development potential, including the Upper Facility, were previously assessed in the Negative Declaration for the Genentech R&D Overlay Zone, the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report, 1999 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, and the General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. The Master Plan and R&D Overlay District consists of all lands classified on the City's Zoning Map. All land use policies, regulations, development and design standards, and requirements are set forth in the 1999 General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. City of 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. Likewise, the General Plan recognizes that the bayfront is South San Francisco's most significant natural feature. While access will improve over time as properties are redeveloped, US 101 significantly hinders residents to the west from accessing the bayfront. The General Plan proposes several solutions for increased bayfront access and establishes goals/policies for the City and East of 101 area, such as: · Establishes an economic development program that promotes the biotecbnology/R&D industrial cluster; . Encourages the development of R&D campuses; . Establishes infrastructure capacity; . Establishes transportation improvements; · Promotes employee amenities, open space and recreation areas; · Improves the accessibility and visibility of the bay front; and, . Increases bay front access. "R&D Overlay District" Regulations The Research and Development Overlay District establishes regulations for reclassifying to and from this district and establishes development standards and requirements within the district. The · Requires preparation of design guidelines; · Establishes permit review procedures; and, · Allows for development of facility-specific standards. "Genentech R&D Overlay District" The Zoning Ordinance establishes the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District and prescribes planning and design principles for facility-wide development in accordance with the Genentech facility master plan. It: · Maps the Genentech properties covered by the "Genentech R&D Overlay District"; · Identifies FAR and parking standards for Genentech properties consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan; · Establishes Genentech-specific design guidelines; and, · Identifies standards that would be applied facility-wide (setbacks, FAR, parking, signage, building heights, and lot coverage, etc.) for the Genentech campus. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The proposed Bay Trail extension would be located on the Middle-Facility area of the Genentech campus. The Genentech campus is located on 120 acres roughly bounded by the San Francisco Bay on the east and north, Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Business Park on the west, and the Britannia East Grand research and development campus on the south. Land Uses within 2,500 feet of the project site is as follows: North: The Genentech Middle- and Lower-Facility buildings, designated for a mixture of R&D, manufacturing and offices uses. South: The Britannia East Grand R&D campus, designated for a mixture of research and development and office uses. West: The Genentech Middle- and Upper-Facility buildings, designated for a mixture of Office and R&D use. East: The San Francisco Bay The PrOject would. requITe approval ot the approval ot the Design Review application and certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to construct the San Francisco Bay Trail extension by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco. The proposed project would also require approval of a grading permit to undertake the proposed grading and construction of the retaining walls along the bluff. 91 ........ (.) (1) ---. 0 ~ c.. ~ -- ct1 L. t) I- 0) "--. CI) 0_ ..... .- a..eI) ==== ....... (J) '- 0 .c (J) >. co -2 Cd I- 0 CO ~ a; () .c 0 u 0 CJ) Q) -0 c: ....... co l- e: u. Q) c: co c: en (J.) ..c: ....., ::s AJ.N 0 u u u cJ U 0"'+ ~;fJ C C C c: c ~~: - - - - 0"'+ 6rt~ ... .... ... ~~~!i1 ~ eJl:! ..L ..L ..L -..L liiliiliio ~ ..c:u ... ~ 0 ~~ u u u i~~ ~~~ Q) Q) Q) ~Q) ffi ~~ ~~~ -+-' -+-' -+-' ....., -+-' n~~~h~ ~~~ c c c c: C !;;"'''g;:;-;;;::I n~ Q) Q) Q) (].) (]) ti ;gSoo~~~ 999 c: t__J~~ 668 c C C C Q I~~- li (].) Iii "'''''''''',,>0,,'''''' Q) Q) Q) Q) ~~~~)!~~~ I~~i LO o o C\1 ctS t'-J I- eI) ::> " ::> <C ~ ~:E' =d l51 "'" 10; 0 :r: ~ ~ Cl: .. ; ll:l ill" i 515 ~i3 ~ ti~ I ~ iB ~~ I!i ]]]]l! ~. ]]]]f ~ I j]j~~ ~; I!!Ul. il ~ ~ :g 8 IS 0 t 0 o ~ Ii ~ ti ti !i ~ I I i i i t.!.. J!-=.;.( i5~fil!=Ji " ~ 1 - .9 .. ~~~ .dill~] tH~!:~~!J iHl iU~h ~ ~ ~ I!! ~ ~ ~ . ~ i 5 I i i ~ ~ 0 is ~ ~ g - II n~ >-I !h W( II! ~I ~ R i a Ii I i I U Ii ii .U J.EBii .!Iii U;;;ll l:l .~ rJJ Q) I Q ~ :::21 G I. ~~ hi · ! jl !U ~~E ! ~ ~~ hI! Ii!!! g @t ti\!1 :d w~~ . ~ ~e !l! gE~ ~ . .il! ~ij~ .w~ ~ il~ la~ R~ig :ii.. ~~ !; ll~ e~!1 !~II e~ ~! ll~~ S!\!1~ il~; Ii !~ I~I b~; i~l; I; u~ It e~i! =: - h ~g ~ ili~ ~g~ll U\!1i b \!1! ~ ;; Ii Ii" Ii \!1 ti :1 Ii . I ~;rl!~~ie lti e:w i ~~ g~ i ~ ~e~t;i!i!~ : ij~ !l! i'A ~~ ~ ~ ~d~!ii!~ (~~i ~ ~ : I: ~ j ::~I~~ei .1 il; i I h II ; ~ ~i!ii\!1h d u ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ;; i ~~~h~m: il ~ 11 I 5 S , \Hn z\ e =:~ :>:Ii ~l!i. ~n =l!l! en ee i em ~ ~ll IB i !~ ;!I .I~ ~ !i ~I ~U i iii Bi~ ~il~ 5 s;1 ;!: ili ~I h! Ii: i~ I! ~I; II; ell Ii ilt;~ u~ I ell aI ., II. .I ~ ~ ~ II~I" lill;lll I:, Kh Ie 'II!!~ I;il~i! ~Milll i~~h'" ;~.=ggl In~h5 ~g~el!!l~ !!la t .g!. · i ! tI. i Ii .. ll-lilll!! I!! till elii ! Ii ~ ~ll. nil;i~ \!1 ; · ~I I~; ~ !i II · ~!l!1i1leM ~ 1 i' ~~~ h!~ ll~ ~il". ~ Ii~ \l I b~ i~ I~ Ie il;hi~n~! ~ i~ ~~~ ~! J ~; I ~ L U ti~ Ii = 5 e = en f.) fflfj ,I, i #. ~~~ '\." c,.n:j,-~ l l~~ ~' / /~.~' ,./ . I~t III' lif ", j' \\ ~ \ ~~\~....~ ~. ~ ~. \~ ~ \ ~ ~ll 'J i 10' ~ I I 1\1' I 1 'b 81 cia "/1 "I. (I ~t ~ \ I ! \ I )1 .~ .... -~'-~' "co _ ==i;::;.~;;>r "I;, \~n' :5 Do ~ Cl Co-' ~\ i i I t g~ d!i!11I1 iU ~;~ i II I iimlh!mmhlim d:mbgl . ~@ . . N ~ ~nsii.~~~~';~"~E.hY~blll=a~~bh..[ ...1 Ilf~!~ ~ bG .~ ~ ~w. n ~.ii~ 01 0 i1i ,- ~ to- LlJ i LlJ :I: Vl d X LlJ ! z Cl :!! :!UJ ~ .~ ~E1Ht~ ~- " "ffii ~ ~ 111i1 ~; ~ ~ClClClC1 ~_ ~ ~~ ~ ~ :!! - ~. ~ Ili z ~ - ~ .;.: ~ ~ ~ 9 e i " " . 1l~~~~~- f u!: :4-:.~~ ~~~;iH;l~. : ..~! :~~n~E UHUHH ~ I t ~ " Ii. ~ ~ ~ ffi i i ~ ~ \ il ~ ~ d _ I - {Pi%! ;H ~I g ~gl ~ me:( : ~~! .JI ~ w~ i ! I - ii . ~ i ~ I i B ~ f- II 11 i ., 11 U~t _ .B ~..i.;;!!i! r:: ~ 'fi1 QJ o \ ~- t] g ~ i Jo i ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~; i , ~ ~ ~~ ~" ~ ~ ~ ;:~ ll~ t '" UQ =IC ~ ~ Ii n 5 == 1.. .1.\ )"J:-IiftI (.'::/ t....\_., '_. <= -101 ~~I:l ;El~; "~i ",\3,"ffi ~ 15seS i~15 ~;~~ \!i~~ ue~.. "'~~ h;~~ i~i i;~;; i~i @ ~~Ili~~ ..10" ~ :a:r.. t.1 1= ; ~;~ u ~ua m.. . ; ~~! ~:;~ :; fi ~ .......... {,: :/ z / I ,.I ....., , I 1iIlS"91"=',uU ~A3/[D'l'ittl +y~ ~- / :.: ~? II iIe;'\ &~ ~, . Df'neJfJD !: ~ I!Ii'Lt+lI "(.1S , I : \ I ' GO'Gtc'A3T!J' ! 'CD Oh) iiS';I+H "US ~~: ii l~: ;O';t='A313 ga; :llld U"t&+Ot "V.IS s:ii: i LIl,.,r&'JJD ! :JAB Ri'.HDI 'VlS l%'Ot'-lnD 'ANI a'or-Nl 'ANI lS'tt::1] SOJ. U1Nl 31WMS 6Z"t't+OI 'VlS ~. ~~ ~ ;\f I :.: ~ ," ~~ I ~~ ~: i I ; ! : i i I t5'lt=.~J Od tt'LO+6 "YJ.Si i I ts'l~'mi l ; 0113 fl"S+fi 'VJ.S j I ~ ~~ 1d\ l~;~:;'~: ! ,~~ I : : ..a ~~ / . : Dt'or;"1JG , 018 '1""+9 ~"'.Lf ; i . I I ;. o .. ~% ~j~! "'~ " :~~; ...,,~~ ~k: "'- E ~a~~ . . I ! 9 -'I N ~~ 0 ~I 1.0 0 + 1.0 .., Wi - 0 ~i~~ I ~ ~1~O U ~ I :i! c.. ~ 0 :rlo.... ~ ~IZZ - '<0 g i~~ i g m: ittii ! ~ ~.LH!~~ i ~ fffff ~" i~~Ci ~! r CJ ~CJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ l- i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' is i hi s! ~: m ~ ~, ~ ~ i~i: ~!ji ~ u1;lii;l~ : ;,.. :U~i]f tl]~15hi'~i~ f- ~~liUHli ~ - it ~ ~ l!l ~ ~ - ~ ~ = i ~ I;i :q p is IS ~ ~ is - ~ ~ c d - - , ;U I~ IH ~ dH i - q " i Ii I c m ! a i n Iii c r U!lt~ :Ii U::~ ~ tIIJ . 'ill QJ I Cl c: ~ ., ~' g... n n ~,,~ O~ 0::'" c..l;i \ , , \. " ,,, \ . ....\ (-Vr' I~~~~ 'a;!! ~~,o~ i I ~ i I i 5 }F ~ I ~ 5 i ~ =1 6 ~ ; ~ .. ~ ~ i" H! " ~ ~ ~ e ~ B " (~)i~)(~.i i= ... r:l ~ l5! wo o ::!~ ~ l:i:ii ill g:;t; :t: 0- U~ZZ <0 zi= ~~ ~~ ii'i- 1::1 I N 1::1 U ~ I 1::1 ~ ~ J1 . ~ - ~~~~~ ~ ,.: J:!J:!"""-g ~ ~ 111*1 ~ ~ ~ Ol!lCJ~CI ~ I" ~ ~\ ~ ~ ~ iii g ~ Qi 'il ~ ~ .. .. ~ ~~i~~: ill ~ l!i ~ ~ ~ lu!: ~!E~ a~~'K.~~,'~u t~!~i!~iii 'Eh~~~~~!1 ~~ji il;~~} ~ ....1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii =0 i , II ~~ U. -- ~ ~ s ~ g - ;u 51 ~~ I h~ ~ i ~ 6 I i ~ ! n l~ i d it - n ~!I'l~ JI an c:: bD 1D. Q) Q 0:: ~ G tJ ~ i l! i ~ ~ ~ t! a ~~ 5~ ta l:I: Ii" ~ 55 ~e n =ll Ii: n ;~ E.e / I I ; ~ I a ~! I ~r-' ~; . I e ~ =i ni. ~ ..., \ \ \ \ ----j j ,,.,.,,,.-y ~~ il !i "::! !t! !I'! ia f; ",01 ;:!I;; CoIl ! ~ .1 ;11 i i: ! !~I d ~ :' 8 ~ ~l n!! !! -;o~~ :; ~ b ~. ! ' :;;.. i~ ! i f~ b,. I:; . -iO~-" .. i c:c ~ Ii .___"" ~ __M ~ s i~ ~~ :g~ g.; =::i ..I;; r.r. '."; \~ '."l '\ ~.~~_..~.~~._..~_. !; i ~ I'! i t! = e ::~~ i!~!~ ~~ U N ~ ~~ n ~e ~~I ~iiB !g~ i~li L--:: _.._.._.__.._.~ ~.tDam " " " \ I \ ~ \ ~ ~~II \ . ~II ~ , .~II ~i!1I ~ \1 ~ "1iiti~"o.iiftii-i i1 'ii&~ ~ ; .....Jl;-;;;,;~I I i I~i~ ~ :~ B~ L-l ~i1~ l~ =~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ;m ! 9S:a ~ mil a. sa ~I = ~..J N ~~ E =0 wl= 0 c:: U r!- OlJJ :z:Vl 0 ~~ U ~ I 0 :z:f!: ~ g;;! g w!d i ~ :;! in ~ . CJ l- i!: ~ ~ m if !~ ;1~ ~l!1!~~ ~ - ~~jj~ ~ I liijC ~~ ' CJ~c'!lCJ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D;-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ oJ,:.;': ~ ~!!t~~ t..;!: M-:'C~ ~~~iltUii : !Imlill! ~ I I ~ !l ~ ~ '" ~ ~ 5 ~ t ~ ~ l!i ~ ~ I- ,1i':';~ n ,.",., > ~. ....., . a~ ~! ~ Ig m<l: ~ f~ .JJ: . ~~ _ i I ~ ~ R ~ ! L. ; ~ i . I ~ i ~ - ~ ill 11<5. " " )1 i~ !La ii~ ~;S . ;; 31 ~ l!l~ !- jlS :;..!;;;~ "I'! = ~~ l:l.O 'lD. f.1i QJ $=1 I 0 0: I- 10loi ~ .. - I Ii i i:\ E B \ "bi I ! J' m """'" h r JO "OJ !!I" ~ 20 i~ 8 e~ ,... I co ~~ , t. ;~il !i~ ~ ~2~~ ih 5 ~ ~!~~ N ~ ~~ ~~~: ::;t ~ :..~ t~i'le ~h ~ ~~~~ I!gg 0 1~~~ ~-. ~!i!igiliU 5. o~t!= =-0 i~ "'~Io!ea:;w iI" ~.. ~~~c~ a ~e5~~~k'~ ge ..,,~"B/:o n, ~I\ J , 1\ j ~t -~' / \ , ' \ I, ^ : \l\ 'I 1\ \ \ I \ \ , I \ \1\ ~ J\-- \ \ \ \ I \ \ I 1\ \ ..I:::: ." . \ I '1.-' I \ \ ---+-- \ \ , 11 \ I ! I r I I , I \1 J 1-..-- \ ( I ~ >>rr~ 11\\ \ l.... I I. I II ~ I I I I: " I I I: , I l' 1;,1 I !: t'J' 1 Ii. I / 1 I. I III/ ~III I I I fl1 I I I; ; Ii I 1/' If ,II' i I r iii' t : I ffi~: I ~ l I . w f~ · I, 1\ u lit · " \. ~ .~ / ~ {: I \ J II \ I: ~ \ ~ I: \ \. I: \: I' , \.\ ,: ~ . Iii'. ~u' ~~V' . h I...~~~I, ~. I:~.. .!IIIIIiIm!l~ - ['1" I ~'" ..,Tl;; "':'("'>, , I I / ,,/ g, ~l~ .' / : I I !;~ i~ ,.. . ~~ ~: I j ~ I!i '. I m I ; i i! ... ~i 2~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ @ ~ liS ;;: ~~ r:: d I ~ N o I IX) o U I = o .. Q ,g,glll! ~ - itff~~~ ~ ~ _ iiilimii :~.. = ~~~~ i ~ ~ i. ~ OJ ~ ~ -, ~ ;; w;i:;; ~~~~~~ lillil!ll! ' .~~ d't!1 I~~ : : 5 : l:I.ffi~ j!l ~ ~~B Iil ~ ~ * ~e~i eo. !!!l!J ~ q I" ~~ :I e I lii ! t I~ !!!~ M", · c,, . ...... 0 ~ .~...~:.:;..:....:. ....:. ~ ~ i ~~ ~ . ~ i I~ n~ : u~u ~o~:a -oti:z ~;5~ a~tl. ~~g~ lii~ ~5~~ ~ u~~~ ~ ~~~ B ~ 3 ~ I ~ ~ II ~ ~ e m B ~ d g~ I: :;,~qU ~I 5 gq Ul~ ~ d" oJ ~ ~ , j i ;> . ~ I 5 In s i ~ ! ~ E 'I m i U r.~ li I i I n .;!j Jl Xli i I.,i IE "f As -&al!li.! .!l1 '" 1;;; ~ c .~ ., Q) o 0: ~ ... ~~ :~! : ~ 6~~ g !~~ i~BI ~ ~~D I~ ~ i~= e w ~ g il. ~ ,11> ril ~ ~m :~i! ;1 iI ti~e :ma~ ~il Ca" DJ..tt'"I:) DIVY... -lHDDH ".,'" DnOal aH~~~~ ~ B g~ ~~~~ ~ ,\!'" _.h" ~ e..-_.. ::l g ~ dg~ i ~ t:l y.. ';o+t "'fJ.S I 1 I ""lH ' 15 8 -IlE wtl ~;~ ~~ ~~ e~~ 6s hil h~ !i!g= ~.Q W 5i~ :~i ~ m i;l~ ~~ :~ ~~ :~ h ! m I> ; !i I: \' ,:~i~:tj'n E3:-'" J'; ~. . \~! .". i - . . ::-.::1:;-, .~":fi'-..]i'I:! , , , '.' , . ' f ;~ .. :.", ,L', ~." : . .: ::. '.';.p' ." '. ." N a ; = I ~ i H~~~ ~~~:!~~~~~~~:J~~ :i~a~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ :;~~~:! :i~~:; ....--- -.... -..... [ 5 B H9S9 S~55!95559SSS! 9S9S!~5!~S!~S~ 95s~9 ~~9SS ~S!5 ~ I ~ ~.. - -- N.,...N,,"'_N,,"'n_NII'l ..n_NIOl....,....N.,...... "N"'~n 1D.......NIIl ...11:1.... ::l ~ ~ L. a : 9 ~ S ~ I ~ +6. ~ ~ m - . ~ ~ ~ a. ;~ ~5 ~~ ~ ~ ~ = w ~ 0 o :;l ~ : i ~ :.it l- W g~ ~ ~ 9- IXl o U , m o - ~ ~~~~ <1_ ifff] ~ I MMM~~ ~; ~ ~ ! ~ " ~ ~ ~ I- ~ iii ! ~ Iii .,.: ~ $: ~~!~f~ ~ e l! ~ !l ~ ~].li i"u ~~H'tif~~" ~ Ji "ill.iih k': :i.! :i:~I!~ {ii~;!!~~~ ~ - i!li I!}~ii ;; f- t 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - = S B ~ ~ B ~ ~ g t! " Ii ~ g - fun ;u t~! ~5f m ~.l. ~ d ;: H f- ;> i ft i 3 ~ ! i ! Ii I i I II ~ ~ ~ U .Url! :h ~G~ ,- t:: 1:lll 'm. . Il.1 Q a: ~. ~ i i 11 Ii 11 fill 11 11 g 1I~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - -i ~ : lli 'I I : il'pl!I!! i I ~ d ~ hu I mm I i i m ~~ li9 h I i ~~ '" ; a ~~ Ef~~U~ ~ ~ U h~!IU ~ ilil ~~d~ J ! III i. ! _!I !! Ii!! II i I: H IIl"1 h II I! ill! ; ~ n I I d Ii II Ii Ii ; 'In! Iii : ~ ~ I ! i II x II rn I ~ ~ ~ m ~ 0 *eo .. ....om , i ~ ~ ~ q. t U B ~ Iilll m ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ndl1i !;i ~ ~ ~ all ::l! Ii q ~l ~ ~li p~ n. i ~ I- Z o tJ ! ~ :i~ ~~~~:l~~ ~:i ; ~ . Ie I ~ : n pq;~1 U 8 ~ ~~Q L : ~ Ildl i111hl! ~~~lla!l~I~~!ill~1 ~j ~h~~m~hL~L c.. ~ ~ ~ i { e :I~~~ ~~~:3~ ~, !I ml ~ J I- ~.RK g~4m~ Is ~ ~ ~hs iihl :~ Iii "~I ;~~lllh !igJ i~! I':;~H .9~~~~QB~ ~~~ . ~ ::UiiuH~~~i h~ !z 2S",Sh~",~a~B" "'i:I~ ~i; ~ ~ ! ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~C! i i ~ ~~ ~i18 ~ ~~ ~ial1~~~~p~ ~ ~ Uuh~lh!~ il ~ ~Ii i .. ....1_ 5h _1l~~~L ~2 ~! ~ l!Z ... frlo ~ ! ~ I~ t ~~~ II~ ~1!.~~.t! is t- ifD! : L iifiHHi$ -! ClClClClCI ~ t- Io! ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ t- ; :' ~;il;;; i .!~ i-:.U l"'~~rti-i, ~. . ~j !l,,)~i &i .. rti;i~J!j ~~H Uiih ~ Io! ~ ~ ~ ; i 15 ~ :Ii S ~ ! is m ~ d I iHH ~U >-~ ! !al ~~: h~ .JI: i ~... i r E ~ , ~ i i i i I U j~ if U J.El<~ 31 ;:;J!ilS d bD 'fi.i Cl) Q I ~ ifill -I <i: Ct: o ~ G:i -I W ........... Z o G w U1 -I <i: 0:: o 0:: <( =:J o W -I CI:l <( o o ... J 6~ zen ~ ~ 5~~ ti~~ "H.. en ,? ~ ~ Iii o Q. <t:'~ h~ 0 W Z 0:: i= =:J Z ~ :s ~U1 CL :r:U1 U1 \-<( -0:: W 3.0 Ct: -10:: =:J -10 ~ <(0 w $:::::?E L.L. <( W O::Z I- " ::) ::::?E i7i to::) l 0:: I- = <( i~~ 9:: u o. u ~~ =: I- ~~ N 0 m< ~ ~ ~~ :3 m~ .!.. i~ g d ~ffi ~ ! ~ 22ll~ i~ -nii]] ~ il'ii~ g i ~ii ~ a ~ ClClCJCI L ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ g g l Ii If, 1;; If, If, If, . ~ i I ~ ~ ~1- t l~ ~~ H ~r i~ .~ 1.~. . 6Hl'] .s.': - ~]~.f ~i]~ !l~;i~~!ll- ~~Hu;;h ~ ~ ~ l- I!! ~ ";;- ~ a ~ g ~ I- ~ e i ~ . li ~ ~ c li I- ~ d ~r~. ~i- I- et(fi'JI ~ B i >-~ . 161 ~~ : ip .J:!:' < ~ ! R ~ ;; ~ i E ( . I .D i I I- ilt D . i i n !~~: d b.ll 'rij Q) I 0 ~ ::s C I- w o <( z o U) o o u CD ~(.I) ~(.I) ..J<{ <CO::: Z0 ~ ~O::: 1-0 ~O <C:::2: <C -Z ffi:::2: ..J~ (.1)1- w~ (J)<{ N WO::: O:::w Wo o....z :::2:W ~5 ~L:) ::J(f) <f (f) 0 0 ~ 0::: :::2: <C (f) ~. 0 ::J 0::: Z 0 0 lJ.. (f) ~ ..J 0 ~ <C ::!;; ~ Zw (.I) 00.... Z>- I<C w:....J <CO::: O:::..J :::2:0 :50 UI ~(.I) :....J~ <{Z 0 X(f) W::::! ::::!3: 0 ~ 0 ~<C w (f)O::: Z>- Ow ~O::: ~O <f 0::: I-<C ::J (J)W (f)~ ~CD <C O~ ~3:W lJ..lJ.. !:::<C 0 GO !IlC2W ~ 0:::1-0::: ~w <{W <C(.I)I- -0 (.I)~ I- uO::: ~..J wo.... Ul- O:::(f) w<C ~O au <f S:2 0::: ww OZ ..J - I 01 0.... -w ~5 ~ .....J..J f2c.9 ~ Z-~ == I- 0~!Il ll:!lil '" !i!~ 0 Q~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I-O:::..J lD~ (.1)1-0::: i~ 0_ ZZ<{ ~ WWU L o....U(f) ~ i5 ~ ~t.!l ~ . ~~l!i1~ M f- 111ft' ; ~ liiii ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ I!! ~ ~ ~ t!. I!. ~ ~ 8 " ~ ~ ., ., ., Ii Ii ~~I~~t to;!!: ~~~J /FdH~" ~ ;j !]~J;; fii iH;!~!i] :3 i; ili]h iSa:S: Ii 8~!.9.! .. ~ I!! ~ ~ ~ Ii " - c.9 z i= z :s 0.... e ~ ~ i !i ~ S " ~ ~ = e~ ~U >-I ~ 19l ~~ ~ i~' .JJ: : .~ ~I ~ ~ I- u o U !Il ; " i w I . i I f- U ~~ ! . }! Jil!~ I- 31 ;;Jli!l i=l I:1!l 'fij Q) I 0 0:: I- <f !;;:w ~ - u~ .. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each answer. A "no impact' response indicates, for example, that no displacement of existing housing would occur due to the Project, because no housing units now exist within the Project site which might need to be removed to enable the Project to proceed. 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 a level of "less than significant." Responses that indicate that the impact of the Project would be "less than significant with mitigation" indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be required as a condition of Project approval in order to effectively reduce potential Project-related environmental effects to a level of "less than significant." Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation 1. AESTHETICS - Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual [ ] [ ] [X] ] character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or ] [ ] [ X] [ ] glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The Project site is located on undeveloped property above the San Francisco Bay. South San Francisco's urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well-defined setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges. The City is contained in almost a bowl like fashion by hills on three sides. The City's terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain (which is outside City limits) 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. South San Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its eastern parts. Almost 20 percent of South San Francisco's land is occupied by industrial and warehousing uses. East of 101 Area The Project site is located in the East of 101 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 modem office buildings marks the third major wave of land use change in the area. The newly emerging office areas are unique in their uses of consistent and conscious street tree planting, while the rest of the City, including downtown, is almost bereft of street trees. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park structures and tilt-up warehousing buildings can all be found in the area. Blocks are generally very large in size and the area has a very stark industrial look. Numerous abandoned railroad spurs are present. The Genentech Campus The site is located in the Genentech biotechnology campus. The Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan and the Genentech Research and Development contain specific development and site design standards that ensure high quality development on the campus. Since 1995, Genentech has continued to expand the Overlay District and create an integrated campus environment. In 2005, the City approved Genentech's plans to rezone three parcels from Planned Industrial to the Genentech Research & Development Overlay District. The new parcels increased the size of the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District from 92 acres to 120 acres. In July 2005, Genentech, Inc. submitted an application for Design Review approval to develop a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail roughly adjacent to Founders' Research Center II. The trail will join the recently refurbished Bay Trail located adjacent to Buildings 1 & 4 on the Lower Campus area. The proposed trail extension will be approximately 2,225 linear feet and 12 feet wide. The trail begins at the end of the existing trail, located at Point San Bruno, runs west parallel to an existing parking lot and then south along the bluff overlooking the Bay to the south end of the Genentech campus. The proposed Bay Trail would meet the new trail on the Slough property (Britannia East Grand) on the beach. All construction would occur outside of the BCDC 100 foot Shoreline area and no fill would be used to construct the project. The proposed Bay Trail plan includes the installation of new benches and litter units, landscaping and boulders, BCDC signage, post and cable safety rails, and a vendura retaining wall system along the new trail. Several benches and litter units would be clustered at the bluff so that visitors could view the Bay. The proposed plan also indicates that the public access points, as well as public parking, would be located on the north (which contains 15 parking spaces in the public parking lot at Point San Bruno) and south (on Slough Estates' property) portions of the property. Genentech does not propose to add any additional public parking spaces along the Bay Trail extension. a) Scenic Vistas Impact Threshold of Significance: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed Project on scenic vistas, the threshold of significance is exceeded when a Project would result in the obstruction of a designated public vista, or in the placement of an arguably offensive or negative-appearing object within such a vista. Any clear conflict with a General Plan policy or other adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. The Project site is consistent with the East of 101 Area Design Element and the Master Plan and it is not located within any formally designated scenic vista. Therefore, the proposed Proj ect would have no impact on a scenic vista. The project will not obstruct the view of the wind harp located on San Bruno Knoll. The proposed project will increase access and views to the San Francisco Bay. b) Scenic Resources Impact Thro~hnlfl nf S::ianifirnnro' Anv Pr01p.d-rp.l::ltp.iI ::Id;on tn::lt WOlllil ~mh~t::lnt;::Illv (hm::lO"p. ~r.p.n;r. Center facility, the site was part of the Merck facility. The former manufacturing site contained several manufacturing buildings and seawater tanks for a Marine Magnesium Plant. The proposed project would not include any new buildings and the remaining debris, from the former user, would be removed. The proposed trail and landscaping plan would incorporate existing plantings and introduce new vegetation. The vegetation would include the following trees and plantings: Coast Live Oak, Afgan Pine, Oregon Grape, Autumn Moor Grass, Bishop's Pine, Strawberry Tree, Wilson's Holly, Scarlet Bugler, and Ramana's Rose. The Project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway since it is not located on a state scenic highway. c) Visual Character Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The bayfront area is currently undeveloped. Prior to the construction of the Founders' Research Center facility, the site was part of the Merck facility. The formermanufacturing site contained several manufacturing buildings and seawater tanks for a Marine Magnesium Plant. The proposed project would not include any new buildings and the remaining debris, from the former user, would be removed. The proposed trail and landscaping plan would incorporate existing plantings and introduce new vegetation. The vegetation would include the following trees and plantings: Coast Live Oak, Afgan Pine, Oregon Grape, Autumn Moor Grass, Bishop's Pine, Strawberry Tree, Wilson's Holly, Scarlet Bugler, and Ramana's Rose. The Project, as a Bay Trail extension would improve the visual character of the site and conform to its surrounding campus architectural style established by the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan Design Element. It would replace a former industrial site with debris with an a state of the art Bay Trail and provide additional landscaping. Therefore the Project would have a less than significant impact on visual character. d) Light or Glare Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project related creation of any new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant environmental impact. Project implementation would involve installation of light standards at various locations at the Prnlp.r:t ~itp. T ,i antina rlp.