Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-12 e-packeto~°~~x.sANF~2 AGENDA 9 ~ N F n REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~... ~ ~: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2006 7:00 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the Redevelopment Agency are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Community Room and submit it to the Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Board action. JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Chair RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR. Vice Chair MARK N. ADDIEGO Boardmember PEDRO GONZALEZ Boardmember RICHARD BATTAGLIA Investment Officer BARRY M. NAGEL Executive Director KARYL MATSUMOTO Boardmember SYLVIA M. PAYNE Clerk STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the minutes of June 28, 2006 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of July 12, 2006 ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JULY 12, 2006 AGENDA PAGE 2 ~T~L S o ° ~~~~~~~~~ SPECIAL MEETING ~. y J O c'~LIFOR~1~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2006 7:05 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 12~' day of July, 2006, at 7:05 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments -comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda 4. Closed Session: Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a), Conference with Legal Counsel -existing litigation: Ayala v. City of South San Francisco 5. Adjournment J~? / ~ City Clerk O TH SA~yA, S 'Py ptc '' ° ylt. ~ GENDA _ o CITY COUNCIL ~' CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO c911 FORN~P REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2006 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Mayor RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR Vice Mayor MARK N. ADDIEGO Councilman PEDRO GONZALEZ Councilman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer BARRY M. NAGEL City Manager KARYL MATSUMOTO Councilwoman SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE SII,ENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS • Online Tour of Downtown Businesses -Marta Bookbinder, CLC Literary Services Coordinator and Max Poon, CLC Volunteer AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL • Announcements • Committee Reports • Discussion: City Council Health Benefits CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the minutes of June 21 and 28, 2006 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of July 12, 2006 3. Resolution authorizing acceptance of LSTA grant funding from the California State Library to provide tuition reimbursement for Ellen Smith, in the amount of $1890, and amend the Library Department's FY 2006-07 operating budget 4. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of donations and grant funding to support the Library's Summer Reading Club and Reader Leader programs in the amount of $3350, and amend the Library Department's FY 2006-07 operating budget 5. Resolution awarding contract to Uretek USA for South Airport Boulevard Bridge Approach Pavement Repair Project in the amount of $50,754 6. Resolution awarding contract to TEC Accutite for underground gas tank removal at Fire Station #5, 1151 South San Francisco Drive, in the amount of $27, 446 7. Resolution extending the rules of the existing City Council Members reimbursement policy to Board And Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING 8. Consideration of development agreement, draft EIR, statement of ovemding considerations, use permit, design review, and preliminary TDM plan to construct a phased development consisting of 4 office/ R&D buildings totaling approximately 534,500 s.f., 5,500 s.f. of ancillary commercial space, and related landscaping REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2006 AGENDA PAGE2 improvements on 15.75 acre site; tentative parcel map to re-subdivide a 15.75 acre lot into 5 parcels with reciprocal parking and access easements throughout, and a planned unit development to allow creation of lots which do not abut a dedicated public street at 249 East Grand Avenue; Owner: Alexandria Real Estate; Applicant: James H. Richardson (POS-0019, EIROS-0001, PMOS-0002, PUDOS-0001, TDMOS-0001, UPOS- 0005, DROS-0043 and DA05-0004); Waive reading and introduce an ordinance adopting a development agreement LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 9. Waive reading and introduce an ordinance adding SSFMC Chapter 15.60, requiring recycling and diversion of debris from construction and demolition COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2006 AGENDA PAGE3 ~°°~H"5-~~~ AGENDA ITEM #3 o n H y n J O c~LIFOR~~ toff e ort DATE: July 12, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Valerie Sommer, Library Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $1,890 IN LSTA GRANT FUNDING FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY TO PROVIDE TUITION REIMBURSEMENT FOR ELLEN SMITH AND TO AMEND THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2006/2007 OPERATING BUDGET. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution accepting a Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grant providing tuition reimbursement in the amount of $1,890 and amending the Library Department's 2006/2007 operating budget. BACKGROUND The Library has been awarded a federal Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grant from the California State Library in the amount of $1,890 to provide tuition reimbursement for Library staff member Ellen Smith to attend graduate school in Library Science during the Summer 2006 and Fal12006 semesters. Ellen is the Circulation Supervisor at the Main Library and is enrolled in the San Jose State University School of Library & Information Science Master's program, from which she is scheduled to graduate in December 2006. FUNDING: These grant funds will augment the Library Department's budget for fiscal year 2006/2007. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing funding after the close of the grant cycles. CONCLUSION: Receipt of these funds will allow Ellen to receive reimbursement for education expenses related to her pursuit of a Library & Information Science Master's degree which will provide her with advancement opportunities within the Library Department. It is recommended that the City Council accept $1,890 in grant funding to provide tuition reimbursement and amend the Library Department's fiscal year 2006-2007 operating budget. Staff Report Subject: Acceptance Of $1,890 In Lsta Grant Funding to support the Library Department Page 2 By. Approved, Valerie Sommer ry M. Na el Library Director City Manager Attachments: Resolution 842928-1 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $1,890 IN LSTA GRANT FUNDING FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY TO PROVIDE TUITION REIMBURSEMENT FOR ELLEN SMITH AND TO AMEND THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2006/2007 OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance of $1,890 in grant funding from the California State Library to provide tuition reimbursement; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby accepts a $1,890 Library Services and Technology Act grant from the California State Library to provide tuition reimbursement to Ellen Smith and amends the 2006-2007 Operating Budget, to reflect an increase of $1,890 to the Library Department's budget. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the _day of , 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 842929-1 ~~°~`~`~S~''~.~ AGENDA ITEM #4 o n H ~ n J 0 cALIFOR~l~ taff e ort DATE: July 12, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Valerie Sommer, Library Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $3,3501N DONATION AND GRANT FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE LIBRARY'S SUMMER READING CLUB AND READER LEADER PROGRAMS AND AMEND THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2006/2007 OPERATING BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $3,350 in donation and grant funding to support the Library's Summer Reading Club and Reader Leader programs and amend the Library Department's operating budget for fiscal year 2006/2007. BACKGROUND: The Library has received a $350 donation from an anonymous Library supporter to fund promotional items for this year's Summer Reading Club and $3,000 from the Wells Fargo Foundation to fund the Children's Services' Reader Leader program. The Summer Reading Club encourages children to read during the school break and the Reader Leader program enables 6`" to 12~' graders to assist elementary school children in practicing reading skills. FUNDING: The funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department. Funds not expended at the end of fiscal year 2006/2007 will be carried over into fiscal year 2007/2008. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing support after the close of the funding cycles. CONCLUSION: Receipt of these funds will enable Children's Services to continue programs and services which are not otherwise funded. It is recommended that the City Council accept $3,350 in grant funding and donations to support Children's programming and amend the Library Department's fiscal year 2006/2007 operating budgeti. o By: Approve ` ~ ~ Valerie Sommer . Nage Library Director City Manager 842923-1 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $3,350 IN DONATION AND GRANT FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE LIBRARY' S SUMMER READING CLUB AND READER LEADER PROGRAMS AND AMEND THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2006/2007 OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance of $350 in donations from an anonymous library supporter and $3,000 in grant funding from the Wells Fargo Foundation to support Children's services; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts $350 in donations from an anonymous library supporter and $3,000 in grant funding from the Wells Fargo Foundation to support the Summer Reading Club and Reader Leader programs and amends the 2006-2007 Operating Budget, to reflect an increase of $3,350 to the Library Department's budget. * ~: I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the day of 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 842924-1 AGENDA ITEM #S ~°~~x"S~_ ~' o H ~ n ~j O c9LIFOR~l~ taff e ort p DATE: July 12, 2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Terry White, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD BRIDGE APPROACH PAVEMENT REPAIR PROJECT NO. 51-13231-0704 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing Staff to award a sole source contract to Uretek USA Inc., in the amount of $50,754.00 for repairs to the South Airport Boulevard approach, foregoing the formal bidding process for this Capital Improvement Project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The pavement adjacent to the south side of the South Airport Boulevard bridge has sunk numerous times over the last 5 or 6 years requiring the Public Works asphalt crew to install layer upon layer of asphalt to make the roadway safe to drive upon. In 2001, the City of South San Francisco awarded a contract to Uretek USA, Inc. to stabilize the approach slabs to the Utah Avenue bridge and to date the results have been excellent with no or negligible settlement of the approach slabs. The process involves injecting high-density lightweight polyurethane foam deep under the pavement to stabilize the soil. Uretek USA Inc. holds the U. S. Patent on this product and service, therefore making them a sole source vendor for this work. FUNDING The funding for this project is included in the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Capital Improvement Program in the amount of $65,000.00. CONCLUSION The injection of the polyurethane foam should stabilize the soil, therefore making ongoing pavement repairs unnecessary. Staff Report Subject: South Airport Boulevard Bridge Approach Pavement Repair Page 2 ., 1 j~ -.