~i an~ will p.mnl()v fiYtllrp.~ th~t wOlllrl r:~~t 1i aht in ~ rl()UTn-uT~rr1 r1;rp.C':t;nl1 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact II. AGRlCUL TURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] [ [ X] a) Converting Prime Farmland The Project area is in the midst of an urban area that has already been developed in a mix of residential and commercial uses. No Prime Farmlands, Unique Fannlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance have been identified at the Project site. Project development would not result in the conversion of any Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. b) Conflict with Agricultural Zoning There are no areas in the vicinity of the Project site that have been zoned for agricultural uses and no parcels near the Project site are currently under Williamson Act contracts. Projec~ development would not result in the conversion of any land currently zoned for agricultural use or in Williamson Act contracts to non-agricultural uses. The Project involves no activities that would result in conversion of farmland or other land in agricultural to non-agricultural uses. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation ill. 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 [ ] [ [X] [ ] of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or [ ] [ X] [ [ ] contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net [ ] [ ] [ X] ] 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 [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a [ ] [ X] [ ] substantial number of people? Setting 1999 South San Francisco General Plan and Environmental Impact Report Genentech projects were previously analyzed in the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan E1R and the General Plan Amendment and Transit Demand Ordinance Supplemental EIR. The EIR and SEIR calculated potential future development by using average densities and intensities from the different land use classifications to vacant sites and sites with potential redevelopment/intensification opportunities. The General Plan buildout is described in Chapter 3 of the 1999 General Plan E1R and Chapter 4.2 Land Use in the General Plan Amendment and TDM Ordinance SEIR. The General Plan also contains specific policies that require the City to adhere to current federal and state regulations. Policv 7.3-1-2 states: "Use the Cltv's State of California and Federal Air Quality Standards 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 the average in fall and winter. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollutants can build up. Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants, which represent safe levels th~t avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Bay Area Air Quality Management District The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The 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. The BAAQMD has prepared air quality impact guidelines for use in preparing environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the Project site are located in San Francisco to the north and Redwood City to the south. Table Ill-1 summarizes the air quality data recorded these two sites. The table shows that most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the Project area with the exception the state standard for PMlO. -----.L-- --- ------- ------ ---- ----------~ --------- ---- --- --.; ---- is considered non-attainment for ozone and PMlO. TABLE ill-I AIR. QUALITY DATA SUMMARY FOR SAN FRANCISCO AND REDWOOD CITY, 2002-2004 Pollutant Standard Monitoring Site Days Standard Exceeded 2002 2003 2004 Ozone F ederall- Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 Ozone State I-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 1 1 Ozone Federal8-HourI San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 PM 10 Federal 24-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 PMlO State 24-Hour San Francisco 4 1 0 Redwood City 1 3 1 PM2.5 Federal 24- Hour San Francisco 4 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 Carbon State/F ederal San Francisco 0 0 0 Monoxide 8- Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 Nitrogen State I-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Dioxide Redwood City 0 0 0 Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 4/7/05. Significance Thresholds. The CEQA environmental checklist provides five questions regarding air quality impact significance. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the determinations of significance. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines4 provide the following definitions of a significant air quality impact: .. A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour would be considered to have a significant impact. · A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact. The current thresholds are 15 tons/vear or 80 nounds/dav for Reactlve On!anlC Ga~e~ (Ront .L -----oJ ---r----- . Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact. . Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact. The term "substantial levels" is further defined as an exposure associated with an excess cancer risk of 1 0 in one million. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission ofPMlO. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan Setting The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attainment for ozone (state and federal ambient standards) and PMlO (state ambient standard). While air quality plans exist for ozone, none exists (or is currently required) for PMlO. The Proposed Final San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the i-Hour National Ozone StandardS is the current ozone air quality plan required under the Federal Clean Air Act. The state-mandated regional air quality plan is the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan.6 These plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the state and federal ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin. Impact Threshold of Significance: A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment or regional growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled. The Project would have less than significant bnpact on any of the growth assumptions made in the preparation of these plans nor obstruct implementation of any of the proposed control measures contained in these plans. Impact Construction Dust. The proposed Project would require significant grading on a slope and the construction of new retaining walls. The grading on the slope is a construction activity with a high potential for creating air pollutants. In addition to the dust created during grading and construction, substantial dust emissions could be created as debris is loaded into trucks for disposal. 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 building materials. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District 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 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 (CaVOSHA) 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. The above regulations and procedures, already established and enforced as part of the permit review process, would ensure that any potential impacts due to asbestos, lead or other hazardous materials would be reduced to a level of insignificance. After removal of the existing structure, construction dust would continue to affect local air quality during construction of the parking garage. Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality, causing a temporary increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust emission during periods of construction would increase particulate concentrations at neighboring properties. This impact is potentially significant, but normally mitigatible. based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PMlO. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 111-1: Dust Suppression Procedures. The following measures are recommended for inclusion in construction contracts to control fugitive dust emissions. During Demolition of Existing Structure · Watering should be used to control dust generation during demolition of structures and break-up of pavement. . Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. · Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. During Construction . Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. · Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. . Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. . Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. · Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. With the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, impacts on sensitive receptors related to construction emissions would be reduced to a less ~han significant level. Impact Operation. Development projects in the Bay Area are most likely to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation through The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommends estimation of carbon monoxide concentrations for projects where Project traffic would iL-npact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E, or F or would cause Level of Service to decline to D, E, or F; or where Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10 percent or more (if the increase is at least 100 vehicles per hour). The proposed project would not generate any new trips and, therefore, the trip generation is below the BAAQMD threshold trigger level for estimating carbon monoxide concentrations. Considering that the proposed Project is in an attainment area for carbon monoxide (the state and federal ambient standards are met) and that South San Francisco has relatively low background levels of carbon monoxide compared to other parts of the Bay Area, the proposed Project could not have a significant impact on local carbon monoxide concentrations. Therefore, Project carbon monoxide impacts would be less than significant. c) Cumulative Air Quality Effects Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project's impact would be significant if it would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The Project would not generate new emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The BAAQMD has developed criteria to determine if a development Project could result in potentially significant regional emissions. The District has recommended that 2,000 daily vehicle trips be used as a threshold for quantifying Project regional impacts. Net new daily trip generation is below this threshold for quantification. Project emissions therefore would be below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for regional pollutants. Therefore, Project impacts on regional air quality would be less than significant. d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations The BAAQMD defines exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants and risk of accidental releases of acutely hazardous materials (ARMs) as potential adverse environmental impacts. Examples of sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, residential areas with children, and convalescent facilities. ImDact medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptor is the Early Years Children's Center located at 371 Allerton Avenue, which is located roughly one mile west of the proposed Project. In addition to the e::dsting childcare facility, the Britannia East Grand campus is approved for construction of an 80-100 student childcare facility at the terminus of East Grand Avenue, roughly one-quarter mile west of the bay trail. Genentech is planning to submit a Planning Application to construct a 500 student childcare facility on Allerton Avenue, roughly one mile west of the proposed proj ect. Any Project occupant who would potentially release toxic air contaminant emissions would be subject to rules, regulations and procedures of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. As part of its program to control toxic air contaminant emissions, the District has established procedures for estimating the risk associated with exposure. The methods used are conservative, meaning that the real risks from the source may be lower than the calculations, but it is unlikely they will be higher. In the first step of a two-step process, the District estimates how much of a contaminant would be found in the air at a specific location. The estimate depends upon the type of source, its rate of production and its location. The second step involves determining if the estimated amount of contaminant is hazardous to those exposed to it. This determination includes an evaluation of both carcinogenicity (tendency to cause cancer) and non-cancer health effects. Chelnical toxicity is based on animal study results and in some instances, on the results of human exposure. After a new Project's risk level is determined, a decision must be made as to the significance of this risk level. If a new source has a cancer risk of one in a million or less over a 70-year- lifetime exposure period, and will not result in non-cancer health effects, it is considered to be a less than significant risk and no further review of all health impacts is required. If a project has a risk greater than one in a million, it must be further evaluated in order to determine acceptability. Factors that affect acceptability include the presence of controls on the rate of emissions, the location of the site in relation to residential areas and schools, and contaminant reductions in other media such as water. In general, projects with risks greater than one in a million, but less than 10 in a million, are approved if other determining factors are acceptable. In general, projects with risks greater than 10 in a million are not approved. Non-approved projects may be re-evaluated if emissions are reduced, thereby reducing their risks. District Regulation 2-1-412 provides for special noticing requirements prior to approval of toxic air contaminant sources with one-quarter mile of a K-12 school. Since the Early Years Children's Center is a childcare facility over one-quarter mile of the proposed Proiect site. the permit review process for any future occupant of the Project, would ensure that any potential impacts due to hazardous or toxic air contaminant emission would be reduced to a level of less than significant at the closest sensitive receptor and other receptors closer to the Proj eet site. e) Odors Impact Threshold of Significance: 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. During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the Project boundaries. The potential for diesel odors impacts is less than significant. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant SigIJificant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ] [ ] [ X] [ ] 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 [ [ [ X] [ ] riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on [ [ ] [ X] [ ] federally protected wetlands as defmed 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 [ [ ] [ X] [ ] nf ::ITIV TI::Itivp. TP'Qirlp.nt nT miaT~t()"r\T ftd, nT .unpaCI .lmpaCI ImpaCI Mitigation sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ] ] [ ] [ X] ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ] ] [ ] [ X] Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Items a) through d) Impact The Project site is located in a largely industrial area, on a site that had developed by Merck. The proposed project would reclaim the nature landscape and reintroduce native plantings. The Project would have a less than significant impact on any endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to any federally protected wetlands or wildlife corridors. Items e) and f) Setting The Project site is surrounded by various types of landscaping, including low ground covers, assorted shrub types and small to large trees. Impact Threshold of Significance: 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 Project site is located in a largely industrial area, on a site that has already been developed, by a previous user (Merck). The General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report, Figure 9-3, identifies ecologically sensitive areas. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. - --- - ~ "- ~-- --- --- --- Significant Significant Significant No Determination of Environmental Impact Impact with Impact Impact Miti2ation V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ [ X] [ ] significance of a historical resource as defmed in 915064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ X] [ ] significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 915064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique [ ] [ X] [ ] paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including ] [ X] [ [ ] those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Items a) and b) Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or an archaeological resource as defined in S 15064.5. The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in S 15064.5, since the existing building shell on site has no historical value. The Project would have a less than significant impact on historical or archeological resources. c) Paleontological Resources/Unique Geologic Features Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. No unique paleontological or geologic features have been nor are expected to be identified at the Project site. Therefore, the Project would be expected to have a less than significant impact on paleontological resources and unique geologic features. impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the disturbance of any human remains. Impact V-I. No human remains have been identified at the Project site. However, if such remains are encountered during site preparation associated with the construction at the Project site, all work shall be halted in the vicinity, and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be informed to determine if an investigation of the cause of death is required, and to determine if the remains are of Native American origin. If such remains are of Native American origin, the nearest tribal relatives as determined by the state Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted to obtain recommendations for treating or removal of such remains, including grave goods, with appropriate dignity, as required under Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure V-1. Ifremains are encountered during site preparation associated with the construction at the Project site, all work shall be halted in the vicinity, and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be informed to determine if an investigation of the cause of death is required, and to determine if the remains are of Native American origin. If such remains are of Native American origin, the nearest tribal relatives as determined by the state Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted to obtain recommendations for treating or removal of such remains, including grave goods, with appropriate dignity, as required under Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. This would reduce the potential impact associated with the discovery of human remains at the Project site to a level of less than significant with mitigation. 