~ Terry Whipe Director o~ublic Works RTH/ TW Attachment: Resolution Approved: ~~~~ ` ~' - `. ~ . , Barry'M. Nagel `~ City Manager ~_. G:\PROJECTS\PW S. Airport Bridge Approach Repair./Awardstaffreport.doc RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD BRIDGE APPROACH PAVEMENT REPAIR PROJECT TO URETEK USA INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,754 WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council award the contract for the South Airport Boulevard Bridge approach pavement repair to the sole bidder, Uretek USA Inc., in an amount not to exceed $50,754; and WHEREAS, the project funding is included in the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Capital Improvement Program in the amount of $65,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards a contract for the South Airport Boulevard Bridge approach project to Uretek USA Inc., in an amount not to exceed $50,754. BE IT, FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of , 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 842808-1 AGENDA ITEM #6 Staff Report DATE: July 12, 2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Terry White, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT AT FIRE STATION #S (1151 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRIVE) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to award a contract for underground fuel tank removal and replacement at Fire Station #5 to TEC Accutite in the amount of $27,446.00. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Staff solicited proposals for the removal of an existing SSO gallon underground diesel tank located at the Terrabay Fire Station with the installation of a 1000 gallon above ground tank. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations require that underground tanks be continuously monitored by sensors for leakage and monthly reporting submitted to them to insure no soil contamination occurs. Minor problems have occurred with this tank over the years and recently it is suspected of leaking between the dual walls. This tank is the only remaining underground tank on City property. According to the EPA, regulations will continue to become more stringent each year and costs to repair or replace monitoring equipment will only increase over time. In ground tanks are considered to be a liability and removal and replacement with an above ground tank, when possible, is considered a better alternative. Bids received are listed below. CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT TEC Accutite (Includes new tank) $27,446.00 South San Francisco, CA M Squared Construction, Inc $38,000.00 San Francisco, CA FERMA Corporation $49,500.00 Mountain View, CA Staff Report Subject: Underground Fuel Tank Removal at Fire Station #5 Page 2 Staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of the lowest bidder and found them to be satisfactory. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to TEC Accutite in the amount of $27, 446. Removal of the tank is expected to start by August 1, 2006 and installation of the above ground. tank will be completed by August 30, 2006. All work will be done incompliance with EPA requirements. FUNDING: Staff recommends funding for this project come from the General Fund Undesignated Reserve savings from the Greenhouse Demolition project. The total savings from the recently completed Greenhouse Demolition was slightly over $200,000 and although $52,600 was used for the Orange Memorial Park tree project an ample amount remains available to fund this project via a budget transfer. CONCLUSION This project will eliminate many future problems related to underground tank leakage and monitoring. It will also double the volume of stored diesel and reduce annual maintenance costs. ~ ~ ~ roved: By \~ App ~^ ~ r ~:... Terry Whitg. Barry M. Nagel Director ofgPu is Works City Manager Attachments: Resolution RTH/ TW RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT AT FIRE STATION #5 WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council award the contract for the underground fuel tank removal and replacement to the lowest bidder, TEC Accutite in an amount not to exceed $27,446; and WHEREAS, the project funding is available from savings that occurred from the Greenhouse Demolition Project in the amount of $27,446. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards a contract for the underground fuel tank removal and replacement to TEC Accutite in an amount not to exceed $27,446. BE IT, FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of , 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk ~°~TK„S-4`v~.~ 0 ~, y AGENDA ITEM #7 J O cALIFOR~~~ taff e~ort DATE: July 12, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Elaine Yamani, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBER EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution extending the rules of the existing Council Members' expense reimbursement policy to Board and Commission Members. BACKGROUND Council Members are subject to the "City Council Policy Regarding Reimbursement of Councilmember Expenses". This policy as presented mirrors the Council Members' expense reimbursement policy, thereby extending the existing rules to Board and Commission Members. BOARD AND COMMISSION POLICY REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBER EXPENSES AUTHORIZED EXPENSES City funds, equipment, supplies (including letterhead), titles, and staff time must only be used for authorized City business. Expenses incurred in connection with the following types of activities generally constitute authorized expenses, as long as the other requirements of this policy are met: (1) Communicating with representatives of regional, state and national government on City adopted policy positions; (2) Attending educational seminars designed to improve officials' skill and information levels; (3) Participating in regional, state and national organizations whose activities affect the City's interests; (4) Recognizing service to the City (for example, thanking a longtime employee with a retirement gift or celebration of nominal value and cost); (5) Attending City events; (6) Implementing aCity-approved strategy for