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 [ ] [ ] [ X] ] _..1..1___ ___1__..L___...L~_1 ___~...1___ __ _L' _ 1___ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defmed 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? ...........1'-"". .I..UI.}'","''' .ulli'...... Mitigation [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] ] [ ] [ X] SettingS The Bay Area Geotechnical Group (BAGG) prepared a geotechnical report for the proposed project in July 2005, which is incorporated herein by reference. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is to evaluate the proposed grading for the Bay Trail by performing a geotechnical investigation to provide general recommendations for the construction of the subject trail and the associated improvements including retaining walls, placement of fills and backfills, and construction of drainage control measures. BAGG evaluated the geotechnical conditions at the site and developed appropriate criteria for the design, grading and construction of the proposed bay trail, based on documents provided by Genentech (see bibliography) and the investigation that was conducted on April 5, 2005. Responding to a request by the South San Francisco Engineering Division, Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. prepared a Geotechnical Peer Review on November 30, 20059. Copies of the full reports are available for review at the City of South San Francisco Planning Division. R 1\/1"",,.,.. ~.c +1..", ;.....c"'~A+;~.... ;.... +1..:A A="";~"" ;A ...lA":.~A...l .c..___ D__ ^ ___ r"'_____L_:__l ,...._____~ ,....u~__7u__._ _7 T_ The subject trail will be a 12-foot-wide asphalt pathway, which will provide pedestrian access along the east shoreline of the Genentech Campus. As indicated on the project drawings, the southern limits of the pathway will be near the shoreline (beach) adjacent to the east=northeast end of the Slough property, whereas the northern end of the pathway will be Buildings 1 and 4 parking lot (not elevated). The overall length of the trail will be approximately 2,150 feet. The trail will be surfaced with 3 inches of asphaltic concrete underlain by 8 inches of Class 2 aggregate base. The upslope edge of the trail will contain a vegetated drainage swale and the downslope edge will have a safety rail. As shown on the project plans, a 12-inch-diameter HDPE storm drain some 3 to 4 feet in depth will be constructed beneath the swale extending from Station 5+50 through 12+50. The north end of the new storm drain will be connected to the existing 42-inch RCP at Station 5+50. The swale will contain periodic drop inlets to allow surface runoff to flow into the storm drain pipe. Background and Earlier Reports In 2001 and 2002, the BAGG prepared two reports that identified several unstable areas on the edge of the shoreline10. The top of the shoreline (the bluff area) has been modified by grading from the construction of the Founders Research Center (FRC) II and the temporary parking lot projects. Additionally, the grading proposed, particularly adjacent to FRC I and II projects will create cuts upslope of the trial and place fill downslope of the trail upon the existing shoreline slopes, which of necessity, must be properly keyed into the hillside if they are to remain stable. The objective of the BAGG investigation was to review the proposed grading, perform a geologic and geotechnical site reconnaissance to observe the existing conditions and the nature of modifications that have occurred on the shoreline since our earlier studies, evaluate how the proposed grading for the trail will impact the previously-identified unstable areas of the shoreline, and evaluate the overall suitability of the proposed cuts and fills for the trail from a geotechnical point of view by drilling a number of soil borings. Vicinity Geology The proposed Bayshore II Trail is situated at the top of the old shoreline of the San Francisco Bay, which has been significantly modified by past grading. A geology map reviewed for this study titled "Geology of the Onshore Part of San Mateo County, California," (Brabb, Graymer, and Jones, USGS Digital OF98-137, 1998), indicates the upper terrace adjacent to and immediately east of Point San Bruno Boulevard contains graywacke sandstone with interbedded siltstone and shale constituting less than 20 percent of the unit. It further explains that in places, the interbeds of shale and siltstone may be as much as several tens of meters thick and in many places, shearing has obscured bedding relations. The map indicates the lower site terrace is at the alignment of the subject trail, this geology map indicates artificial fill adjacent to Buildings 1 and 4 on the northern-most reach of the trail, sandstone and colluvium along the remaining southern sections of the trail. Seismicity Active earthquake faults have not been recognized in the site area. Although the site and vicinity is believed to be free of active faults, the San Francisco Bay Area is known to be within a seismically active region. Many large historical earthquakes have occurred on active faults associated with the regional stress field between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The dominant fault in this area is the San Andreas fault, located approximately 7 kilometers (kin) southwest of the site. Other active faults in the area, include the Seal Cove segment of the San Gregorio fault located roughly 14 km to the west-southwest, and the Hayward fault located approximately 24 km to the northeast. Branches of the Hillside fault have also been mapped a very short distance southwest of the subject trail site, and crossing the southwestern flank of Point San Bruno. The fault, which extends northwesterly from the south side of Point San Bruno for about 7.4 kilometers across the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain, generally separates coherent sandstone on the north from the deformed rocks of Franciscan assemblage on the southwest. The fault zone varies in width and has been identified by an intensely sheared band of sandstone and shale, commonly called melange, containing exotic rocks such as serpentine and greenstone. Presently, there is no evidence that this fault has been active within the geologically recent time; however, it may be possible for sympathetic movements to be imposed on this fault as a result of stress from major earthquakes on nearby faults, such as the San Andreas and Hayward faults. A regional fault map, depicting the major faults in the Bay Area, is attached to the 2005 report. Summary of BAGG Report Recommendations Site grading will consist of cutting and filling of the existing slopes and flat stretches of the pathway to accommodate the proposed maximum 5 percent surface gradient for the trail. Grading of the trail alignment should follow the criteria summarized below and discussed in detail in the Report. Grading afTrail Adjacent to FRC L IL and Buildings 1 and 4 Parking Lot The grades above the trail will generate cut slopes with a maximum gradient of 2: 1, and fill slopes on the downhill side of the trail with the same gradient. While this grading scheme has been completed. Grading of Trail on FRC II Shoreline and Adjacent to TAlC property The planned grading will steepen a portion of the hillside above the trail and below the FRC II Emergency Access Road to 2:1, and will require the construction of a retaining wall. Keystone- type walls with reinforcing geogrid layers as shown on the most recent project drawings are acceptable for this purpose, provided the leveling pad is constructed upon fmn soils or re- compacted materials. Other type of retaining walls, such as reinforced concrete walls are also acceptable, provided they are supported on drilled piers. The BAGG Report recommends that the planned swale at the toe of the retaining wall be lined with asphalt or concrete to prevent filtration of the runoff into the retaining wall foundation soils which may cause softening of the soils at the foundation level, and therefore settlement. Additionally, because the existing slope gradient above the trail will be partially steepened to 2: 1, the planned erosion control measures on the regraded and cut slopes should be carried out as soon as the construction sequence will permit. Stripping and Clearing The new construction areas should be stripped of vegetation, deleterious materials, and topsoil. The stripped organic soils may be stockpiled for later use in landscaping areas or for off-site disposal. During clearing, strip and remove bushes, trees, roots, organically-contaminated topsoil, and debris from the site surface. Old utilities to be abandoned or rerouted, remnants of old equipment pads and concrete foundations existing at or near the surface of the graded trail, should be removed and the resulting depressions backfilled with compacted fill. When removing trees, all root systems must be thoroughly removed and the depression backfilled with compacted fill. The depth of stripping on the alignment of the trail is non-uniform and should be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction. Over-Excavation and Compaction Compaction should be performed in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure DI 557. All over- excavated surfaces should be scarified (ripped) to depths of 6 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned by aeration if the soil is too wet, or by adding water if the soil is too dry, and properly compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Additionally, it will be necessary to recompact the upper 12 inches of the trail sub grade over its entire length to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density. All trail pavement components, including the aggregate base and performed while at a moisture content that is at least 2 percent over optimum. All fill and backfill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Depressions created during grading should be property backfilled with fill compacted as specified above. Rocks or cobbles larger than 4 inches in maximum dimensions should not be allowed to remain in the soils forming the trail sub grade, unless they can be crushed in-place by the construction equipment. Criteria For Grading on Slopes The maximum. cut and fill slope gradients should be limited to 2:1, as shown on the project drawings, and flatter where possible. Appropriate keying and benching of the earth materials into suitably firm soils must be performed on all such filling. Where fill shall be placed on a sloping ground with a gradient steeper than 6: 1, all fill materials on such slopes should be placed on horizontal surfaces in a compacted manner with appropriate surface and subsurface drainage. As a minimum, a toe key must be constructed which is at least 10 feet wide and no less than 4 feet in depth, provided the bottom of the keyway exposes firm materials. Otherwise, deeper and wider keyways will be required. It is likely that vertical cuts of more than 4 or 5 feet may be problematic. The keyway should preferably be located in as flat an area as possible. Above the keyway, the material must be consecutively keyed into the slope in a compacted manner. A main underdrain would likely be necessary and appropriately spaced finger drains may also be required on the keyway and the benches above. These details are shown on Plate 8, Typical Slope Construction Detail. Fill Materials Soils generated from the planned cuts will generally be suitable for use as structural fill or backfill material, provided they contain no debris, organics, or rocks over 6 inches in size. Material imported to the site, if necessary, should be essentially non-expansive in nature, have a Plasticity Index less than 15, a minimum R-value of 20, and at least 20 percent but no more than 60 percent of its particles passing the No. 200 sieve. The imported material should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before importation to the site. The stripped pavement may be pulverized in a manner that at least 90 percent of its particles are smaller than 1 inch, blended with the underlying aggregate base, and used as recycled aggregate base beneath the pavements or elsewhere within the site. When strinning a~!QTegate hase and value tests during construction. Trench Backfill Trench backfill materials and compaction should conform to the requirements of the applicable agency. We recommend that the following be considered: · Materials in trenches beneath pavements should be compacted by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction, except within the upper 12 inches where 95 percent compaction will be required, in addition to the required aggregate base beneath the pavement. Compaction of the native clayey soils should be performed at a moisture content that is at least 2 percent over optimum. . Jetting should not be allowed. . Native soil excavated from utility excavations is suitable for trench backfill, except where the material. will serve for pipe bedding or drain material surrounding pipes. Pipe bedding material should consist of sand or pea gravel. Shoring and Allowable Temporary Excavation Slopes Shoring of the vertical trench walls should conform to OSFIA requirements. Temporary shoring for vertical excavations should be designed to withstand an active earth pressure equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. The trench spoils should not be placed closer than 5 feet from the trench sidewalls, or one..:half the trench depth. Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures from adjoining fill materials. Freestanding walls should be designed to resist active lateral pressures taken as an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for level backfill conditions. This pressure should be increased by 4 pcf for every 5 degrees increase in the backfill slope up to a maximum gradient of 2:1. Where applicable, the traffic surcharge from the adjacent FRC II Emergency Access Road may be assumed to be equivalent to about 2 feet of soil as per the Caltrans Trenching and Shoring Manual, which would be equivalent to a uniform pressure of 100 psf acting on the full height of-each retaining wall. A~ ~hr\lxrn ('\11 thp P1"('\1Pf"'t r11"~:nXJ111a~ ",p('hJ:m1C".~llv ~t~h1117Pr1 p~rth '\XT~l1~ ~1"P nl~1111Pr1 ('\11 ~ n('\rtlr\11 · All leveling pads for mechanically stabilized earth walls should be placed upon firm soils or recompacted fill materials. The impact of the sloping backfill above these walls and the traffic loading from FRC II Emergency Access Road should also be considered in the design of such walls. · Reinforced concrete retaining walls should be supported on foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the "Retaining Wall Foundations" section of this report. The lateral earth pressures should be resisted by passive soil pressures acting on the wall foundation as described under "Lateral Design." · The above lateral pressures do not include any hydrostatic pressures resulting from groundwater, seepage water, or infiltration of natural rainfall and/or irrigation water behind the walls. Therefore all walls over 2 feet in height should be provided with a drainage blanket behind the wall. The drainage blanket should consist of a pre- manufactured drainage panel or a one-foot thick blanket of free-draining gravel or drain rock protected by a suitable filter fabric. A 12-inch cap of relatively impermeable soil should be compacted at the top of the drainage blanket to minimize infiltration of surface water. A perforated pipe should be installed at the base of the drainage blanket to conduct water away from the wall to a suitable outfall location. · General backfill behind the walls, excluding drainage material, should conform to the fill requirements given under "Site Grading" in the Report. Retaining W all Foundations Reinforced concrete walls should be supported on drilled piers. Drilled, cast-in place, reinforced concrete piers should be a minimum of 16 inches in diameter, and derive skin friction support from fum. native or fill soils. Such piers may be designed assuming an allowable skin friction support of 500 pounds per square foot. Uplift loads should be limited to two-thirds of this value. In addition, the indicated skin friction value for total design loads may be increased by one-third when transient, downward loads, such as wind or seismic loads, are included. The drilled piers should penetrate a minimum of 10 feet, as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer in the field. Structural considerations may dictate deeper piers. Where very hard drilling is encountered at shallow depth, pier termination should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer in the field. Design of the piers, reinforcement, depth, size, and spacing of the piers should be determined by thp. ~tnl(~hlr::\l p.nmnp.p.T rp.~non~1hlp. for th? f()l1nr1~t;()n r1?Q;an A l;! ~ m;n;mnm thp ;t.,..;l1p;t n;pl'"C' of any loose or disturbed bedrock material or cuttings before placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Groundwater will likely be present within the lower 5 or 6 feet of each pier. The groundwater should be pumped out immediately before pouring concrete, or the concrete should be tremied into the hole and placed from the bottom up. Lateral Design Lateral resistance may be obtained from passive earth pressures acting on the sides of foundation members which have been poured in neat excavations. The allowable passive resistance to wind or seismic loads can be taken as an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot. The passive pressure can be assumed to act over 1 1/2 times the diameter of isolated piers. For resisting long-term loads, the passive resistance within the u~er 12 inches should be ignored unless the toe of the wall is confirmed by pavement or concrete slab. In addition, all passive soil pressures should be ignored where foundation members are less than 6 feet horizontally from the face of the fill slope. Pavement Design All materials and construction procedures, including placement and compaction of pavement components, should be performed in conformance with the latest edition of the Caltrans Standard Specifications, except that compaction should be performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557, and at moisture contents specified herein. All pavement components should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density. The upper 12 inches of the pavement area sub grades should also be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as previously described under Site Grading, and all over- sized rocks and cobbles larger than 4 inches should be completely removed, unless they can be crushed in place with the construction equipment. Drainage and Erosion Control Because of the susceptibility of the on-site materials to erosion and reduction in shear strength when saturated, drainage Ineasures to control and collect surface run-off should be considered an integral part of the proposed Shoreline II Trail. Drainage improvements, as shown, should as a minimum include sloping of the trail surface toward the hillside to a swale and appropriate collection of the runoff from the swale as planned via a storm drainage system with drop inlets. F or an enhanced performance of the trail, consideration may be given to lining the entire length of the swale with asphaltic concrete or concrete. As a minimum, the swale at the foot of any the existing gullies. Or, at the option of the client and the design team, remedial grading can be performed in this area to slope the top of the shoreline away from the slope. This will require appropriate collection or direction of the runoff to the swale or appropriate collection points. Furthermore, appropriate erosion control matting and planting should be carried out as planned to protect the surface of all graded slopes against erosion by hydro seeding and/or placement of erosion control matting. Active seepage is present on the face of the slope below the FRC II Emergency Access Road. The prudent control of drainage in this area will likely require construction of a sub drain on the uphill edge of the trail, the exact location for which must be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction as dictated by the actual site conditions. The sub drain may be placed beneath and in the same trench as the proposed storm drain pipe, and must contain a perforated drain pipe surrounded with gravel and all wrapped in a suitable filter fabric. Beneath graded slopes, a main underdrain and appropriately spaced finger drains will be necessary on the keyway and possibly on the benches above (also see Plate 8). Control of drainage in this area will also be critical from a slope stability standpoint. Surface and subsurface drainage facilities and catchment areas should be checked frequently and cleaned or maintained throughout the project life, as necessary. i) Surface Fault Rupture Impacts Threshold of Significance: The project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential adverse effects associated with the surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the hazard from fault rupture on the site is considered to be very low. The Hillside fault is located nearby, but there is no evidence that this fault has been active within geologically recent time. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Impacts Threshold of Significance: 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. indicate the scenario earthquake listed for the entire San Andreas fault (1906-size earthquake) would produce a "Violent" shaking intensity at the site, while the Peninsula Segments of the San Andreas, or the San Gregorio fault, would produce a "Very Strong" shaking intensity at the site, corresponding to a Modified Mercalli Intensity VIII. Table 2 in the 2005 report presents the earthquake magnitudes, distance to various faults from the site, and the anticipated shaking intensity as a result of the scenario earthquakes potentially affecting the site. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale is presented in Table 3 in the 2005 report. The San Francisco Bay region is emerging from the stress shadow of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and it is considered a certainty that one or more future large earthquakes will impact the region during the normal design life of any proposed structure. Studies of earthquake probabilities in the region indicate a 21 percent chance that an earthquake of Magnitude 6.7, or greater, will occur by the year 2031 on the San Andreas fault. The odds that one or more such events will strike somewhere within the entire San Francisco Bay region before 2031 increase to 62 percent, when all of the major, regional active faults are considered. Stability of Shoreline Slope The eastern shoreline of Genentech upon which the subject trail will be constructed, slopes down to the bay at gradients varying from approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) to nearly 11/3:1. The southern reach of the trail beyond its sharp 90 degree turn to the east from the southeast end of FRC II towards the future FRC III shoreline, contains the steepest slopes, whereas the shoreline slopes east ofFRC I and II vary from 11'2: 1 to 2:1.N. The "Map Showing Slope Stability During Earthquakes in San Mateo County, California" (Wieczorek, Wilson, and Harp, 1985), indicates a "moderate" susceptibility for failure of the subject slopes adjacent to FRC II as a result of shaking caused by earthquakes, and "very low" potential for failure in the areas south and southwest of the FRC II project. This map of slope stability during earthquakes in San Mateo County identifies potentially susceptible areas to landsliding. Susceptibility is evaluated from a technique, which utilizes lithologic, hydrologic, slope, and seismic data. Because the estimated susceptibility is based on limited data within each geologic unit, the map is not adequate for determination of susceptibility at any specific site. However, the map does delineate areas where the probability of landsliding during a major earthquake is greatest and where special attention is required when considering general land-use planning. A "moderate" susceptibility to slope failure and landsliding for example pertains to approximately 15 percent of the slopes, whereas a "very low" susceptibility corresponds to less than 3 percent of the shoreline to fail as a result of a major seismic event. Stability of the Shoreline of the shoreline. The slumps, or erosion gullies had encroached into the parking lot and undermined the then existing curb. For safety measures, the 2001 report recommended closure of the area to traffic and pedestrians. Impacts Impact VI-1a. Even though the development of the Project would not increase the number of structures on the Genentech campus, the recreational emphasis of the Bay Trail could potentially expose people to hazards associated with a major earthquake in the region. All structures, including the retaining walls, are built with the knowledge that an earthquake could occur, and are required to meet Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards for seismic safety. Conformance with the latest UBC and the recommended mitigation measures of the Geotechnical Investigation would ensure that the impact of seismic ground shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant. This impact is considered to be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure VI-1a. Conformance with Geotechnical Report and the conditions of the Peer Review. The design of the trail, grading and infrastructure shall comply with site specific recommendations as provided by the project's geotechnical engineer. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. Mitigation Measure VI.1b. The final site plan for the project shall be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies to ensure that the applicant has incorporated the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report into the design and construction of the Project. Mitigation Measure VI.1c. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, keying, benching, and compaction testing of all project fill placement. The results of these inspections and as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (as- built) proj ect approval. The above mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts at the Project site to a level of less than significant with mitigation Impacts Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquidfaction. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated (submerged) cohesionless soils can be subject to a temporary loss of strength due to buildup of excess pore pressure, and reduction of soil effective stress during cyclic loading, such as those produced by the earthquakes. In the process, the soil acquires a mobility sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements, if not confirmed. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, uniformly graded, fme-grained sands. Silty sands may also be susceptible to liquefaction during strong ground shaking, although to a lesser extent. However, provided that the bay mud thickness is no more than 5 feet, ground failure beneath the ramp fills is unlikely. The Geotechnical Investigation states that the proposed grading and location of the trail as shown on the project drawings, appears to be feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the limitations stated in this report are considered with respect to the future performance of the trail, and the recommendations presented are incorporated into the construction of the trail. This impact is considered to be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure VI.2. Conformance with Geotechnical Report. The design of the trail and infrastructure shall comply with site-specific recommendations as provided by the project's geotechnical engineer. Specifically, the applicant shall comply with the BAGG Report and Peer Review reporting requirements and recommendations regarding site grading, stripping and clearing, compaction, criteria for grading on slopes and trench backfills. This would reduce the potential impact at the Project site to a level of less than significant with mitigation. iv) Landslides Impacts Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides. The Geotechnical Investigation notes that relatively weak fill soils and native deposits form the shoreline slopes and an area on the southern portion of the shoreline has been identified to on the project plans. The climatic and seismic factors that can cause large, damaging erosion events and slope failures are generally random natural phenomena that are part of the active coastal processes and can..llot be predicted. Nor is it possible to implement mitigation measures that would totally negate the impacts of such events. Portions of the shoreline contain over- steepened slopes and foreign features such as concrete rubble within fill and concrete pads and foundations on the edge of the shoreline, which in some cases, have been covered with several feet of fill. Any grading activity involving the removal of the old foundations and concrete pads remaining from the former Marine Magnesium Plant operations must be carefully planned and conducted to preclude failure and retreat of the shoreline slopes. Nevertheless, a shoreline retreat study conducted by this office in 2002, which reviewed the aerial photography pertinent to the site area dating back to the 1950's, concluded that the subject shoreline has undergone very little change and retreat within the past 50 years. Over the years, the poor drainage at the top of the shoreline filled with loose waste and rubble fills has created erosion gullies with active slumps which has undermined the curb and pavement in at least two locations with widths in the range of 15 to 20 feet, and will eventually spread to larger areas if not properly mitigated. Saturation of the shoreline soils during winters with intense rainfall renders the area susceptible to renewed movements and inland migration of the older headwall scarps and erosion gullies. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the proposed inward-sloping of the surface of the trail in this area to a swale will alleviate the poor drainage condition to a large extent. However, erosion of the existing slumps and gullies by rainfall and storms will continue to occur, and the drainage from the 6- to 13-foot-wide nearly flat area between the trail and the top of slope will continue to flow to the potentially unstable shoreline slopes, likely enlarging the existing gullies. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure VI.3. Conformance with Geotechnical Report and Peer Review. The structural design of the trail shall comply with site-specific recommendations as provided by the project's geotechnical consultant and the conditions in the Peer Review. It will therefore be necessary to implement additional erosion protections measures identified in the Report. Such measure should include but are not limited to: · Construction of a concrete or AC curb at the top of the. shoreline to completely intercept and prevent the runoff reaching the erosion gullies filled with rubble, or remedial grading of the area to completely slope away from the top of shoreline, particularly since the existing pavement is to be removed, · Placement of riprap within the erosion gullies, although this mayor may not be practical, · In the extreme, if all of the above measures prove to be ineffective, construction of a pier- supported retaining wall, or a tie-back shotcrete wall, or equivalent, to support the shoreline and the trail above. This would reduce the potential impact at the Project site to a level of less than significant with mitigation. b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Impacts Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil. Impact VIA. The BAGG Report states that the Project area contains relatively weak fill soils and native deposits form the shoreline slopes and an area on the southern portion of the shoreline has been identified to contain waste and rubble fill with active erosion gullies and soil slumps. The future integrity of the shoreline greatly depends on drainage, climatic conditions, and seismic events. The drainage factor can be controlled to a great extent by appropriately designed containment and discharge of surface runoff, some of which will be implemented during the construction of the trail as shown on the project plans. The climatic and seismic factors that can cause large, damaging erosion events and slope failures are generally random natural phenomena that are part of the. active coastal processes and cannot be predicted. Nor is it possible to implement mitigation measures that would totally negate the impacts of such events. Portions of the shoreline contain over-steepened slopes and foreign features such as concrete rubble within fill and concrete pads and foundations on the edge of the shoreline, which in some cases, have been covered with several feet of fill. Any grading activity involving the removal of the old foundations and concrete pads remaining from the former Marine Magnesium Plant operations must be carefully planned and conducted to preclude failure and retreat of the shoreline slopes. As described in the BAGG Report, the Project would potentially mcrease erOSIon during construction. The impact is considered to be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure VI.4. It will be necessary that the applicant implements erosion protections measures identified in the Geotechnical Report and submits the required letters, described in the Peer Review. The grading of the trail shall comply with site-specific recommendations as - - --.L- -.I ---- --- - -.L -- ---0 - - -~ --- -------- identified in the Peer Review. The mitigation measure would reduce the impact to less than significant with mitigation. c) Geologic Instability Impacts Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The BAGG Report states that there is the potential of the site materials for liquefaction during major earthquakes is considered to be relatively low along the trail. However, there is a possibility that the unsaturated loose to medium dense gravels beneath the site may undergo seismic compaction and settlement as a result of intense shaking caused by major earthquake events. Because of the clay nature of the granular soils subject to densification, the consequence of the seismically-induced compaction of the granular soils beneath the site will be minor. The BAGG Report concludes that the proposed grading in the trail area at this location consisting of cuts uphill of the trail and buttress fills on the downslope edge, and grading of the surface of the trail towards the hillside, are expected to improve the stability of the overall shoreline slopes and the performance of the trail at these locations. As such, with the proposed grading, the Report indicates that the factors of safety against failure would be higher. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less than significant. d) Expansive Soils Impacts Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life and property. According to the Geotechnical Report, the Proj ect does not appear to be located on expansive soil and would have no impact. Impact Threshold of Significance: 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 alternative waste disposal systems. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on soils or septic systems. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERlALS - Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or [ ] [ X] [ ] the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or [ ] [ X] ] [ ] the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ] [ ] [ X] [ ] 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 [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ] 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 ] [ ] [ X] [ ] 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? 1) For a Project within the vicinity of a ] [ X] [ ] 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 [ ] [ ] [ X] interfere with an adopted emergency .LA&a......."".. .I.~I.I'A\,.;L lllll'illl,;L Mitigation h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fIres, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] a) and b) Hazardous Materials Impacts Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or environmental through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impact VIT.1. The Proposed project is located in an area zoned for packaging/manufacturing, research and development and industrial uses. Even though the Project itself would not be handling hazardous materials, the magnitude of the potential risk or upset to individuals using the trail would be reduced to normally acceptable levels by compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. Genentech operates under a permit from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, which regulates the use and disposal of toxic materials. Genentech also has a permit from the California Department of Health Services for the use of radioactive material, which includes existing Building 7. Hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal will be governed by the following standards and permits: · Toxic Substances Control Act, administered by the EP A, Regulation 40 CFR 720. · Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, administered by the Department of Transportation, Regulation 49 CFR 171-177. · Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 4 USC 6901-6987. · Hazardous Waste Management Standards for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Facilities, administered by EP A, 40CFR 260-2625. · California Hazardous Waste Control Act. California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5. · California Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. California Administrative Code, Title 22. Social Security, Division 4. Environmental Health, Chapter 30. r"\._ _ _..I- n f' J '1 TT '1J'f ... J ......r\. TTI"""l~ ,,...... . California Occupational Safety and Health Act. . Standard for Industrial Users and Operations of the Publicly-Owned Treatment Works, City of South San Francisco. Ordin8J.""1ces 661, 765-778, and 828-880. Providing Genentech continues to operate under all applicable federal, state and local guidelines governing hazardous waste for all uses and facilities on the campus, the impact to the Proj ect with regards to hazardous waste would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure VII.1. In order to ensure construction contractor safety, the applicant shall prepare and submit a site Health and Safety Plan to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The mitigation measure would reduce the impact to less than significant with mitigation. c) and d) Hazardous Materials Presence Impacts Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or environmental through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving release of hazardous materials into the environment. A portion of the Project site is located on the former Merck Maintenance Building site and a drainage ravine for the former Marine Chemical Company (1921-1951), described above. The Project area is not listed on the Department of Substance Control's Cortese List. The impact would considered to be less than significant from the emission or handling of hazardous materials, wastes on schools or from any environmental contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip Impacts Threshold of Significance: 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 ....OC1~rI~......... 1"\.... UTI"\....lr-i.....n -in t"h", ll'1"I"\-i",,..t ':l'1"I">t;l. n'1" -if' -it UTI">'1"1"> In("''t;ltl''>,1 uT;th;n thP v;,...;n;tu of' ~ nriv~tp with ALUC boundaries, provided that development is below a prescribed height limit. The Project would abide by the ALUC's height limit and would not result in a safety hazard for people working at the Project site. This impact is considered to be less than significant. g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Impacts Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Genentech has constructed an emergency access route (as part of the approved plans for FRC II) adjacent to FRC II and would be separated from the proposed Bay Trail. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires Impacts Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fITes. There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site. The Project would have no impact on wildland fires. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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 nroduction rate of nre-exi~tin!:1 m~::Irhv [ ] [ ] [ ] [ [ X] [ ] [ [ X] c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 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 .lmpaCl Mitigation [ ] [ ] lDlpact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ] [ ] Impact [ X] [ ] ] [ X] [ X] [ X] [ X] [ X] Colma Creek, the City's main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a water shed of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in the County. The basin is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two relatively straight mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a low ridge at the [ ] [ X] ] [ ] nnrlh.:o.-rn hnnnrlg......T ,",of' +h.:o. g.....:o.g '"rh.:o. -':Tg11.:o.-':T 0.......,..1'"''"'0.,.1 1......T +1..,..,. ....:,.1~,..,.n .....T~,.1,..,.....n +.........u.._,.1 +t..~ ~~n+t..~~~+ [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ] [ ] [ ] [ [ ] [ ] to buildings 1 and 4, and the area adjacent to FRC II. a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in any violation of existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Provided that the company occupying the site adheres to existing waste discharge regulations, the Proj ect would present no impact. b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The proposed Project would be located in an urban area and would receive its water supply from existing local infrastructure, thereby not depleting the local groundwater supply. The proposed trail would be an impervious surface over the land that would to some degree impede recharging of local groundwater. However, since groundwater resources are not used in the Project area, this impact would be less than significant. c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation. It is not expected that the proposed Project would alter the existing drainage patterns of the site, nor would increase the amount of surface runoff. The BAGG Report (refer to the description of the proposed grading along the Bay Trail in Geology and Soils) indicates that the Project would add new landscaping and grade the site in order to manage the drainage to the San Francisco Bay, which would improve existing conditions along the shoreline area. Therefore, the Project is considered to have a less than significant impact. impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. It is not expected that the proposed Project would alter the existing drainage patterns of the site, nor would increase the amount of surface runoff. The BAGG Report (refer to the description of the proposed grading along the Bay Trail in Geology and Soils) indicates that the Project add new landscaping and manage the drainage, which would improve existing conditions along the shoreline area. Therefore, the Project is considered to have a less than significant impact. e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System CapacitylIncrease Polluted Runoff Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impact VIII-1: Increased Erosion During Construction. The soils at the Project site may be susceptible to erosion during construction activities when soils are disturbed. This represents a potentially significant impact associated with the proposed Proj ect. Mitigation Measure VIll-1: Erosion Control Measures. The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project. TheSWPPP shall include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator. The Project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures, and for the implementation of such measures. Failure to comply with the approved construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a Project stop order. Plans for the Project shall include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. - . -- - - -0- --- .. ---- '"<. --~-.J Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to degrade water quality. The proposed Project would not increase the amount of impervious surface area on the Project site, since the site is already developed. Therefore, there would be no additional impact on water quality from point source water pollution at the Project site. g) Place Housing Within A 100- Year Flood Hazard Area Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to place any housing units within a designated IOO-year flood hazard area. No impact would occur from placing housing within a IOO-year flood hazard area, since the Proj ect does not entail the construction of any housing units. h) Place Structures Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it placed any structures in a manner, which would impede or redirect flood flows. The Project site is not located in a 100-year flood hazard zonell and therefore would have no impact related to the placement of a structure in such a way that it would impede or redirect flood flows. i) Expose People or Structures to Flooding Hazards Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to flooding hazards. Development of the proposed Project would not expose any people or structures to flooding hazards and therefore would have no impact. impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards from seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Development of the proposed Project would not expose any people or structures to hazards from seiche, tsunami or mudflow and therefore would have no impact. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Poteutially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] 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 ] [ ] [ [ X] conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Setting The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance permit the development of Office and Research and Development Uses in the East of 101 Area. The site is located on the Genentech campus, which permits R&D development and the location of employee amenities in campus areas. Land uses surrounding the project site are also R&D, office and industrial uses. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Land Use Requirements The Master Plan and R&D Overlay District is consists of all lands classified on the City's Zoning Map. All land use policies, regulations, development and design standards, and requirements are set forth in the 1999 General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Impacts Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to physically divide an established community. The site is located on the Genentech campus, which permits R&D development and the location of employee amenities in campus areas. Land uses surrounding the project site are also R&D, office and industrial uses. Thus, the Project would have no impact on dividing an established community. b) Conflicts with Land Use Plan and Zoning Impacts Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were judge to be inconsistent with existing City land use policies, zoning standards and other regional plans. The proposed project is consistent with all general plan and zoning regulations and, therefore, has no impact on local or other regional land use policies and standards. c) Conflict with Conservation Plan Impacts Threshold of Significance: 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 plan either currently in force or proposed for application to the subject property. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on conservation plans. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified at the Project site. The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan. Impact Threshold of Significance: 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 proposed development at the Proj ect site would not affect the availability of and would have no impact on any known mineral resource, or result in the loss of availability of any locally important resource recovery site. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation XI. NOISE - Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] 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 [ ] ] ] [ X] excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in [ ] ] [ X] ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic ] [ X] [ ] increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land [ [ ] [ X] use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the .LI.llt'""'1I. UIl(JaCL J.mpaCI Mitigation f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ [ X] Setting and Background On November 16, 2000, the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission approved Use Permit UPOO-064 and Mitigated Negative Declaration MNDOO-064 to allow the construction of the Founders Research Center II facility on the former Merck site in the Mid-campus area of the Genentech campus. The Planning Commission Staff Report, which includes the Mitigated Negative Declaration, addressed the need for the construction of the San Francisco Bay Trail adjacent to the new research facility. The approved facility contained a loading area (Building 15) adjacent to the future Bay Trail. The Conditions of Approval contained a requirement that the applicant prepare a noise study to determine if the loading area would have any negative impact on the open space use. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. Residential and open space recreational uses are generally considered to be noise-sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. The Bay Trail is a sensitive receptor in the site vicinity. In the East of 101 Area, The East of 101 Area Plan establishes several policies regulating noise levels near sensitive receptors. Policy NO-4 states the following: ''New development shall be designed so that the average noise level resulting from the new development does not exceed Leq of 60 dBA at the nearest open space or recreation area." The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, 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 aJ Exposure 01 rersons 10 or lj-eneranon 01 l~olse LevelS ill Excess 01 ~[anoaros Impact Threshold of Significance: 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 City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan or the City' s Noise Ordinance. Impact XI-1. Construction Related Noise. During site preparation and construction at the Proj ect site, operation of heavy equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. This would be a potentially significant impact associated with Project development. Construction noise sources range 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. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure XI-1. Limitation of Construction Hours/Noise Abatement. There are no existing noise-sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity that would be affected by Project- generated construction noise. Assuming construction noise levels comply with the required noise limit and hourly restrictions specified in the City Noise Ordinance, construction-related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant with mitigation. Impact Impact Xl-2. Operational Noise. The portion of the Project site is located adjacent to several existing facilities on the Genentech campus, including the Founders Research Center II, Buildings 1 and 4 and the temporary parking area south of FRC II. The East of 101 Area Plan contains Policy NO-4, which states the following: "N ew Development shall be designed so that the average noise level resulting from new development does not exceed an Leq of 60 dBA at the nearest open space or recreation area." The Mitigated Negative Declaration for Founders Research Center II contains Mitigation Measure X1.a, which requires the applicant to conduct a noise analysis to determine the project's (FRC II) potential impacts on the open space area and comply with the East of 101 Area Plan Noise policies12. Genentech prepared a noise . study that evaluated the potential noise impact from the generator located in the FRC II loading area (Building 15, which is unoccupied). As the proposed Bay Trail will be located adjacent to several sites that may generate noise that mav exceed an Lp.n of 60 dBA. Therefore~ the noise impact from existing operations noted above AfiugauonAfeasure Mitigation Measure XI-2. The applicant shall prepare a noise analysis that measures the noise impact to the future Bay Trail from all operations on the Genentech campus. The noise study shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1) determine the potential noise level from all source points along the trail (FRC II loading area, Buildings 1 and 4, and the temporary parking lot); 2) the study shall test all generators and mechanical areas adjacent to the future bay trail; and, 3) the study shall include ambient noise sources. The report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to approval of a grading permit. If the impact is not in compliance with the East of 101 Area Plan, the applicant shall install noise mitigation features, subject to approval of the City Engineer and Chief Planner. Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce the impact on the Proj ect to be less than significant. b - f) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Existing Without the Project, and Location in Vicinity of a Public Airport or Private Airstrip Impact Threshold of Significance: 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 expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The 1999 General Plan Noise Element contains existing and future (2006) airport noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. These contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future airport noise contours. Projected contours for road and railroad noise are also included in the Noise Element. These contours indicate that the Project site is located in an area where noise levels generated by major road and railroad noise sources will continue to be less than 60 dBA (CNEL). Based on the City's land use criteria, the proposed Project's research and development 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. Impact wun Impact Impact Mitigation XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an [ [ ] [ [ X] 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 [ ] [ [ ] [ X] housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce substantial population growth, or if it were to result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units, or in the displacement of substantial numbers of people living at the Project site. The proposed Project would not entail the extension of infrastructure that could support additional residential or commercial development. It would not involve the construction of any new housing, and would not require the displacement of any existing residential units or persons living on-site. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on population and housing in the area. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of EnviroDmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ~.t"-_. ~u.t"-_. Mitigation ill) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] iv) Parks? [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] v) Other public facilities? [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ] Impact Threshold of Significance: 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. The proposed Project would place a less than significant increased demand on City of South San Francisco public services. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [ [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ] [ [ ] [ X] a) and b) Recreation Threshold of Significance: 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 mi!Zht have adverse nhvsical effects on the envlTonment_ Francisco recognizes the importance of providing recreational facilities for people in the East of 101 Area. Recreational areas along the shoreline nearby currently include the Bay Front Trail (Phase 1), Oyster Point Marina, Materials Recovery Facility, and Colma Creek, which are easily accessible to the public. The Project is a recreational amenity that is consistent with the policies of the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan and would enhance the visitor's experience along the San Francisco Bay. The Project, therefore, would have a less than significant impact on parks or recreational facilities since the applicant will construct and maintain the public open space. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, [ ] [ [ ] [ X] a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, [ ] [ [ ] [ X] 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 [ ] ] [ [ X] design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [ [ X] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ X] [ [ ] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or [ ] [ ] [ [ X] programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Standard to be Exceeded, Alter Air Traffic Patterns, Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses, and Emergency Access Impacts Thresholds of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic load and street system capacity, direct or cumulative increase in traffic which causes a Congestion Management Agency standard to be exceeded, alter air traffic patterns, increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses, and a loss in emergency access. The San Francisco Bay Trail was previously assessed in the 1999 San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The General Plan EIR indicates that the Bay Trail is a recreation amenity designed to attract South San Francisco residents and employees to the shoreline area. Since the Project is a recreational amenity that would not generate new trips during the established peak hours, would not impact the level of service on streets in the East of 101 area, would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, has been designed to current ADA standards and, thus, does not create any hazards, and does not impact the adjacent emergency access routes on the Genentech campus. The Project is considered to have no impact. f) Parking Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant effect if it would result in an inadequate amount of parking being available. Impacts Impact XV -1. Currently, the applicant maintains approximately 15 public parking spaces at Point San Bruno on the Genentech campus that are specifically designated for Bay Trail users. The applicant does not propose to install any new public parking spaces to serve the Bay Trail extension. The applicant has indicated that the public can access the Project site from the existing public parking area located on the north side of the Project area at Point San Bruno and future public parking spaces located on another property (owned by Slough Estates) south of the Project site. Genentech maintains a temporary parking lot for employees only at Point San Bruno Knoll (the highest point along the proposed Project site). However, the applicant does not propose to allow the public to use the temporary parking area or to add any additional public parking spaces along the Bay Trail extension. The South San Francisco Municipal Code does not prescribe a specific number of parking spaces that should be reserved for public access. Generally the Bay Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure XV-I. Prior to approval of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit updated plans to the City following approval of the BCDC permit. The revised plans shall indicate the specific locations for the existing public parking, show the location for the existing temporary parking lot on the plans, and if determined by BCDC, show the locations and number of additional public parking spaces on the Genentech campus Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce the impact on the Project to be less than significant. g) Alternative Transportation Impacts Threshold of Significance: The project would have a significant effect if it were to conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The employees at the Project would be expected to utilize Genentech's existing shuttle system or walk to reach the site. The project would have no impact. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ] [ ] [ [ X] of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new [ ] [ ] [ [X] 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 [ ] [ [ ] [ X] storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? .1\ J.Tl'I"lTP .;mff'1C";pnt "lXTl'Itpr l;mnnl;pQ l'I"lTl'I11l'1'hlp tn r 1 r r 1 r Vl Impact "ULll impact Impact Mitigation e) Result in a determination by the ] [ ] [ ] [ X] 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 ] [ ] [ [ X] permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X] statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Setting Utility requirements resulting from Genentech buildout were previously assessed in the Genentech Negative Declaration, the East of 101 Area Plan EIR and the 1999 General Plan EIR. The Genentech Master Plan includes a utilities study prepared by Genentech and consulting engineers. The expansion plans presented in the Master Plan assume continued expansion of product research and development, manufacturing and office uses on the campus. The growth projections also take into consideration estimated water and sewage usage projected to 2010. a - b) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards, Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Impact Threshold of Significance: 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 Project may have a significant environmental impact if it were to require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The Project would have no impact related to an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed project is not projected to increase the overall wastewater treatment and/or disposal capacity of the City's wastewater treatment plant. Localized wastewater collection facilities will be increased in size to replace existing failing facilities and to accommodate proposed expansion of local businesses in accord with the 1999 General Plan. lmpact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Project would have no impact related to the construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities, since the proposed Project would be implemented at an already built out site connected to storm water drainage infrastructure. d) Water Supply Impact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources. The Project would utilize existing water entitlements and resources, having no impact on other water resources. e) Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Impact Threshold of Significance: 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 Project would place a no impact demand on the area's wastewater treatment provider and would not prevent it from fulfilling its existing commitments. f) Solid Waste Disposal Capacity Impact Threshold of Significance: 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. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not generate any amount of solid UTOC'tO 0...,..-1 t'h"C' UT/""\Hl..-1 'hr:l'U~ Hn ;_nn,.t lmpact Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Operation of the proposed Project would be expected to be in full compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, thereby having no impact. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - a) Does the Project have the potential to ] [ ] [ X] [ ] 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 ] [ [ [ X] 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 [ [ [ X] ] effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Quality of the Environment Implementation of the Project does not 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 _1':_':__-4-_ .:_........................n....