attracting or retaining businesses to the City, which will typically involve at least one staff member; (7) Direct expenses, including mileage reimbursement and audio or video tape or DVD costs, related to participation in community outreach programs (that do not involve any political advocacy); and (8) Meetings such as those listed above for which a meeting stipend is expressly authorized under this policy. All other expenditures require prior approval by the City governing body. Staff Report Reimbursement of Board and Commission Member Expenses Poiicy Page 2 or charitable contributions or events; (3) Family expenses, excluding spouse or significant other's registration or meal expenses when accompanying member on City-related business within San Mateo County; (4) Entertainment expenses, including theater, movies (either in-room or at the theater), sporting events (including gym, massage and/or golf related expenses), or other cultural events; (5)Non-mileage personal automobile expenses, including repairs, traffic citations, insurance or gasoline; (6) Costs of alcoholic beverages; and (7) Personal losses incurred while on City business. Any questions regarding the propriety of a particular type of expense should be resolved by the City governing body before the expense is incurred. COST CONTROL To conserve City resources and keep expenses within community standards for public officials, expenditures should adhere to the following guidelines. In the event that expenses are incurred which exceed these guidelines, the cost borne or reimbursed by the City will be limited to the costs that fall within the guidelines. TRANSPORTATION The most economical mode and class of transportation reasonably consistent with scheduling needs and cargo space requirements must be used, using the most direct and time-efficient route. Charges for rental vehicles maybe reimbursed under this provision if more than one member is attending an out of town conference, and it is determined that sharing a rental vehicle is more economical than other forms of transportation. In making such determination, the cost of the rental vehicle, parking and gasoline will be compared to the combined cost of such other forms of transportation. Government and group rates must be used when available. Airfare. When possible, members should arrange for air travel to be paid for in advance by the City at the most economical and reasonable round-trip fare consistent with the member's scheduling needs. If advance arrangements cannot be made due to lack of advance warning or other extenuating circumstances, members maybe reimbursed for the expense of the airfare, so long as it is the most economical and reasonable round-trip fare consistent with the member's scheduling and official business needs. Automobile. Members shall use City vehicles for travel in performance of official duties, when available. If a City vehicle is unavailable members may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in traveling by personal vehicle on official business at the annual Internal Revenue Service Standard Mileage Rate. The distance of travel will start from the place of work or from home, whichever is closer to the destination point of official business. Reimbursement shall include road and bridge tolls. Members shall be responsible for procuring and maintaining liability insurance for their personal vehicles. Car Rental. Members should arrange for car rentals to be paid for in advance by the City at the most economical rate available. If advance arrangements cannot be made due to lack of advance warning Staff Report Reimbursement of Board and Commission Member Expenses Policy Page 3 or other extenuating circumstances, members may be reimbursed for the expense of car rental. Since the City is self-insured, members shall not be reimbursed for optional liability insurance or other fees. Taxis/Shuttles. Taxi or shuttle fares maybe reimbursed, including a 15 percent gratuity per fare, when the cost of such fares is equal or less than the cost of car rentals, gasoline and parking combined, or when such transportation is necessary for time-efficiency. LODGING Lodging expenses will be reimbursed or paid for when the location of the official City business is greater than 50 miles from the member's work or home, whichever is closer to the destination. When possible, members should arrange for lodging expenses to be paid in advance by the City at the most economical and reasonable rates for single occupancy lodging that is in a location that is reasonable and convenient in relation to the member's scheduling and official business needs. Conferences/Meetings. If such lodging is in connection with a conference, lodging expenses must not exceed the group rate published by the conference sponsor for the meeting in question if such rates are available at the time of booking. Other Lodging. Travelers must request government rates, when available. Lodging rates that are equal or less to government rates are presumed to be reasonable and hence reimbursable for purposes of this policy. Actual lodging costs that exceed the government rate for the area maybe reimbursed conditioned upon performance of a good faith effort, evidenced by documentation (e.g., Internet search, phone calls) that demonstrate an attempt to fmd median-priced lodging. MEALS Members may be reimbursed for expenses incurred for meals consumed in conjunction with travel on official business. Reimbursable meal expenses and associated gratuities will not exceed the following rates: Breakfast $12 Lunch $18 Dinner $40 Such amounts will be annually adjusted to reflect changes in the cost of living in accordance with statistics published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, all urban consumers for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area. (The annual adjustment will be based on this area whether travel is within the area or not.) Staff Report Reimbursement of Board and Commission Member Expenses Policy Page 4 If a meal is provided by a conference or organized educational activity, or