+ n....Tn..............1"'IIo.l~n 1""\.+.......... n~.t""\...... 1""IIt.~"": ,...,An .t""\.+ r-n 1~+r"\..............~ n k~n+n.~7 .t""\..... "fo"'\,......CIt."h~n+r"t.~T cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. There are no Project-related cumulative impacts. c) Adverse Environmental Effects on Human Beings The Proj ect would not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the Project is consistent and compatible with land uses on the Genentech campus and in the surrounding area. REFERENCES BmLIOGRAPHY Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, Apri11996. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, p.23,24. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, "Bay Area Attainment Status" April 1999 (obtained at BAAQMD website: www.baaqmd.gov). Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Summary of Air Pollution in the Bay Area, individual sheets for 1995-1999; and various Press Releases, Office of Public Information, . Education Division, August 1997 through January 2001. Bay Area Geotechnical Group, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Bayshore II Trail East Shoreline of Genentech Campus, South San Francisco, California, July 8, 2005. The following documents provided by the client and prepared previously by BAGG formed the basis for this investigation: . Drawings titled "Genentech Bayshore II Trail Project, South San Francisco, California," by Gensler, MPA Design, and Wilsey & Ham, dated June 7, 2005. . Drawings titled "Genenteeh Bayshore II Trail, Plans, Profiles, and Sections, Station 0+00 through 22+50," Sheets 101-CI-002 through 004 and 101-C8-001, prepared by Gensler, Wilsey & Ham, and MP A Design, dated December 22, 2004. . "Report, Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed BCDC Pathway, East Shoreline of Genentech Campus, South San Francisco, California," by Bay Area Geotechnical Group (BAGG), dated April 3,2001. . "Report, Consultation - Bluff Retreat Study, Proposed BCDC Pathway, Genentech's East Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, adopted July 1994. City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Municipal Code. City of South San Francisco, Planning Commission Staff Report, Genentech Founder's Research Center II, November 16,2000 City of South San Francisco, Mitigated Negative Declaration, ND-00-064, Genentech Founder's Research Center II, October 2,2000. Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, April 2001. Dyett & Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999. Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, prepared for the City of South San Francisco, September 1997. Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report, June 199 Genentech, Inc., Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan, prepared in 1994 ~QnQntQl'h ~"I Ivl i ."VI I B~\/~hore ul\J11 I South San Francisco, California I I T -m I rail Pro ject Site Genentech I n c~ Genentech I n c~ Ge-n en tech , I n c~ ~ Genentech, Inc. NORTH Gen en tech, I n c~ SHEET INDEX eMl B/19/05 100-COO-D07 COVER SHEET B/19/05 1 DO-COO-OOB INDEX SHEET 8/19/05 10Q-Cb2~029 PLAN & PROFILE: STATION 0+00 TO 7+50 B/19/05 100-C02-030 PLAN & PROFILE: STATION 7+50 TO 15+50 B/19/05 100-C02-031 PLAN & PROFILE: STATION 15+50 TO 23+34.82 B/19/05 100-C07-001 TYPICAL TRAIL SECTIONS 8/19/05 lDO-C08-021 TRAIL DETAILS 8/19/05 100-C08-022 RETAINING WALL DETAILS Landscape 8/19/05 100-L01-001 DESIGN PLAN B/19/05 lDO-L01-002 SITE FEATURE IMAGES 8/19/05 lOO-L01-003 SITE PLANTING IMAGES PR9'ARIll UHllCR SUI'lJlVISIOH Of; NO. RE\I1S10N OESCRIPTION 100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ~ Landscape ArclUI.ects and Urban Designers WI LS EYi'll HAM ENGINEER.ING U PLANNING tff SURVEYING 414 Il.aIJon Street San FronclsCll, CA 94102 415 ~-4654 {650} 349.2151 383 A VINTAGE PARK 0RtVE FOSTER CITY. CA94404 FAX (650) 345-4921 MP A Design AUGUST 26, 2005 . BY: DATE APPR: DATE This drawIng Is the property SCAlE: DATE Genentech, Inc. MPA 08/26/05 af Genentech, Inc. The DESIGN BY: OWN, DO OB/26/05 GenelTdech, Inc. informc::Jtion is confidential and is to be used only in DRAWN BY, MG, DO 08/26/05 Genern:ect\ Inc. conn ecfion with work Genentech; Inc. directed by Genentech, Ine. APPR. BY, No port of this drawing is Genentech, Inc. to be disclosed to others APPR. BY' without writte-n permission 1 DNA WAY from Genentech. toe. APPR. BY' SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA TIRE FILENAME: GENENTECH BAYSHORE II TRAIL PROJECT PROJECT ADDRESS: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CAUFORNIA NAME OF CUENT: GENENTECH, INC. ORAI'tlNG NO. 100-COO-007 REV. 0 GENERAL NOTES: ,. COlITRACTOR AGREES !HAT IN ACCOROANC!: wrTl/ GENERAllY ACCEPlTIJ CONSTRUCTION mCTICrs. HE/SHE SfIAlL ASSUWE SOLE: ANO COWPLrIT RESPOHSI81UTY fOR THE JOB srrr CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF !HIS PROJECT. INCLUDING SAJUY OF All. PrRSOlIS ANO PROPERTY, lI!AT THIS REOUIREWENT SHAll. APPLT COHnNUOUSLY ANO NOT BE UWITDl TO NORJIAL WORf(ING HOURS ANO THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHAll. OITrNO, IHDEl/NIFY AND HOW !HE OWNER ANO !HE ENGINEER IW/WL!SS FROW ANY AND ALL UABIUTY. REAL OR AlLEGED. IN CONNECT/OIl wrTl/ !HE PERFORWANCE OF WORK OIl !HIS PROJECT. EXWnNG FOR UABIUTY ARISING FRaW THE SOLE: HEGUGEHCE or THE OW'n'ER OR THE ENGInEER.. 2. !HE ENGINEER ASSUWES NO RESPONSIB/UTY BEYOND THE ADEOUACY OF THE OESIGN CONTAINED HEREIN. 3. COIlTRACTOR SfIAlL COWPLY wrTl/ THE RUU:S AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE CONSTRUCTION SAFrn' DRDfJlS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHAll OBTAIN AN D/CROACHWENT PERW FRDIl THE cnr OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PRIDR TO AllY CDNSTRUCTlON ACTNnr wrTl/IN THE PUBUC RIGHT OF WAY. S. THE CONTRACTOR SHAlL ACOUlRE THE NECESSARY PERWITS REOUlRED TO DISCHARGE WATER FROW THE DEWATERING SYSTEW IIITll NEARBY SANITARY SEWER FACIlITIES. THE OEWATERlNG SYSTEII SfIAlL NOT DISCHARGE TO ANY STORll DRAINAGE FAClUTY. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE All UGIlTS, SIGNS, BARRICADES, FUGI/EII DR OTHER DEVICES NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FOR PUBUC SAf!T(. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL POST EIlERGENCY rarPHONE NUIlBr/lS fOR POUC!:. fiRE. AIIBULANCr, ANO THOSE AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE: FOR IlAINTrNANCE OF ummES IN THE VlCINnr OF JOB SITE. S. EXCAVATIONS SHAlL BE ADEOUAffiY SHORED, BRACED AND SHErn:o so THAT THE EARTH WILL NOT suer DR srnu: AND SO THAT All. EXISTING IIlPROVEIlEIITS OF AllY I<JND WILL BE fULLy PROTECTED FROIl DAllAGE. AllY Jl.I.I(AGE RESULTING FROW A LACK OF ADEOUATE SHORING, BRACING AND SHEE:TlNG SHAll BE THE RESPONSIBIUTY tlF THE CONTRACTOR AND HE SHAll. EffECT NECESSARY I1EPAlRS DR RECONSTRucnON AT HIS OWN EXPOISE. IT IS THE RESPOIISIBIUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO DESIGN AND INSTAlL ADEOUATE SHDRING, BRACING OR SHEET PIUNG FOR WORKER SAf!T( AND TO PROTECT EXISTING II(f'ROVEl/ENTS. THE CDNTIlACTOR SfIAlL OBTAIN ANY SOILS INFORWATlON NECESSARY fOR Hill TO SATISFY THIS RrOUlRrlIENT. 9. WHERE THE EXCAVATlOlI TOR A CONOUIT TRENCH AND/OR STRUCTURE IS fM Fm OR WORE IN OEl'lH. THE CDNTRACTOR SHAll PROVIDE ADEDUATE SHEE:TlHG, SHORING AND BRACING OR EDU/VALE:NT IlETHDD fOR THE PROTECTION OF urr OR UIlB, CONFDRIlING TO THE APPUCABLE: CDI/S1RUCTlON SAFrn' ORDERS OF THE DlVISIOII OF INDUSTRIAl. SAJUY OF THE STATE OF CAUFORNIA. 1RENCH SHIELDS. GENERAll.Y USED fOR WORKER PROTECTION. IlAY NOT sr EffECTIVE IN IlITlGATlNG GROUND 1l0VEIID/T/smLEIIENT WHILE: INSTALUNG THE PIPEUNE. THE COIlTRACTOR SfIAlL ALWAYS COIlPLY WlTH OSfIA REOU/REIlENTS. 10. All. WORK SHAlL BE PERFORlIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROJECT SPEClflCATlONS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS. IN THE EVENT OF NOII-cDIlPUANCE WlTH PERIlIT. PROJECT CONDITIONS AND/OR CITY STANDARDS fOR CONSTRUCTlDN WlTHIN THE PUBUC RIGNT-DF-WAY, THE cnr WILL EXERClSE ITS RIGHT TO SUSPEND PROJECT PERI(ITS OR IlALT WORK IN PROGRESS UNTIL SUCH TillE AS THE PERIlIT HOWER DR HIS CONTRAClllR IS IN COIlPllAJ/CE. SHOULD THE CITY flAVE TO OBTAIN OUTS/DE SERVICES fOR CLrANING EOU/PIlEIIT. TRANSPORT SERVICES. lllWlNG. CDNTRACT PERSONNEL OR UTIurr cnr fORCES FOR ClEANUP, THE cnr WILL SILL fOR IT'S seRVICES AND EXPENSES INCLUDING AlL INClDEllTALS AND AOIIIHlSTTlATlVE OVERHEAD COSTS. 11. THE CONTRACTOR SHAll. INFORlI THE CITY ENGINEER 1WEJITY-fOUR (24) HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE TillE HE REOUIRES AN INSPECTOR. 12. NO WORK SflALL BE DONE ON THIS PROJECT PRIOR TO A PRE -CONSTRUcnON CONFERENCE TO BE Ho.o wrTl/ THE cnr ENGINEERING DMSION. THE OWHER ANO ENGINEER. THIS IlEEnNG IlUST BE ATTENDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND WILL REVIEW CONSTRUCTlDN OPERATIONS REGARDING DUST ANO NOISE CONTROL INCLUDING IOE/ITIFYING THE PROJrcrs NOISE COORDINAlllR. 13. THE fOlLOWING COIlTROl IlEASURES fOR GRAIlING ANO CDNSTRUCT/ON ACTIVITIES SHAll. BE ADHERED TO. UNL!SS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE cnr ENGINEER. A. TRENCHING AND CONSTRUCT/OIl AcnvmES SfIAlL BE UNITDl TO THE HOURS B:DD All TD 6:00 PIl ON W!L'CDAYS: THERE SHAll. BE ND TRENCHING DR CDNSTRtICTlDN AcnVITIES OIl THE WEEKENDS OR cnr liOUDAYS. B. CONSTRUcnOll EDUIPNEIIT SHALL BE PROPERLY llumrD. C. UNNECESSARY /DUNG OF CONSTRUCTION EOU/PIlEIIT IS PRDH/BIlED. O. NO/SE-DENERATlNG STAT/ONARY CONSTRUCTlOII EOU/PIlEHY. SUCH AS CDIlPRESSORS. SHALL BE lOCATED AS FAR AS PRACTICAL fROll OCCUPIED BUIlDINGS. E. THE DrvrLIlPER SHALL DESIGNATE A "NOISE DlSTURBANC!: CooROINATOR' WHO WIlL BE RESPOIISIBLE: fOR RESPONDING TO AIfY LDCAL COIlPlAINTS ABOUT COIISTRucnDN NOISE. F. CONSTRUCTION TRASH AND DERRIS SHAll BE CLrANED UP DAlLY. G. ALL GRADING INVOLVING CONTANINATED SOil SHAlL FOlLOW AN APPRDVED REJAEDIATlD/I PlAN. H. CONSTRUCTION SITES SHALL BE KEPT CLE:AN AT ALL TlI(ES. AT NO TlWE SHAll. THE CONTRACTOR OR PERWIT HOUlER BE ALLDWED TO LrAVE THE SITE PRIOR TO THOROUGHLY C!.OO/ING SIOEWALKS. CURBS. GllTTERS, AND STREET SURfACES. CLrANING SHAll BE ACCOIlPUSHED BY EITHER HAND DR IlACHINE SWEEPING AS REOU/RED. IN ND EVENT SHAll THE CONTRACTOR BE ALLDIVEO TO nUSH THE STRm; wrTl/ WATER UNTIL SUCH TillE AS THE AREA HAS BEEN COI(PLETELY AND THOROUGHLY SWEPT ANO All. OrBRIS PICKED UP AND PROPERLY OISPOSED DF. ABBREVIATIONS J .mIBQJ.. AB AC BlDG. BN BVC BW C CB C.t G Cl 'l CLR CONC DI DIA ON E EG !l.EV OR EL EP EXIST. EX EVC FG Fl1 n FP FS IT GB HDPE HGL Hc:ul HP I/IV IP l l"" .mIBQJ.. LT IlAX IlIN WH liON N NTS O.C. PC PCC Il. Pl PRC PT PVC PVI R RCP RT R/W OR ROW RWD HOR S Sell X SD SODI SDR SS STA STD Tt TOB TW TYP. VC W X SECT (%.XX) ~ AGGREGATE BASE ASPHALT CONCRETE BU/WING BENCH lIARK BEGIN VEl/TICAL CURVE BDlTON OF WAll. CURB CATtH BASIN CURB AND GUlTrR ClASS CEI/TfJ/ UNE ClEARANCE CONCRETE DROP INLE:T D1AllmR DOWN EAST; EASTlNG EXISTING GROUND !l.EVAT/ON EDGE: OF PAVE\lEIIT EXISTING END VERTICAL CURVE FINISH GRADE fiRE HYDRANT flDW UHE flNSHED PAV!:IlENT ANISHED SURfACE FooT(Fm) G/lADE BREAK HIGH DENSITY PDLYETlfYlENE /fYDRAUUC GRAOE UNE HElGNT OF GE:OGRIO HIGH POINT I/lVERT IRDN PIPE LE/lGTH LE:NGTH OF GEOGR/D I. ADJACENT STRE!:TS .t APPROVED HAUL ROUTES SHAll BE SWEPT DAILY BY WECHANICAL SWEEPERS EIlUIPPED WITH VACUUIl UNITS AND THOROUGHLY FlUSHED AFTER SWEEPING IS COI(PLETED. J. EROSION COIITROL llEASURES SHAll. BE INSTAlliD AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT SEDlWENT RUlIOfF III PUBUC ROAOWAT DRAINAGE FACIUTlES. ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. K.. CONTRACTOR III ADHERE TO All REDUIREi/EIITS OF THE SAN IlATED COU/ITY HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY. L CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHAll. COIlPlT wrTl/ THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO IlUNIC/PAl CODE CffAPTEll BJ2 NOISE REGULATIONS. II. STORAGE Of CONSTRUCTION I(ATERIALS AND EDUlPWENT WILL NOT BE ALLDWED IN OR UPON THE PUBUC RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALL IlATERlAts IIlIDIDED fOR USE ON AllY PROJECT SfIAlL BE Off LDADED DIRECTlY FRail DEUVERT VEHICLES AND PlACEO AS REOUIRED DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRtICTlOH. SHOUW THE PERIlIT HOWER OR HIS/HER CONTRACTORS WISH TO STDClCPILE: IlATER/Ats NEAll THE WOR/( SITE. THEY SfIAlL IIAKE ARRANGEl/ENTS IN ADVANCE fOR STORAGE:. All STORAGE SITES Sf/ALL BE SECURE. INACCESSIBLE: TO THE GEHERAI. PUBUC AND KEPT fREE OF CONSTRUCTION SPOILS. DEBRIS AND TRASH AT AlL TIllES STORAGE: SITES SHAll BE SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE cnr ENGINEER. Ii. EOWI(ENT SHALL NOT BE STORED ON DR WlTHIN THE PUBUC RIGNT-OF-WAY WITHOUT PRIOR WRfTTEN APPROVAL fROll THE CITY ENGlNITR. IF PERlIITTEIl, EOUlPWENT SHAlL BE SECURED AND LOexED WlTH PROTEcnVE COVERS IN PLACE. ADEOUATE BAIIRICAOES WITH OPERABLE: fLlSHERS SHALL BE INSTAlLED AROUNO THE EOu/PIlENT AND REl/AlN IN WDRKING DROER AT All. TIllES. 14. CDNSTRUcnON ACCESS RDUTES SHAll. BE APPROVED IN ADVANC!: BY THE CITY OF SDUTH SAN FRANCISCO. IS. THE CONTRAeroR SHAll Il/IIEDIATELY I1EPORT ANY SOIL OR WATER CONTAI(lNATlON NOTICED DURING CONSTRUCTlOII III THE OWNER. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCD fIRE OEPARTIIENT HAZARDOUS IlATER/AlS OMS/ON. THE SAN IlATEO COU/ITY DEPARTllEIIT OF HEALTH. ANO THE CAUfORNJA REGIONAL WATER OUAUTY COf/TRllL BDARD. 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHAll. BE RESPONSIBLE: fOR AIfY OAIlAGE TO THE SITE OR SURROUNDING AREA DUE TO DUST OR EROSIOH. RESUlTING fROll WOR/( DOllE BY THE COI/TRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A SEVEN (7) DAY PHOHE NUIl!lER III RECEIVE ANO RESPOND III OUST COI(PlAINTS RESUlTING fRON ALL CONSTRUCTlOII OPERATIONS AND SHALL sr IIAlNTAlNED UNTIL CONSTRucnON IS CONPLE:TE. ALL RESlDEIITS AND BUSINESSES WITHIN 300' OF THE PRDJECT SHAll BE NOTIfiED BY THE CONTIlACTOR BT IIAlL wrTl/ fNFORIlATlON AND COIlPlAINT UNES III BE CAlLED. 17. IF ARCHAEOLDGIC IlATERlALS ARE UNCOVERED DURING G/lADING. TREHCHING OR OTHER EXCAVATION. EARTHWORK WlTHIN 100 FEET OF THESE IlATERlAlS Sf/ALL BE STOPPED UNTIL A PROFESSIONAL AllCHAEOLDGIST WHO IS CERnAED BY THE SOCIETY OF CAUFORN/A ARCHAEOlDGY (SCA) AIIO/OR THE SOCIETY OF PROFESSIOIIAL ARCHArOLDGY (SOPA) HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVAlUATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE fiNO AND SUGGEST APPROPRIATE IllTlGATlDN IlEASURES. IF THEY ARE DITIlEO NECESSARY. lB. PRIOR TO START OF ANY TRENCHING OR srrr ACTMTIES. THE APPUCANT ~~~~,~~~~O:- s::.~~s:~,;gD~~EO:-':G CONSTRucnON /" ". WILL BE PROTECTED UNTIL A OUAUfIED ARCHAEOLDGlST CAN EVAlUATE THE SITE AND DETERIlINE THE SlGNlflCAlIC!: Of THE FlHO. THE PROGRAN SHAll INCLUDE PROVISIONS TO INClUDE EDUCATlDN OF All. WOR/( CREIVS. THAT NO CULTURAL ARTIFACTS SHAll BE COllECTED OR ALTEREIl BT WOR/( CREWS AND THAT IDE/lTlflED CULTURAL RESOURCES ARE RECORDED ON FORIIS DPe 422 (ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES) ANO/OR OPR S23 (HISTDRlC RESOIJRCES) AND IF HUIWI REI/AIRS ARE fOUNO. THE COUNTY CORNER SHALL ALSO BE CONTACTED IIlI(EDlAffiY. 19. EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTIUTlES AND IIlPROVEIlEIITS ARE APPRDX/IlATE LOCATIONS BASED UPON RECDRO INfORIlATlON AVAlLABLE: TO THE ENGINEER AT THE TIllE OF PRrPARATlD/I OF THESE PLANS. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBIUTY TO VERIFY THE LOCATION AND OEPTH OF ANY EXISTING UNOERGROUND UTIUTY AND /IIPROVEl/EIIT wrTl/ APPROPRIATE AGENCIES PRIDR III START OF CONSTRUCTION IN THAT VlClNnr. NEITHER THE OWNER NOR THE ENGINITR ASSUIlES RESPOf/SIBIUTY THAT THE DBSTRucnDNS INDICATED ON THE PLANS WIlL BE THE OBSTRUCTIONS ENCOUHl!llED. THE COIlTRACTOR SHAlL NOT/FY UNDERGROUND SrRV/CE AlERT (B/lD) 642-2<<-4 TWO WORI(JNG DAYS PRIOR TO START OF CDI/S1RUCTlOH. 2D. AlL EXISTING UTIUTlES ANO INPRDVEIlEIITS THAT BECOIlE OAIlAGED DURING CONSTRUcnON SHAll. BE COIlPLE:lELY RESTORED III THE SATISFACTION Of THE cnr ENGINEER AT THE CONTRACTOR'S SOLE: EXPOISE. 21. All. WATER. INCLUDING RAINWATER. ENCOUNTERED IN TRENCHES AND EXCAVATIONS SHAlL BE REIlOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE COI/TR.\CTOR IS RESPONSIBLE: TOR THE OESlGN, CONSTRUCTION. OPERATION. IIAlNTENANC!: AND RENOVAL or THE DEWATERING STSIDI. 22. SHOULD IT APPEAR TlIAT THE WORK TO BE ODNE. OR ANY IlAITER RElATIVE THERETO. IS NOT SUFfICIENllY OETAllED DR EXPlAINED ON THESE PlANS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT WIlSEY HAil OR IlPA FOR SUCH FURTHER EXPLANATIONS AS IlAY BE NECESSARY. 23. EI(ERGt:IICY PHONE NUWBERS III REACH CONTRACTOR SHAll. BE GIVEN TO THE cnr PUBUC WORKS OEPARTIIENT. 24. THE EllTIRE BCDC /I TRAil SHAll BE C9/TERUNE STRIPED PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLANS, DETAIL I (IlDDlFY TO WHITE STRIPING). ~ illT IlAXII(UIl I(INIIlUN WANHOLE: IlDNUIlEIIT NORTH: NORTHING NOT TO SCALE: ON CENTER POINT OF CURVE POINT Of COI/POUND CURVE PROPERTY UNE POINT OF REVERSE CURVE PDINT OF TANGENT POLYVINYL CHWRIDE POINT OF VERTICAL fNTERSEcnON /lADIUS REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE RIGNT RlGNT OF WAY REDWOOO HEAOER SLOPE OR SOUTH SET CROSS STORI( DRAIN STORlI DRAIN OROP IIILET STANDARO DlIlENSION RATIO SANITARY SEWER STATION STANOARD TOP OF CURB TOP OF BDX INLET lllP OF WAll TYPICAL VERTICAL CURVE WEST CROSS SECTION EXISTING !l.EVATION PREPARED UNDER SUPfJlVISlDN OF: IAnd/bpe ArebileclS and Urban lle!Iignenl MP A De$ign ~l~ lI~n ~lreel Ilan Francillco. dA 1l411l2 ~16 434-4664 L SUMMARY: A TOTAL NUIl!lER OF BENCHES = II TOTAL LE/lGTH Of T1WL = 2..l3S Fm LEGEND - - - - BCDe JURISOICTlOlI UNE ------ AI1IIYCORPSUHE B PROPERTY UNE UIlIT OF WORK ~ STORW DRAIN PIPE CONTOUR ElEVATION 3B c 1+00 I STATION lEI SWALE: INLET ~ =r GRADE BREAK SLOPE SYI(BOl D IC:!!iJ BENCH (SEE lANDSCAPE ARCHITECrs PLANS) .' ... G 1+UU SHEET LAYOUT ~ 9+00 10+DO ,~~ _ ~"Oo ~ ' l~~.4 ~ oo~/~ 117 \!>"/' .... _~6\CCR lllC ~ /~ - /~ ~ "~ '.......s<.:r. ~s>;O;,.J'. ....s.it- ~ ~. '~ ~'t1"J' · 21+36.27 10.31'L CONTROL PLAN WI L..rf~~t NO. REVISICN DESCRIFTlON BY: DAE APPR: DATE SCALE: AS NOTED DATE This drawing is the property 1007. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT KGS 6-26-05 of Ccncr.tcch. loe. The DESIGN BY: KG5 12/22/D4 infor"":"lotion is coniiceniiol and is to be used only if" DRAWN BY: JR 12/22/04 connection with work directed by Generlech. Inc~ APPR. BY: No port of lhis drawing is to be disclosed to others APPR. BY: wi:hout writ t.en perm:ssion (rerr Genente::h. Inc. APf'H. IJY: 'J 11 12 I:! 14 15 15 21 TITLE FILENAME: GENENTECH SA YSHORE II TRAIL Geneniech, Inc. Geneniech, loc. Genentech, hc. Genentech, ~[1c. Genentech, loc. ENGINEERING !l PUl.NNING fl SURVEYING INDEX SHEET 393 VINTAGE PARK DRIVE, SUITE 100 FOSlER CI1Y. CA 94404 (65D) 3-49.2151 FAX (650) 345-4921 1 O"lA WAY SOL; IH SAN ~flANCISCO, CA UflAWI:-.l:'; NG. 100 COO 008 15 '9 I 2Q fll:.V. 0 ~ N I I I I 1 I I PC = 7+31..017 f 1 I I I ARMY CORPS L1NE----J I I I I I I I I I I I I f f I I ! 0\ I \.... __/ I \- :RET. WAll STA. 2+87.S7 -IRAIL SfA. 7+44.54, 18.5"0 "Rl. END RETAINING WALl"C' REl. WAll STA.. ,.2+63'.80. ~;. tJ~A~df,tiN~ +~~~6"Bt O,~,~~~:., EX. SOMH . . ADJUST COVER:, TO l?RADE SEE.. RET. wALl";~C'PROFIl:E PER'DETAIL 2. eN SHEEr' = ;,~) 1 0~-:C08-:02.2. ~ 'It:: '.:' .... ~'. . . '".EX. IRRIGATION. '. '-PROTECT.IN' PLACE (TYP.) . SEE.,:l~RIGA,TlpN NOTES HEREON . -. 'cf 'SWALE iNl.ET . " ':-1,) STA. "6~6~.:~1O.,~7..50 RT ~ ........... ;' I ) '-.., . f f; .. EX. 24" SO Id;~1::~ -:: - - . RET. WA'li -STA. 1+0"0.00' =TRAIL- STA. 5+80.31, 10.50 RT ,BEGIN' CL RETAINING WAll 'B' RET...wALL STA. 1 +00.00 =TRAIJ.:' STA. 5+69.39, lB.50 RT BE;~I!'I.CL' RE"FAINING .w..~Ll ~C' .g ~ i ------- ~------~-~--~-----~--~- ---...:0... :... ,./ - - - -. - - - - - - - - - --- -:. - - - - --'- - - - - --. STA:': ;';00.00'$(;'/' '" BEGl,~I~OCII.':. T:: L ADD AC WEDGE I -tc..:~_: PER DETAil 5 ON . . '" SHEET fOO-COB-OZ~ . 1 j.! I :-'.--,,---' ---2&----- 'cr- ; ~I~ ~ .~~-=--~-~~=.~.~.=-_.~~~.=.~ ~~~;- ~~ ___..______0.__ .___Y.1_ ~_~ .~...,._____ _.. 'J'- ..;c.-. o u....i ow :;68 gg w+ m.... 1+00 ~ L STA. 1+00.00 PAINT STENCil WHITE STRIPE .J AND TEXT (0.00 loll) SEE DETAIL 1 ON SHEET PUBLIC PARKING 100-COB-OZI -f .........- r-"---"- -........... >. / -'- / / ./ ..~~"'~~~~5.1~9~.-s0 RT (1) ".~ \ EX. 2.4" SO . C.L. S'OMH STA. 5+51.30, 11.86 RT JNSTALl.' NEW SOMH SEE DETAIL 4 ON SHEET'1.00-COB-OZ:l <( <( a: a.. ~ ~~~ d ~j8 ~~~ BCOC JURISDICTION / LINE -- - - - - - _.- - - - - - - ---:' ~ ~-:---- - - - - - - - -'- --- -- ----' ---- ~ -- \, PLAN SCALE 1 - ZO'-O I i i ---- f __ ._._..__ ..___1.. I I .L.__ I i I I ._._._.. __.,.__. _nl___'__ ._.__...__. ___l._______,,___ I I ...,~,_,J:_ .1 I I i i I i i I ""r--- n'_ -.-- '..n -.. ~t-:~-~.=~~~_:._--- I I i ! :11'1 Iii I I I 1____ L- ~___________~_ -j~J .----r~u<-u-- -:-:-::r . .~:~:=~~-[=~--:-=:~-:--:~-~--~~T=~~=-=:~~~t:~ -- :__-1 ~-t - -- -- -- - -. U 0... ---r.. CONSTRUCTION NOTES: (~~)-- CONSTRUCT SWALE INLET PER DETAIL 7 ON SHEET 100-COB-OZ1. (~)-INSTALl 1Z" HOPE PER DETAIL 8 ON SHEET lDO-COB-02.1 (;>- CONSTRUCT VEGETATED SWALE PER DETAIL 6 ON ".. ....' SHEET 100-COB-02.1 (TIP). (5-';.- CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALlS 'B' AND 'c' PER OETAlL 2 ON SHEET '" ~. 100-C08-022. NOTES: 1. EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAIN PARALlEL TO FIRE LANE TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND PROTECTED. IRRIGATION LATERALS PERPENDICULAR TO MAIN TO BE CUT AND CAPPEO. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF" IRRIGATION LATERAL PIPES, SALVAGE IRRIGATION SPRINKLER HEADS. Z. BENCH LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE APPROXIMATED AND Will BE FINALlZEO AT THE FIRST PHASE OF GRADING. STORM DRAIN INLET UPSTREAM OF BENCHES MAY CHANGE CURVE TABLE CURVE Cl CZ LENGTH 13.B7 103.05 RADIUS 5.00 70.00 UNE Ll U LINE TABLE LENGTH -404.76 109.7B BEARING SBS'SS'Z7"W SOS'3B'3S"W ...~ .-.-.. --.-.- --_.-.._-~._._._-- ----- _._~. --- -~~~.~~.':-~.--J.:=~ :=.;, ... l1. L = 75' 'r-- I I g ~g~ ~ 3+00 to : ~ ~g;~~ ~aJ II U1~IIIlJ- _ ~ (J If) ww 0 ... ~:~5 ~~~=~-~:~~_~~..~:~=~~~-~:~..:=.~~.~:,:- _::'=.~r----"'---=-':.~~=:--- lCl en + 111,(.. _ ____.______....~_ ._~ I~.~_.__ ___________..____. ___...._.._..__._._. _____.__._______.,__.___. -----..-g ~~~-------_._- ------- 6+00 PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION Of: ',..::-' WO zl") ::::i0 :J:l UN 1-0 <u ::::E1 o 00 0.... 01- lOW +w ,,:J: 111 -iw I-w 111111 M 7 00 I MPA Design Landjlcape Arebileclll and Urban DeliigDffll 414 1I1ljlon ptreel /Ian Franci/lco, dA 94102 416 ~-4ti64 BY; DATE APPR; DATE SCALE: AS NOTED OATE Genentech, Inc. TITLE FILENAME: This drawing is the properly GENENTECH SA YSHORE II TRAIL KGS 8-26-05 of Genentec:h. Inc. The DESIGN BY: KGS 12/22/04 Genentech, Inc. information is confidential and is to be used onl y in ORAWN BY: JR 12/22/D4 Genentectl, Inc. PLAN AND PROFILE connection with work Genentech, inc. directed by Genentech, Inc. APPR. BY: STA TION 0+00 TO 7+50 No porl of this drawing is Genentech, inc. to be disclosed to others APPR. BY: without writlen permission 1 DNA WAY from Genenlech, Inc. APPR. BY: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA DRAWING NO. 100-C02-029 REV. 0 12 13 .' 16 17 16 19 20 21 NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION WI LS EYl&Ii- HAM~& 100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING PLANNING!:! SURVEYING 393 VINTAGE PARK OAIVE, SUITE 100 FOSTER Cl1Y, CA 54404 (650) 3-<19-2151 FNX (650) 3-<15-4921 10 ;i ~I ~ ~ -------- - - ;11 ~ x ------ -- : ~ ~~- ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ - ---~f_-: -~)--~---~-~<-~-~~-~-~--- --------~'-~~----- .:t!:i:! - -: ------.:..-__-=-__==-_______ ~;, -"--~~-~~-;----- lI)iij J- - /, - ---1- _f .E > '...... /~/ ,'0 ~;// ~:.; ,/f --------------------:1A/~ --------- ,-- ~ - - -/ ~ /- ~.~ -'.- ---------//- :1:/ ~:..-/ '. ,';'; ,. A (; ~) " :.~.:.:. ~.~!.:.",. -~-"""~...-. . r'-"=-~:\ ---- .-::-~--- ~ ~:~ :.~,..~. ~~=:~,~Io <,,"._.~ .:;:.:-::.::.f.;}::~~:::-.:: c; -"-".- .";'~' N ~ . '~'- ,'" PLAN SCALE 1 = 20 -0 1- - ------- ----- ---. -l-'t = 40' --1-- 1 ~ ~ I ~I STA.=8+64.14 II I :::i 0 40 r' ELEV.=31.03 I ~~ i ..----gl I- ~ ~ i ~ ~ I / / ~ ~ '- - ~ ~ ~ ~ -l ~ ~- - - -" + -- -- - - - -- g ~ J i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ri; 7: I - ~.. ~ ~~--:~ z':::' ~ ~=:~::.:i L.-::iid - :J~~- -::J~_::_: ______~~_.,." .... wi.:> I II) II- ..J ;:~~~ 5-0 I 12"HOPE - ~ , ,m loJ ~ ~",~..:::"', I _~-- I L=150.0 1-- -- -- -----I-~~:~--~-I- - _---- 0499___-- C) "" I .-----;-..-io~?:~,5.p: 1: ; ~ II ----- g--- \.'- ,. .... ~ ~ ,- __ ........ "'! :1i ~ .1; II I ~ t;:;~": ~ 1 ~II ~ G:;..J. ! " ...J~~ II IoU .- 2:- I * ~~H ~ ~ · " I -- ------ - --- .----1- ------- -. ---g ~ 8~-~-~- - ------- 1- -BtOO --I....... 9100 I I i ! _~M_ + -------- -~ ----- Ii J I / ~ ~ <( ~ I __....._<!. ,r5--L-___._ =----===---:-.~.i~;,~fg~l ~ -- -;-~1 ~= -.- ..~:=- ~f~-~: ~~J t~ ~IB j~._.. -". .--...~-=n=~:t<~~~~>-)r- ----- +...; ...;"'1 +m ::~ I -- I ; I 40 ;: ~ ~ :;; I ::: ~ - IL --1 -- _ --- :.- -- I i ..;,1':; ;:';11 <:1':; /ciC; I _- '. :ll c ~~:~~=~~~~~-~L=~-=====~ ~ ~~o> I .._~ ~._.. _._...__.._._.__._____h.._....._..__ _.. tnYl~~.'.___U_.'''h'__ .1 ~~ I - II . >- ~~ = 50' PI STA. 14+57.63 PI Et.EV;?4~f u 0 f "- > a:: ~ n.. rJ /" ~ ~ NOl/ I NtO m~ ~ ; I ~::5 ~ cD .-- -; I~ I :.: It :.: Ii ~. ~. ...-.+ -_..~ ~.. ~ ~ Vlw I UlW (/)W .,r CONSTRUCTION NOTES: \.~l)- CONSTRUCT SWALE INLET PER DETAIL 7 ON SHEET 100-COB-021. (2)-INSTAll. 12" HOPE PER OETAIL 8 ON SHEET 100-COB-02l. (_~)- CONSTRUCT VEGETATED SWALE PER OETAIL 6 ON SHEET 100-COB-021. (~j- CONSTRUCT RETAINING WAll. 'A' PER DETAIL 1 ON SHEET 100-COB-022. CURVE TABLE CURVE C3 Col- C5 C6 C7 LENGTH 7~.38 66.16 186.68 ~3.87 88.55 RADIUS 230.29 180.00 1110.00 96.00 220.00 u iii ./ -...- ,/ IRRIGATION NOTES' EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAIN PARALLEL TO FIRE LANE TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND PROTECTED. IRRIGATION LATERALS PERPENDICULAR TO MAIN TO BE CUT AND CAPPED. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF IRRIGATION LATERAL PIPES, SALVAGE IRRIGATION SPRINKLER HEADS. w Z...... :::i:2 XI 0(\/ ~8 ~I 00 00 0..... lOl- +W lOW .....X II) <W ....W 11)11) .... 5w~~~ ~g~~~ e~LJ::B g~~~~ N -to ...;- ....q +- 0'" - II . >- ~d . 10+00 1.1,+00.._ _ 1- _l~+OQ__.. ____ 13+00. --I I I I - 1 ..11+00 .15+00 _ PROFILE SCALE H 1" = ZO'-Oft V 1ft = "'_Oft PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION Of: NO. REVlSICN DESCRIPTION BY: DATE APPR: OATE This drawing is the property SCALE: AS NOTED DATE Genentech, ~IIIC. TITLE FILENAME: of Genentcch, Inc:. The DESIGN BY: KGS 12/22/04 Genentech, illlc. ~J;J'!~NI~~l:'-!l6'(~t!Q~EJLTRAI_'= information is confidential and is lo be used only in DRAWN. BY: JR 12/22/04 Genenteclh, IlIIc. PLAN AND PROFILE connection with work Genenteclh, Inc. directed by Genentech. Inc. APPR. BY: STA TION 7+50 TO 15+50 No part of this drawing is Genentech, Inc. to be disclosed to others APPR. BY: without written permission 1 DNA WAY frorr. Genentech. Inc. APPH. I:lY: SOU I H SAN 'HANCISCO. CA lJHAWlNG NO. H~V_ 0 13 15 IE 15 -g 21 MPA De$ign umd,4cspe Arcbileclll and Urban Il<Iftgllenl ~ ~~~~ 94102 415 ~-.f884 W'L..ff~~lt 1 DO:!; DESIGN DEVELOPMENT KGS B-26-05 ENGINEERING :"; PLANNING ~:; SURVEYING 393 VlNTAGE PARK DRtvE, SUITE 100 FOSTER CITY, co. 94404 (650) 349-2151 FAX (650) 34~1 L 'J 11 12 -:-..... '~~-'............ ---- -- ...................""......."'--- / / ---- -----------.,...--'- ----- ---~---------~~~~~~~~, --...:_---________~~.:~R!:_U~~__.---------------..:-~---~-:;..~- . '---.... :":'-';'" - - . :"~.;..-;-..;.:-.~',_-i~--- PROPERTY UNE ~.r~ ~("J: . J'-s:.tX ';' ~(';..iS'qa . .Ta l:i l:i,~~ C'o C'-s: <?, V1!; l:i~~ ';:.;.~:.2:. ,'-',; . .--::.-.;.,.';:..-- II: o ,..: - - -.:.'. -- - - """ - ~-~ ,':,:;::~;i ~'::'":",. A.~'" "' ...: !j,.;- ~::J w'" ::iit ~'": (jt; .>' .-~?f~-'- ,"','; -..::.-:.--~.-:~~--~ 2"::::-:::;' --.:.:- - ,;;::.- -- ':-'r ( ti ::.-:::-:.::.:-.. '. --~"< ",':-" "~.'(..X<. ...,:.;:.- .- PLAN SCALE f = 20'-0" ........ I ~ If) I '" I ~ ~ 1 ~ It ! . 4. G'j .-- - _.~--t; rj..-. 1 .;-- CONSTRUCT SWALE INLET PER DETAIL 7 ON SHEET fOO-C08-021. CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS CB 175.34 91.50 C9 64.03 160.00 Cl0 36.99 595.50 Cll 50.19 210.00 C12 52.84 100.00 \ CONSTRUCTION NOTES: \, __ I <L ~ I PJ OJ .... I .'. ~ ~ ~ ~. C- . _ -..-.----- .1__.__.___ '" tot') +- " _1lt-.foI'] . >- -: It I ~:~~~L ~==~~~~=i-~~--~t~=~~~~~~~=~~~-f===~~==~=~t~==~~~= ; ~;~ ~ i ~~G~~~~~~- _ -_ - - -- --- ..--- -r' ... - - -1~- " ~~ -, u -;i~ ;~~~:~~'o~'i,.~-I I, -I j; ~ ~ II I::;! I --------=--=------ li: ~ '-... "-, _ I ~:~L=~lJI0- -~_;1~2~"fi~D-p1-1-;-~_Jh~;dl~~:~TI~:~1:~~1~~....~.~o-.foi -------- -----------.t--..-.-.---.....-..--.-----.. =1= I ., ~ 3>~" - I . ..11-- . -~:m-I ~~~~-~-:.\.~.. I. '---c"J- .~m g~W rl",-"~;,,----_J I ;: ",!", ~ \ 1~116~__;{J ~ I 1 u:g~o:~~ ___ _~___ _~ ___ __._______ ~ ~~~~__ -~~o~~~~- _1~__ _ -----------~--~-----------_-_--_-~-_--~~-~-_-~-_r---__-----_- -_---__---_-=---~--+t_=-- _-_~--::...- _-_-__-.--------~-_.lrl=-_-_-____-_------------ -p-- - ---- -- -- - - liiili__~~ 1t):::J:::~ II ~>-.....~~" I - - - _ r-"-- -- =1---= t _ -- -..---..=::=:.:~:--~=::~~:~~ -~--~:_-- /~=~;~; -;~~ +-:=~-__u:_ - - -- -- -_._-=-____.___.. _ -1!~~-- -~~~~--~ - - --.-----.. '--.-l~~-'- .---=:~==.~-~--~~~-------~.. - - - ----~1~00 ~ ~------ - ---~-f---~~~"~-~-~-~1~~~'-~h--~-~-.~. ~~.~~-=:~_~o_~_~ ~ -- ---~J!~o~=~~~'-~h~ _ . I I j_ U_ d_"_ ___.... q_..._ __.. ..... :' 2 r-INSTALL 12" HOPE PER DETAIL 8 ON SHEET 100-C08-021. :'-3-\- CONSTRUCT VEGETATED SWALE PER DETAIL 6 ON SHEET 100-C08-021. UNE TABLE UNE 1.5 L6 L7 LB LENGTH 9.90 234.95 61.18 126.65 BEARING S51'23'43"W 546" 34' 41"W S60'16'21"W S29'59'46"W w 0 ------.- ~t') ..10 ::I: I UN ~o ~ y 30 g8 0: ~~ 1I):x:: -VI ~~ tIIV1 ------ .------ ---- - - ------------ ----- -- - -- - T-"'---."- - - · ::: - ~ '-. .. =~--~-- -' :::-. :::::::f:=- - ~.:. =.::. t==::- :::-::- -r - - . ::::--------- --=-====~-:-:~ ~2'~~-~~-~:-:-~=--~=-===~F=--=-::--::--~--~.J:yEO .. .~~ --- ~-=F- -= .~-_:_::=_=----18.~~clCf_~ PROFILE SCALE H 1" = 20'-0" V f" = 4'-0. PREPARED UNDER SUPERVlSIDN Of, L -:J BY: OAE APPR: , DATE SCALE: AS NOTED DATE Genentech, ~!'1iC. This drawing is the property /12/22/04 KGS 8-26-05 of Ccncr.tcch. Inc:. The DESIGN BY: KG5 Genenlech, ijrr'lC. information is conficenliol and is Lo be used only in DRAM; BY: JR 12/22/04 Genentech, ~rr'le. connection with work Genentech, ili1Jc. directed by Gener.tech. Inc. APPR. BY: No port of this dr:Jwing is Genenteclh, [nc, to be disclosed to others APPR. BY: without written permission 1 D:-JA WAY frorr Genente::h. Inc. APPH. I:lY: SOl; IH SAN -HANC-1SCO, CA 12 13 14 15 1E TITLE FILENAME: NO. REVlSICN DESCR,PTlON [~ umdi/C8pe Archit.ec~ and Urban ilt!!lignenl WILSEY~~II HAM~~ 1 DO'" DESIGN DEVELOPMENT GENENTECH BAYSHORE II TRAIL PLAN AND PROFILE STATION 15+50 TO 23+34.82 MPA De$ign 414 ~llIlon ~lreet /lan Francillco, dA 94102 415 .(3.(-4664 ENGINEERING: PLANNING ~ SURVEYING 393 VINTAGE PARK DRIVE. SUITE 100 FOSTER CITY, CA 94404 (650) 349-2151 FAX (650)345-4921 11 llHAWI:-l:; NO, 100-C02-031 16 '9 I 2::1 HI:.V. 0 21 ! 20':: ~i u, i~ ~rcr:N~,E~~ I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S PLANS i EX. RIP-RA~: __. SF' BAY ~~:r _ _ ~NOSCAPE I' SHOUlDER-l SCARIFY AND RECOMPACT TO 90" TOP l' OF MA.TERIAL BElOW PAVEUEHT SECTION SEE UHDSCAPE ARCHITECT"S PUNS FRC 2 FIRE LANE .) ~j : i, EX1ST1NG 5j LGRA~ '_ CQNfORt.l TO EXIST. PAVEMENT ELEVATION HEIGHT VARIES (3,33' TO 4.00') A :~~+~~~I~!O STA. 4+85.00 VARIES SEE PLAN 2.2S' VEGETATED DRAIN SWALE 0.75' SHOULDER TAl: PROPERTY LINE SECTION F ~~~LE~0~~~~2 TO STA. 12+20.00 J STA.18+00.00 TO STA. 20+77.00 SCALE: 1"-10' POST AND CABLE 5Afrn RAIL PER I.A.ffDSCAPE. ARCHITECT'S PLANS - 0.75' SHOUlDER DRAIN SWill 2.25' VEGETATED I' SHOULDER 0.75' SHOULDER DRAIN SWALE 2.25' VEGETATED a:! ~i ~~ /~~ , ./ _ ~6 __ i .-",,'" ./ ~I "" 51 _~L~ ~E_ ____ ! i ! i i e~1~~~~"- , ADO 3.0 C.F. I, OF 4" RIP RAP .... ROCK /" i~ ~. GRADE ! SCARIfY AND RECOMPACT UPPER 2' OF EXIST MATERIAL. RECOMPACT TO 90X RELATIVE CDWPAcnON. ~! ;i ~i ~: ----- ~~~-~~-~ ISTING GRADE 1 X:: SCARJFY AHD RECCWPACT UPPER 2' OF EXIST MATERIAL. RECOUPACT to 90% RE1.A.TIVE COIrllPACTIOH. B ~~~~+~~~~~:ro STA. 5+&&.00 SCARJFY AND RECOWPA.CT OP 1 0 IolA.TERIAL BELe PAVE/oIENT SECTION TAK PROPERTY LINE SECTION G ~~~2~~?~~0 TO STA.13+50.00 ISTA 12+24.&0 TO STA 12+48.&0 IS GENENTECH ACCESS TRAIL CONNECTION) K ~~:01:'~~ ~~O TO STA. 22+&5.00 i\:il ~: POST AND CABLE ~! SAFrn RAIL PER ~-' LANDSCAPE ~ ARCHITECT'S PLANS ! 2.25" VEG(T A TED DRA.IN SWALE 0.75' SHOULDER // r SCARIFY AND RECOMPACT UPPER 2' Of EXIST UATERIAL RECOUPACT TO 90% RElATIVE / COMPACTION. CONFORM TO EXIST. TOPO. 1 ~~~: :OE-- -- -'. I' SHOULDER COMPACT TOP l' OF' FILL OR TOP 2' FOR NATIVE TO 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION PRIOR TO PLACING AB & AC. ,/ '-. C STA. 5+&5.54 TO STA. 7+57.78 SCALE: 1" 10' /" ./ ./ /' l' SHOULDER 2.2S' VEGETATED DRAIN SWALE 0.750 SHOULDER 'l." 51-01'€. PROPOSED FINISHED SURFACE i\:i! :i ~! r EXISTING GRADE i j FRC 2 -1. -1- --== ~ ~E:::::;::r- _ H ~~~LE~3~~?~~0 TO STA. 15+75.00 ./ ~!i\:i ~i~ ili ~ ~i~ 3 ~~~A~ !=~IL CROSS SECTION l' SHOULDER 6.0' I' SHOULDER 3" AC OVER 8" COMPACTEO CLASS 2 AB COMPACT TO 9S% RELATIVE. SEE GRACING PLAN FOR GRAOES. 2.25" VEGETATED DRAIN SWALE 0.75' SHOULDER ~ i\:i! 5 :i sl w 3: ! i / / // SEE GRACING PLAN FOR GRAOES. SCARIFY TOP ,. ANO RECOMPACT TO 95% RELATIVE. // TAK PROPERTY LINE SECTION o :~~~~~~',OO~ TO STA. 9+00.00 2 GENETECH ACCESS mAIL SCALE: 1" _4" ~~s ~!~ ~!~ ~i~ VARIES , EXISTING GROUND /' -' <( ii: 0'" I-!;j: z::E ::E~ ~r;: / STA.15+75.00 TO STA.18+00.00 SCALE: 1"=10' POST AND CABLE SAFETY RAIL PER LANDSCA.PE ARCHITECT'S PLANS ./ ../' I' SHOULDER 4"91 PVC PERF. PIPE WRAPPED IN fiLTER FABRIC (MIRAF1 140N) ~.. DRAIN ROCK. PLACE AT 3D' MAX. INTERVALS VERTICALLY. ..-' 2.25' VEGETATED DRAIN SWill 0.75' SHOULDER OUTLET 4" PIPE TO SLOPE. ADD 1 CF OF 4" RIP-RAP ~.-- // ./ E TAK PROPERTY LINE SECTION STA. 9+00.00 TO STA.11+17.00 SCALE: 1"=10' 1 SLOPE GRADING FOR NEW FILL DETAIL NOT TO SCALE UNOERDRAIN PLACE AT SO' O.C. MAX. ..- .--/ umdllcepe Archileclll and Urban De(JgDelll W'L.ff~~J NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION BY: DArt: I APPR: DArt: S::ALE: AS NOTED DArt: Genen~ech, irFlc. TITLE FILENAME: This drawing is the property 1007. DESIGN OEVELOPMENT KGS 8-26-05 of Ccncl"'lcch. Inc. The DESIGN BY: KGS 12/22/04 Gen~nlecli, inc. GENENTECH SA YSHORE II TRAIL information is conficentiol and is to be used only i~ DRAWN BY: JR 12/22/04 Genenlech, irFlc. TYPICAL TRAIL SECTIONS connection wilh work Genenteclt, inC. directed by Genertech. In:::. APPR. BY: Geoontech, I!lc. No part of this drawing is to be disclosed Lo olhe"'s APPR. BY: without written perm:ssion 1 DNA WAY I RI:.V. frerr Genenle=h. Inc. APPRo I:lY: SOl.IH SAN -RANCISCD, CA ORA WiNG NO. 100-C07-001 0 'J 11 12 13 14 15 1E 15 '9 I ?, 21 PREPAREO UNDER SUPERVISION OF: Mp A Del3ign 414 ~ellon ~lreel t!en Frencilko. dA 94102 416 434-4664 ENGINEERING S PLANNING ~ SURVEYING 393 VINTAGE PARK ORNE, SUITE 100 FOSTER CITY, CA 94404 (1iS0) 349-2151 FAX (1iS0) 345-1921 L ---- -===~--------=~---==----:~---=~-----------:---_. 6.- _-- ,,/~-- r---------- \_------. ( ::::.~- ~~-=- 1- --=::::=- ---~~ ~~ 2'.2' SIDE OPEN INLET. ONE SIDE ONLY, 3.5' OEEP WITH 6" WALLS. FABRICATE COVER PER BOX COVER OETAIL HEREON. GALVANIZE AFTER FABRICATION. FABRICATE BOX WITH TOP EDGE TO ACCEPT 3-1" FABRICATED COVER. CONTRACTOR OPTION TO USE PRECAST INLET CHRISTY TYPE U21 (SIMILAR) OR SANTA ROSA MODEL 2KR, ONE SIDE OPENING. OR AN APPROVED EDUAL 0.75' SHOULDER r ~~~u~g;ERCOr'it~~f r L 3".3".ro" ON FOUR t" TYP. I SIDES OF COVER ALLARDUNDl~'~ I" 0 5" OC .. EACH EDGE i L .".2'-3"x 2'-3" BOX COVFR OETAIL ~~~~,ie:'it;tFTER FABRICATION TRASH BAR i"', SMOOTH BAR GALVANIZED SIDE OPENING AT SWALE 4" CONC. APRON MATCH BOX INLET AND SWALE SIDE SLOPES a ~~ - - --- - - ----- --------------- ------------- ----- r-- L-___ ( -----""" \ ---'-, , , , , , , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 6" \ \"' _ _ _ _ - - - \\ - - - - - - \ - --=jf - - -"\ - - ~_.- -=- - v--- \ \ I I~ \ . ". \ \ \ , !: \ \ \ \ r- \ - \ , , \ \, \,--- EDGE OF TRAIL ------__ \.. "', = ~. :;;~~~~~:~~'~"~=---~~~~~~==-- --= .~./..., /- Ii! Ill! Ii! Ii! '" II i9 5! l!! ",If! III a ..1Oi !!l 1m iiI!; ll! iii e l2! Il!I tr i'!r lI!1-;-------_ ____________ .. ",;:: 'ill" ~ f! 11> !llII"e;lll'lli1l1i'.~iiifl.O!s= !S:lI!1llt.\lrlll~;-~ ----___~Si~"'. ..:-~..""lll~::------- _ _it ~ - l2!~t!jlSl'iI .If -- ~~=_::_=_=_~~":::"_-_.::=_-~_:::=~~~- _ ----:_ _ &5i11llil1liilllllll""E1!illSlll!i!/l' GRADE SWALE TO CONFORM UP TO TOP OF BOX OR SLAB ,," AGGREGATE BASE "" AGGREGATE BASE 2.25' WIDE x 4' LONG x "" THICK CONCRETE APRON W/EMBEDOED COBBLES, AT ENTRANCE TO INLET. CAST CONCRETE APRON AGAINST BOX. 12", HOPE SO P1PE INV. PER PLAN 7 ~~~LE: I~~~ Dz~AIL 1 QUARTER-MILE MARIlER NOT TO SCALE f OPENING INTO 42" RCP SHALL BE 2' DIAMETER BEND REINFORCEMENT INTO MANHOLE FOUNDATION. SAND BEDDING ::;:-~;~.;;=-=------:------ ---~~ ~~-==--=-------:=--===-~---==;~-==---=-~ .BS \.. t' PROPo:s!O TRAIL CUT 2'" OPENING IN TOP OF 42" RCP BACKrlLL WITH NA TNE SOIL AS APPROVED BY mE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, 90" MINIMUM COMPACTlON. EXCEPT TOP f 2" or TRENCH nLL TO BE COMPACTED TO 95% RElATIVE COMPACTION. WHERE EXISTING PAVEMENT fJ(ISTS, MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT OR USE 3" MIN. AC AND B" MIN. CLASS 1/ AB COMPACTED TO 9S% RELA TlVE / 1..- --- ---- ---. - - -- , \ 'r ~..:: rJl Pl u:. -= II!I I ox u ~~ 0"" :5 ~~ 2 GENENTECH CAMPUS ACCESS WALKWAY DETAIL SCALE: '''_10' 6" MINIMUM ClEARANCE CAST IN PLACE MANHOLE FOUNDATION Ll' BELOW SPRING LINE 8 ~1~:Ls~~~1TY TRENCH DETAIL.. CITY STD. DETAIL 14 I" 4 MANHOLE STRUCTURE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 6" 12" MIN. r(2)16d GALV. NAILS PER STAKE I { 7" N 3991.7965 L _ ~404.2895 - - -!l~.~ --- (. 2' MINIMUM COVER OVER SO PIPE' . COVER MAY BE REDUCED WITH ENGINEER'S APPROVAL WHERE TRJONCHING ENCOUNTERS BEDROCK ~ I .J ',' 'eONFORM TO' EXIS-TING AC PAVEMENT' . 8" IolIN. ~ 1. TYPE OF CONCRETE, CLASS A, Fe'= 3,000 psi. 2. CONTROL JOINTS SHALL BE 10' O.C. 3. INSTALLATION SHALL BE ON SUITABLE BASE IolATERIALS COMPACTED TO 95", MINIMUM 8" CLASS " AB. 1 ~i I , 1Z" HOPE SO PIPE PREP~R!O UNDER SUPERVISION or: NO. REVISION DESCRIPT,DI\ 1007. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DATE 8- 26-05 APPR, DATE 7his drawing is the properly of Genentech. Inc. The ir;fcrmot:on is confide"1tiol ond is to be used onl y in connection with work directed by Genenteci":. Inc. No port or this drOiNing is to be disclosed to others without written permission from Genentech, Inc. SCALE: DATE .12/22/04 12/22/0"- Genemtech, inc. Gmentech, Inc. Genentecn, Inc. Gmentech, Inc. Genentech, Inc. TITLE FI;..ENAME: 3 ~~:~E:~~ING CURB-CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DWG. No.2D 5 REDWOOD HEADER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE VEGETATED SWALE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 9 AC PAVEMENT ADDITION AT BEGINNING OF TRAIL NOT TO SCALE 1.arnlIlcape Arehl\ecljl and Urban !lelIigneJ1 WILSEY':"}.lff HAM ;~: ;t', DESIGN BY: KGS GENENTECH SA YSHORE II TRAIL MPA Design ~14 I/lljlOn Ptreel ~n Franci/lCO, dA 94102 416 ~3.H664 ENGINEERING ;.". PLANNING}; SURVEYING DRAWN BY: JR LL It: 11 11 'j APPR. BY: 1 D"A WAY SDJTH SAN fRANCISCO, CA D~A'\'I\G NO. 100-C08-021 R~V. 0 393 VlNTAGE PARK DRIVE. SUITE 100 FOS1ER CI1Y, CA 94404 (650) 349.2151 FAX {650} 36-4921 APPR. BY: TRAIL DETAILS 1"- 1 ! 1~ 19 ;w 21 , I NOTES 1. SEE GEOGRID TABLE HEREON FOR THE REOUIRED GEOGRID lENGTH AND PLACEWENT FOR DIFFERENT WALL HEIGHTS. Z. 1 UNIT SPECIFIED ON PROFILE REFERS TO 1 VERDURA 40 (OR APPROVED EQUAL) BLOCK. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR COLOR OF' BLOCKS TO BE USED. 3. PVC OUTLET PIPES ARE TO BE LOCATED ON 3D' CENTERS. TW El.EV. PER WALL PROFILE VERDURA -40 DR AN APPROVED EQUAL RETAINING WAll. EXPOSED WALL tlEIGHT= VARIES (2.33' TO 3..00') 2.25' WIDE AC UNED DRAIN SWALE AT WAll. H ~Z SET PIPE INV. AT IJ BACKDRAlN TO po"S~~ED:1~~ TO H""'D(1) ;.' PIPE OUTLET. AT SWALE 1 RErAIIUNG WAlL'A' DErAIL NOT TO SCALE -..--...--. ..-.. -""-'1 I I 51 5, 6 UNI~S UNITS 1 UNITS ....r ! i I I . ...-..,........ U~S J I ! i j 19 I UNIT,! 1 9 9 j 7 ) UNITS UNITS UNITS -,,,! -'0 ~~ ?::-: I ~~ ~ ~ c; ~ To <-'\ ~ i o m iI- ~ ." :;i + N o ~ ~ g I r~ 2(}'~ WALL A - INSTALL GEOGRID POSI-DURA GEOGRID TABLE EX. FIRE ACCESS lANE 34 NOTES 1- SEE GEOGRIO TABLE HEREON FOR THE REOUIRED GEOGRJO LENGTH AND PLACEMENT FOR DIFFERENT WAll. HEIGHTS. 2. 1 UNIT SPECIFIED ON PROFILE REFERS TO 1 VERDURA .(0 (OR APPROVED EQUAL) SLOCY_ SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR COLOR OF BLOCKS TO BE USED. 3. PVC OUTLET PIPES ARE TO BE LOCATED ON 30' CENTERS. PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE AT BACK OF WAll. HEIGHT OF WALL GEOGRID CONNECTION (EXPOSED + EWBEoWENl) LAYER HaRJO (FT) f (FT) 3.33 1.33 2.67 4.00 1.33 Z.67 l.GRlo (FT) 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 TW-SEE WAll. 'c' PROFILE EXPOSED WAll. HElGHT= VARIES (3.67' TO 6.33') 5.0' HCRIll(2) RECOWPACT TOP I' OF EX. WATERIAL TO 95" RElATIVE COMPACTION UNDER l.EVEUNG PAD L.EVEUNG PAD MIN. 6" COWPACTED GRANULAR FIll. I/Z" TO 3/4" CRUSHED STONE 114 U~ITS 18 ~NIT~ 1 IWALL BI 1.0' MIN. PROPOSED EWBEOWENT FINISHED GRADE AT BACK OF WAll. 127 qNITS 1 lW-SEE WALL 'B' PROFILE BACKDRAIN: 3/4" DRAIN ROCK SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRJC (MIRAfl 1-40N) L.EVEUNG PAD MIN. 6" COMPACTED GRANULAR FIll. I/Z" TO 3/4" CRUSHED STONE RECOMPACT. TOP I' OF EX. M,o,TERJ,o,L TO 95" RELATIVE COMP,o,CTION UNDER l.EVEUNG PAD 36 II:"'" !i:1O ~m %0 ~: ~::l 0..... "'1/1 ~~ "'> . !i-j ~..!ti1=H JT4-q~II:> 114 U"'":> 11~ l!R1I:> SET PIPE INV. AT B,o,CKDRAIN TO PROVIDE WIN. 2X POSmVE DRAIN,o,GE TO PIPE OUTLET. AT SWALE BACKDRAlN: 3/4" DRAIN ROCK SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC (h1IRAFl 1-40N) WALL A PROFILE ~ 2 ~~~:I:~~I.LS 'B' 2. 'C' DETAIL WALL 8 - INSTALL GEOGRID 8XT-V30/4.0 GEOGRID TABLE (EXPOSED + EhlBEDWENl) (FT) 3.33 9 6 UNITS UNITS 5~ UNITS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -,0 0 ." ." 0 II) <:I :J. N <0 0 +: ..., ..., oot III to :=+ + :t + :t :t + + z ~g g g ~ g ~ g g g :rW=34..9'" '3 WALL C - INSTAll GEOGRID 8XT-V30/4.0 GEOGRID TABLE HEIGHT OF WALL GEOGRJD CONNECTION (EXPOSED + OlBEDWENT) LAYER H""'" l.GRlo (FT) I (FT) (FT) 4.67 1 1.33 7.0 Z 2.67 7.0 3 4.00 7.0 5.33 1 1.33 7.0 Z Z.67 7.0 3 4.00 7.0 6.00 1 1.33 7.0 Z 2.67 7.0 3 4.00 7.0 4 5.33 10.0 6.67 1 1.33 7.0 Z 2.67 7.0 3 4.00 7.0 .... 5.33 10.0 7.33 1 1.33 7.0 Z 2.67 7.0 3 4.00 7.0 4 5.33 10.0 5 6.67 8.S ....:~-,:.. .:~: ~._' . ._~ r~.. ..... . .~.'~!- :'.. ::". '.mJ'" .....'..:.-:.".'....: '-. .:' . t". :.. -..~.: ." ," ." ". '. .. _ !';. ..\ '. .' '.. -.,' ~. . . . . . . .~-- --- ~::. ~ ~.:. -: ,.. - . . ." .,' -i- ...:...... .......-: ,... '.. . - ~~~ ..... ~'g.i!-~ HEIGHT OF WALL GEOGRlo CONNECTION LAYER HCRlD l.GRlo I (FT) (FT) 1 1.33 lZ.0 2 Z.67 11.0 1 1.33 12.0 Z 2.67 11.0 3 4.00 11.0 1 1.33 12.0 Z 2.67 11.0 3 4.00 11.0 4 5.33 9.0 1 1.33 12.0 2 2.67 11.0 3 4.00 11.0 4 5.33 9.0 5 6.67 9.0 1 1.33 12.0 2 2.67 11.0 3 4.00 11.0 4 5.33 9.0 5 6.67 9.0 1 1.33 12.0 Z 2.67 11.0 3 4.00 11.0 4 5.33 9.0 5 6.67 9.0 6 8.00 9.0 1 1.33 12.0 Z 2.67 11.0 3 4.00 11.0 4 5.33 9.0 5 6.67 9.0 6 B.OO 9.0 1 1.33 12.0 2 2.67 11.0 3 '4.00 11.0 4 5.33 9.0 5 6.67 9.0 6 8.00 9.0 7 9.33 9.0 1 1.33 12.0 2 2.67 11.0 3 4.00 11.0 4 5.33 9.0 5 6.67 9.0 6 8.00 9.0 7 9.33 9.0 WALL C PROFILE VERDURA 4.0 4.67 6.0 ~ 7.33 1-30 : 3 BW= 29.93 ..!ll'." 8.00 f 8.67 )20 i 2 o 0 -1~ Ul -10 ui . ~~ +: ! ~~-i ~ aun 11 Vl UNITS I~ I~ o 0 U} 0 ~ g + + 9.33 I c!:> -+4 0 I 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 III 0 II) 0 III 0 0 ..; 1;i g ..t en ~ ~ " ..., '" :t + ~ ~ +, ~ t ~ ~ g I ...~~ 10.00 i ~ I- fi1 ~---i III III III Ill! III !~ 10 "T I t; i ~ 19 LjNrrs .1 i ! 10 UNITS 9 UNITS 9 I 9 8 i 9 UNITSl UNITS UNITS[ UNITS I 1 I I 9 i 7 UNrr~ UNITS : 9 iJNITS i j I I WALL 8 PROFILE PREPARDl U/ID€R SUI'ERVlSlOH Of: ~ MPA De$ign Land/bpe Archllecljj and Urben ~ ~I~ ~""D t1 ~ll2rnncl1":o, ~16 .(:W-.(664 ENGINEERING ID. PLANNING l5. SURVEY.tNG APPR. BY, 393 VlNTAGE PARK DRIVE. SUITE 100 F9SJER CITY. CA 94404 (650) 349-215' FAX (650) 345-<921 ; 1 o -,I:! -'0 <0 :=+ ~ ~g o III i. + o 0 III 0 " N oot "'i~ <. ~ <C~. ti J 0 0 0 " 0 0 ti II) m ~ " :;; + + tl- + ! g g ~ g I I iB 7 In g {bl .' j :'_...:~.,~.'.~~.-. ..~:. 6 UNITS 10.67 NO. REVlStON DESCRIPTION 1 DOli' DESIGN DEVELOpMENT BY, KGS DATE DATE DATE APPR: SCALE: TITLE FILENAME: Genentech, Inc. Genentech, Inc. Genentech, Inc. Genentech; Inc. Genentech, Inc. RETAINING WALL DETAILS This drawing is the property of Genentech. lnc. The information is confidential and is to be used only in connection with work directed by Gen~tech. Ine. No part of this drawing is to be disclosed to others without written permission from Genentech, Inc. REV. 0 WILSEY~I HAM~ii!fi GENENTECH BAYSHORE II TRAIL 12/22/04 12/22/04 8-26-05 DESIGN BY: KGS DRAWN BY: JR APPR. BY, 21 10 11 12 BUIlDING 10 PLANT MATERIAL LIST PERENNI.'L I4IX k.:-:-:.:l BOTANIC.\L NAME 75% THE FOWJWING PERENNIAlS: ERlOPHYlLUIot CONFERllFlORUM ESCHSCHOl.Zl6. CAUFORNlCA G1UA CAPITA G1UA TRICOLOR IRIS DOUGLASIANA lINUIot LEWISU LOTUS SCOPARIUS LUPlNUS FORMOSUS MI...ULUS A1JRAIi1lACUS . NEMDPHILA IotENZIESII PENSlEMON CHElRANTHIFOlIA SISYRlNCHIUM BlliUI4 25l1: THE FOWJWING GRASSES: NASSEU..A PULCHRA NASSEllA tEPlDA CO"'MON NAI.lE LBS./ ACRE GOLDEN YARROW CAUFORNIA PDPPY GlDBE GILIA BIRO'S EYES DOUGlAS IRIS BlUE FlAX OEERWEEO SUMMER LUPINE STICKY MONKEY FlDWER BABY BLUE EYES PENSID.lDN BLUE-EYED GRASS 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 12.0 4.0 0.5. 3.0 3.0 3.0 PURPLE NEEDLE GRASS 16.0 FOOTHILL NEEDLE GRASS 9.0 ~ MP A Design ~.- --""'-. I~-- n'YW~ ....~~ 1X lICDC tUlD-~ 1tI~~:t .....x: '" '!#r . l>!Ii!f;'a' =- E"':~' "P~ ..... u"llC%lC:1lI&I. ~ SOlffii ""..... r-<t""""",.... "- BLUff" :c:~~ C) ~ E NORTli PARKING LDTO ~~~. - W>JlSH SEC'llON lHROUGH DRAlN LINE ~tclI'.l."" ~.-t."~ CD I ...1 51 ~I ~I lEI ",I -I I I I I I GRASS "'IX: NON-IRRIGATED J1VE EROSlO~ ~ PLANT MATERIAL USTCON'T SHRUB I4IX ~*~*l BOTANiCAl NAl4E CO......ON NAI.lE LBS./ACRE 50% THE FOLLOWING SHRUBS: ERIOGONUM ARBDRESCENS ISlAND BUCK'M-IEAT B.O ERI0G0NUt.I FASCICULA1UM CAUFtlRNlA BUCKWHEAT 6.0 SALVIA LEUCOPHnlA PURPLE SAGE 4.0 SALVIA MEl.UFERA BLACK SAGE 4.0 25% THE FOLLOWING PERENNIALS: ACHILLEA MILLEfOllUM WHITE YARROW 1.0 COWNSJA HETEROPHYllA CHINESE HDUSES 2.0 CLARKIA AMOEN'. FAREWlli-TO-SPRlNG 3.0 DIUA 1R1C!lLOR BIRO'S EYES 2.0 WPINUS FOR"'DSUS SUMMER LUPINE 4.0 25:1; THE FOLLOWING GRASSES: EL Yl./US IolULTSEruS BIG SOUIRRELTAlL 12.0 FESTUCA RUBRA 1ol0LA1E RED FESCUE NOLA1E 24.0 fl/EPAllED UHlJfI/ SUI'fRVI9OH Of: Land=pe 1rchilects and Urban De.igners WILSEY HAM 414 IIa!on street San Franciscc, CJ. 9tl02 415 434-4664 ~ PLANNING m SURVEYING OVERLOOK SEC'llON IlaEtltIC.l-o<4"" ~~1.'" 5l1B1. lICDFIIlH lIl.l1T OF WORK UNE BGOC JURISDICTION UNE CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISOICTION lJNE SECTION -=-uJa\.,..... ""'......... CD TAl< PROPERlY UNE f\J1URE BUILDING SITE x EXISTING TREE TO TO BE REMOVED LEGEND I!ll PLANT MATERIAL LIST CON'T GRASS MIX: 1:::::::::::::1 BOTANICAL IW.lE COMMON NAME LBS./ACRE SID:: lHE fOLLOWING GRASSES: ...ElICA IMPERFECT A COAST RANGE ...ElIC 6.0 VUlPIA MICROSTACH'I'S SMAll FESCUE 16.D 25:1; lHE FOlLOWING PERENNIALS: ESCHSCHOLZIA CAUFORNICA CAUFORNIA poppy :1.0 IRIS OOU~IANA DOUGLAS IRIS 3.0 LAYIA PLAlYGLOSSA 1lO'1' TIPS 1.5 LCl71JS SCOPARIUS OEERWEED 12.0 NIIolULUS Al.JRMlTIACUS STICKY MONKEY FLOWER 0.5 NEIolOPHlLA IolENZIESlI BAI3Y BWE EYES 3.0 PENSTEMON CHElRANlHlFOUA PEIlSlEIoION 3.0 -SOX THE FOLLOWING SHRUBS: BACCHARIS PILUlARIS CHAPARRAl BROOM 0.50 CEANOTHUS CUNEATUS BUCKBRUSH 8.0 PLANT MATERIAL UST CON'T VEGETATED SWALE MIX: 1:':::::::::~:::::1 BOTNlICAl. NAME COlot...ON NAME 1 DOli: OF THE FOlLOII1NG GRASSES: LBS./ACRE ~ ~ CASU:: GUARDRAIL POST AND CABLE SAFElY RAIL PERENNIAl MIX:. NON-IRRIGATED NATIVE EROSION CONTROL HYDRO"'ULCH MEUCA IMPERFECTA VULPIA MICROSTACHYS COAST RANGE ...ELIC B.O SMALL FESCUE 16.0 ICacoco03 OeOeOoO SHRUB MIX: NON-lRRIGATED NATNE EROSION COIflROL HYDROMULCH GRASS MIX: NON-lRRlGATEO NATM: EROSION CONTROL HYDROMULCH NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION 100% DESIGN DEVElOPMENT BY: DATE APPR: DATE SCAlE: DATE 08/26/05 08/26/05 Genemech, InC. Geneni:ech, Inc. Genemecf\ Inc. Genemech; Inc, Genenteclh, nc. ~::::::::::::l t':-:-:-:-:::.:.:-:I 1>;'.::( ,~ ~ VEGETATED SWM.E. MIX: NON-lRRIGATED VEGETATED SWALE EROSION CONTROL HYDRO"'ULCH lAWN SOD FllANKENIA GRANDFOUA: TO MATCH Sl.DlJGH PlANTING ATRlPlEX SEMlIlACCATA: TO "'ATCH SLOUGH PLANTING This drawing is the property of Genentech, Inc. The fnformation is confidential and is to be used only in connection with work directed by Genentech, Ine. No part af this drawing Is to be disclosed to others without written permission from Genentech. Ine. APPR. BY: !;"/;:1;:/~1 0, V EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN. PROTECT fROM CONSlRUCTION !lAI.lAGE WITll A 3' 1EIolPORARY FENCE Kf THE EDGE OF CNlOPY 08/26/05 MPA DESIGN BY: OlIN, DO DRAIIN BY: MG, DO APPR. BY: ~ $ o OUE AGR OUERCUS AGRIFOUA 15 GAL PIN MUR PINUS MURlCATA 36' OR 24" BOX PIN ELD PINUS ELOERICA 36- OR 24- BOX o ARB ElF -eEA AIIC ARBUTUS UNEOO 'ELFIN KING' 1 GAl CEONOTHUS GlDRIOSUS 1 GAl HORIZONTAUS 'ANCHOR BAy' ECHIUN FASlUOSUM 1 GAl ILEK AI.. TACl.AIlENS1S 'WILSONII' 1 GAl PENSTEMON CENTRANTHIFCUUS 1 GAl LIMDNlUN PEREZII 1 GAl IoWiONIA AOUlFOLIUM 1 GAl ROSA RUGOSA 1 GAl SESLERIA AUTUNNALIS, 1 GAl LOCATED AT VERDURA WALL AND BASE 6' BENCH, 11 REQUIRED Q @ ECH FAS u: WlL PEN CEN UN PER IolAH AOU ROS RUG SES AUT o 8 '" NG TO SCAlE r = 50'-lJ' o SO 100 150 NORTH TIlLE FILENAME: GENENTECH BA YSHORE II TRAIL PROJECT DESIGN PLAN (650) 349.215' REV. 0 3. VERDURA WALL WITH .NEW PLANTING BCDC BENCH AND LITTER UNIT . t- POST AND CABLE SAFETY RAIL BOULDERS o BCDC II SITE FEATURES CABLE GUARDRAIL SECTION/ELEVATION POST SPACING-SEE PLAN 3" TIP. io I "h NOTE: SEE SPECS FOR FINISH AND COLOR. 1/4" GLAV. STEEL CABLE WITH VINYL COATING. TIP. . ~.3" GALV. STEEL PIPE. . INSTALL IN METAL SLEEVES CAST IN PLACE. SECURE WI EPOXY GROUT-VERIFY TIPE OF GROUT FOR USE WITH GLAV. STEEL. a.: ~ N :q. "- 1"') CONCRETE PAVING SLEEVE. TYP. VERDURA WALL WITH MATURE AUTUMN MOOR GRASS BCDC SIGNAGE I'R€PAAEIl UHIl[R SUFfl/Vl5IOH OF: REVISION DESCRIPTION BY: DAlE NO. APPR: DAlE this drawing Is the property SCALE: ~ffOC;;;:~~~~ ~no~fld~~lal DESIGN BY, OWN. 00 and is to be "sed only in DRAWN BY, MG. DO connection with work directed by Genentech, Ine. APPR. BY: No part of this drowing is to be disclosed to others APPR. BY: without written pennlsslon from Genentech. I"c. DAlE TITLE Gene!1ltech, InC. Genemech, Inc. Genemect\ InC. Genemech; InC. Genentedh, Ihc. GENENTECH BAYSHORE II TRAIL PROJECT SITE FEATURE IMAGES FlLENAME: (~ Land=pe Archilecl.s aM Urban Designers WILSEY ~ HAM 08/25/05 08/25/05 MPA 08/26/05 100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 0;. PLANNING ~ SURVE:YING 414 IlItlOD Street San FrancisCll, CA MP A Design ~~~3H664 383 A VINTAGE PARK DRIVE FOSTER CrTY. CA944D4 FAX (650) 345""21 (650) 349.2151 REV. 0 PINUS ELDERICA, AFGAN PINE SESLERIA AUTUMNAL/S, AUTUMN MOOR GRASS ECHIUM FASTUOSUM, PRIDE OF MADERA MAHONIA AQUIFOLI~M, OREGON GRAPE t LIMONIUM PEREZII, SEA LAVENDER ROSA RUGOSA, RAMANAS ROSE QUERCUS AGR1FOLIA, COAST LIVE. OAK PINUS M.URICATA, BISHOP'S PINE [~ Lanwpe Arthilects and Urban Designers 414 IWon street San' Franewell, CA MP A Design :~~-46M ARBUTUS UNEDO, STRAWBERRY TREE ILEX ALTACLARENSIS 'WILSONII', WILSON'S HOLLY o BCDC II PLANTING I'i1fPARED UHDfll SUPDlVlSIOH OF: NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION BY: DATE APPR: MPA 08/26/05 DATE SCALE: This drawing Is the property o,:foC;::t~~~";~ ~a~fid~~IOI DESIGN BY: OWN. 00 and is to be used only In DRAWN BY' MG 00 connection with work . . directed by Genentech. Inc. APPR. BY' No part of this drawing is . .. to be dlsdosed ta others APPR. BY: without wrItten permiss10n from Genentech. '"e. DATE 08/26/05 08/26/05 Genemech, InC. llTLE Genemech, hc. Genemech, InC. . Genemech; Inc. Genentedh, tic. WILSEY HAM 1 lDDX DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING !~ PLANNING ~ SURVEYING 383 A VINTAGE P.4.RK DRIVE FOSTER el1Y. CA 9..". (650) 349.2151 FAX {650} 345-4921 REV. 0 PENSTEMON CENTRANTHIFOLIUS, SCARLET BUGLER FILENAME: GENENTECH BAYSHORE II TRAIL PROJECT SITE PLANTING IMAGES :-- ..aCDC PARKING 15 STALLS\ \, \ \ ~.:7~' (Ctfl C~ ~BCDC_L PUBUC ACCESS // r7 -----' /././'")1. . t )/\ / 'Y~ ~ L BCDC TRAIL .~/ PUBue ..C' r . ACCESS ".. ~ '\\ \.' , ~ ~ '-- BCDC TR.6JL PUBUC ACCESS BUILDING 4- BUILDING 1 .----- - ;/ ~J BUILDING 11 BUILDING 13 BUILDING 12 b1'<t ~>- BUILDING 10 BUILDING 14 PT. SAN BRUNO BLVD. r ! BCDC TRAIL t BRrrANN~ E. . .. ... GRAND ACCESS~ _.!: /I BRITANNIA E. GRAND = 2551 LF. = 2335 LF. = 910 LF. ---\ acoc UNEJ \ .., "" LEGEND GENENTECH BeDe TRAIL PHASE I GENENTECH BeDe TRAIL PHASE II BRITANNIA E. GRAND BCDC TRAIL ~ 1"\ \\ '-.. Beoc PARKING 6 STALLS , \ \\ \ \\ /. ~ BCOC TRAIL PUBue ACCESS ~/ 1" Bayshore I & II & Britannia E. Grand Trail Plans / Public Access r "')I BCDC TRAIL / ~ Cib_ PUBUC ./ ~ ACCESS ~ ..,~ 5'l. ALL i'(;"-\. o loa 200 -==--- ~ NORTH 11 . 17 . 2005 MPA Design Wilsey Ham Gensler Bayshore II Trail Project GeITleITl~eCh7 ~nCa ~ Design Plan SCALE r - 41J-O" ~ I ... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... , ____ NORTH . I I 11 . 17 . 2005 MPA Design Wilsey Ham Gensler Bayshore II Trail Project G~n~n~~cch, ~ncc. PINE TREE / / PIPE PERENNIAL MIX CABLE SAFOY RAIL / ~--..... ;.-------....., .- ',/ , /" '-,-/ " <..Y I " 0! \ \ J \ / \ / , I " I , \ " I " I \ I \ I \ I J \ . / , j" ", ,; " ',' ,/ " --.- ....._---..... ....."" FIRELANE PERENNIAL MIX CABLE GUARD RAIL VERDURA WALL WI AUTUMN MOOR GRASS 12' BCDC TRAIL PIPE VERDURA WALL SECTION A SEE SHEET L01-002 FOR SECTION LOCATION \ \ 4' BOULDERS OVERLOOK SECTION 8 Overlook Enlargment and Sections SCAll: r = lO'-{j' ~ OVERLOOK ENLARGEMENT PLAN SCALE 1'=10'-0. NORTH 11 . 17 . 2005 MPA Design Wilsey Ham Gensler Bayshore II Trail Project Genentech, ~nc. ,~.~j- . L~ -.. ..... --..- ~_...--. r---- ..... ~r ~) ..~- S*;:: ~ r () 1- PERSPECTIVE MPA Design Wilsey Ham Gensler Bayshore II Trail Project <::':"- . ..-:::--- ~... ~ ~ 11 . 17. 2005 Genentech, ~nc. 2 - VERDURA WALL PERSPECTIVE MPA Design Wilsey Ham Gensler Bayshore II Trail Project 11 . 17 . 2005 Genentech, Inc. "- .x,., \~ ~i # /J Ii 3 - OVERLOOK PERSPECTIVE 11 . 17 . 2005 MPA Design Wilsey Ha m Gensler Bayshore II Trail Project Genen~ech7 Inc. BCOC BENCH AND LITTER UNIT VEROURA WALL vVITH NEW AUTUMN MOOR GRASS BOULDERS VERDURA WALL WITH MATURE AUTUMN MOOR GRASS BCOC SIGNAGE Site Features MPA Design Wilsey Ham Gensler Bayshore II Trail Project POST AND CABLE SAFETY RAIL ;' fj' -c' ;' " ELEVATION SECTION CABLE GUARDRAIL ABOVE VERDURA WALL 11 . 17 . 2005 Genentech, ~nc. PINUS ELDERICA, AFGAN PINE PINUS MURICATA, BISHOP'S PINE Site Planting MPA Design Wilsey Ham Gensler ECHIUM FASTUOSUM, PRIDE OF MADERA QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA, COAST LIVE OAK ARBUTUS UNEDO, STRAWBERRY TREE MAHONIA AQUIFOLlUM, OREGON GRAPE SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS, AUTUMN MOOR GRASS LlMONIUM PEREZII, SEA LAVENDER ILEX ALTACLARENSIS 'WILSONII', WILSON'S HOLLY ROSA RUGOSA, RAMANAS ROSE Bayshore II Trail Project PENSTEMON CENTRANTHIFOLlUS, SCARLET BUGLER 11 . 17 . 2005 Genentech, ~nc. ~ "-J f,; ~ J J -L ~ '-" .t-' \J I f,; DATE: March 16, 2006 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Rebels Elite Cheerleading Gym - 6-month review of Use Permit to allow a cheerleading gym (indoor sports & recreation use) in a 2,550 square foot warehouse unit within the Spruce Business Park, 434 No. Canal St., in the P-I Planned Industrial Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.32.030 & Chapter 20.81 Owner: Applicant: Site Address: Case No. H.A. Krouse Trust Stacey Chiaro & Rebecca Hazen 434 No. Canal Street #14 P05-0031: UP05-0009 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission accept this report as fulfillment of Condition of Approval A.4. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION: In April 2005 the Planning Commission approved a use permit to establish a cheerleading gym within a vacant 2,550 SF warehouse space in the South Spruce Business Park at 434 No. Canal Street., with a requirement for a six-month review of operations. The business license was issued in May 2005. Since that time there have been no complaints or concerns about the operations at the site. Staff therefore recommends no further action with regard to the condition. LY/ By: ." ,." . ~/-:/' P VSusy~kin PrincIpal Planner ATTACHMENTS: Conditions of Approval A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follow: 1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Divisions standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial Industrial and Multi-Family Residential Projects. 2. Hours of operation shall be limited to 4:00 PM to 10:00 PM weekdays, and 7 AM to 5PM on weekends. 3. The business shall be operated substantially as outlined in the project description provided by the applicants dated 2-28-05. 4. The project shall be subject to a six-month review by the Planning Commission. [Planning Division contact: Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner (650) 877-8535] B. Building Division requirements shall be as follow: 1. The facility shall have a maximum posted occupancy load of 30 persons based on the single toilet facility provided, and subject to the condition that no complaints of inadequate toilet facilities are received by the City. If, within the initial three years of occupancy such complaints are received, the applicant shall install additional toilet facilities or limit building occupancy load to 15 persons maXImum. 2. Ventilations system, verify a minimum 15 cfm of outside air per occupant. 3. Restroom facilities will need to verify number of fixtures for the occupant load, accessibility and separate facilities men and women. 4. Emergency lighting will be required for exiting the space. 5. Show accessible parking and accessible path to the space. 6. Additional comments at plan review. [Building Division contact: Jim Kirkman, Chief Building Official (650) 829-6670] The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. 2. Building Security a. Doors 1) The jamb on all aluminum frame-swinging doors shall be so constructed or protected to withstand 1600 lbs. of pressure in both a vertical distance of three (3) inches and a horizontal distance of one (1) inch each side of the strike. 2) Glass doors shall be secured with a deadbolt lock! with minimum throw of one (1) inch. The outside ring should be free moving and case hardened. 3) Employee/pedestrian doors shall be of solid core wood or hollow sheet metal with a minimum thickness of 1-3/4 inches and shall be secured by a deadbolt lock! with minimum throw of one (1) inch. Locking hardware shall be installed so that both deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside knob, handle, or turn piece. 4) Outside hinges on all exterior doors shall be provided with non-removable pins when pin- type hinges are used or shall be provided with hinge studs, to prevent removal of the door. 5) Doors with glass panels and doors with glass panels adjacent to the doorframe shall be secured with burglary-resistant glazing2 or the equivalent, if double-cylinder deadbolt locks are not installed. 6) Doors with panic bars will have vertical rod panic hardware with top and bottom latch bolts. No secondary locks should be installed on panic-equipped doors, and no exterior surface- mounted hardware should be used. A 2" wide and 6" long steel astragal shall be installed on the door exterior to protect the latch. No surface-mounted exterior hardware need be used on panic-equipped doors. 7) On pairs of doors, the active leaf shall be secured with the type of lock required for single doors in this section. The inactive leaf shall be equipped with automatic flush extension bolts I The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob/lever/tumpiece. A double-cylinder deadbolt lock or a single-cylinder deadbolt lock without a tumpiece may be used in "Group B" occupancies as defined by the Uniform Building Code. When used, there must be a readily visible durable sign on or adjacent to the door protected by hardened material with a minimum throw of three- fourths inch at head and foot and shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware. Multiple point locks, cylinder activated from the active leaf and satisfying the requirements, may be used instead of flush bo lts. 8) Any single or pair of doors requiring locking at the bottom or top rail shall have locks with a minimum of one throw bolt at both the top and bottom rails. b. Windows 1) Louvered windows shall not be used as they pose a significant security problem. 2) Accessible rear and side windows not viewable from the street shall consist of rated burglary resistant glazing or its equivalent. Such windows that are capable of being opened shall be secured on the inside with a locking device capable of withstanding a force of two hundred- (200) lbs. applied in any direction. 3) Secondary locking devices are recommended on all accessible windows that open. c. Roof Openings 1) All glass skylights on the roof of any building shall be provided with: a) Rated burglary-resistant glass or glass-like acrylic material.2 or: b) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material spaced no more than five inches apart under the skylight and securely fastened. or: c) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh under skylight and securely fastened. 2) All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as follows: a) If the hatchway is of wooden material, it shall be covered on the outside with at least 16 gauge sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws. b) The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. The use of crossbar or padlock must be approved by the Fire Marshal. c) Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non-removable pins when using pin-type hinges. more than five inches apart and securely fastened. or: b) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh and securely fastened and, c) If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded head flush bolts of at least 3/8" diameter on the outside. d. Lighting 1) All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. 2) The premises, while closed for business after dark, must be sufficiently lighted by use of interior night-lights. 3) Exterior door, perimeter, parking area, and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. 4) Parking lot lighting should be a minimum of 5 foot candles. e. Numbering of Buildings 1) The address number of every commercial building shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than four to six inches in height and of a color contrasting with the background. 2) In addition, any business, which affords vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot, shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. f. Alarms 1) The business shall be equipped with a centrally monitored burglary and robbery alarm system. NOTE: To avoid delays in occupancy, alarm installation steps should be taken well in advance of the final inspection. g. Traffic, Parking, and Site Plan h. Misc. Security Measures 1) Commercial establishments having one hundred dollars or more in cash on the premises after closing hours shall lock such money in an approved type money safe with a minimum rating ofTL-15. 2) If this facility is to be rented to a group of more than 50 persons (including staff personnel), the applicant must secure a Dance Hall Rental Permit from the Police Department to determine additional security concerns. NOTE: For additional details, contact the Community Relations Sergeant at (650) 877 -8922. [Police Department contact: Sgt. E. Alan Normandy (650) 877-8927]