otherwise included in the payment of registration fees, members may not be reimbursed for meals purchased in lieu of, or in addition to, the provided meal. Meal expenses incurred by a member's spouse or immediate family shall not be reimbursed, except where the meal is part of an event or function located in San Mateo County at which the member is performing his or her official duties, and the spouse or significant other's attendance at the meal is appropriate given the prevailing business practices. ADDITIONAL INCIDENTAL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Members maybe reimbursed for actual and necessary incidental expenses incurred in connection with a conference, organized educational activity, or other performance of official duties. Incidental expenses include reasonable gratuities for hotel and airline employees, baggage fees, parking fees, cab fares, public transportation costs, tolls, telephone calls, telegrams, faxing, and special delivery services related to the performance of official duties, telephone calls of a personal nature, hotel Internet charges, and other such incidental expenses. Members may be reimbursed for such incidental expenses related to reasonable gratuities for which receipts are not customarily given. Reimbursement for expenses incurred in placing telephone calls of a personal nature shall be limited to $10 per day for travel within California, and $20 per day for travel outside of California. All other actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of official duties that are not described in this Policy shall not be reimbursed unless approved before the expense is incurred. PROHIBITED EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENTS Members shall not be reimbursed for non-business expenses including, but not limited to, entertainment expenses such as movie rental fees, theater tickets or sporting event fees, fines for parking citations, laundry, replacement fees for lost keys, fees assessed for damage to lodging premises, and expenses incurred pursuant to personal portions of business travel, including extra lodging and meals. EXPENSE REPORT CONTENT AND SUBMISSION DEADLINE All member expense reimbursement requests must be submitted on the Expense Reimbursement Form found in Appendix 3 of this Handbook. Expense reports must document that the expense in question met the requirements of this policy. For example, if the meeting is with a legislator, the local agency official should explain whose meals were purchased, what issues were discussed and how those relate to the City's adopted legislative positions and priorities. Staff Report Reimbursement of Board and Commission Member Expenses Policy Page 5 Expense reports must document that the expense in question met the requirements of this policy. For example, if the meeting is with a legislator, the local agency official should explain whose meals were purchased, what issues were discussed and how those relate to the City's adopted legislative positions and priorities. Members must submit their expense reports within 30 days of an expense being incurred, accompanied by receipts documenting each expense. Restaurant receipts, in addition to any credit card receipts, are also part of the necessary documentation. Inability to provide such documentation in a timely fashion may result in the expense being borne by the member. Audits Of Expense Reports. All expenses are subject to verification that they comply with this policy. Reports To Governing Board. At the following City governing body meeting, each official shall briefly report on meetings attended at City expense. If multiple members attended, a j oint report may be made. Compliance With Laws. Members should keep in mind that some expenditures maybe subj ect to reporting under the Political Reform Act and other laws. All agency expenditures are public records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, among other laws. Violation Of This Policy. Use of public resources or falsifying expense reports in violation of this policy may result in any or all of the following: (1) loss of reimbursement privileges; (2) a demand for restitution to the City; (3) the agency's reporting the expenses as income to the elected official to state and federal tax authorities; (4) civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day and three times the value of the resources used; and (5) prosecution for misuse of public resources. By: ._ . Elaine Yamaru ~ ~ agel Human Resources Director City Manager RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE RULES OF THE EXISTING COUNCIL MEMBERS' EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY TO BOARD A.ND COMMISSION MEMBERS WHEREAS, at the regular meeting of the City Council held on June 14, 2006, the City Council directed staff to extend the rules of the existing Councilmembers' expense reimbursement policy to Board and Commission Members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approve this policy as follows: BOARD AND COMMISSION POLICY REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBER EXPENSES Authorized Expenses City funds, equipment, supplies (including letterhead), titles, and staff time must only be used for authorized City business. Expenses incurred in connection with the following types of activities generally constitute authorized expenses, as long as the other requirements of this policy are met: (1) Communicating with representatives of regional, state and national government on City adopted policy positions; (2) Attending educational seminars designed to improve officials' skill and information levels; (3) Participating in regional, state and national organizations whose activities affect the City's interests; (4) Recognizing service to the City (for example, thanking a longtime employee with a retirement gift or celebration of nominal value and cost); (5) Attending City events; (6) Implementing aCity-approved strategy for attracting or retaining businesses to the City, which will typically involve at least one staff member; (7) Direct expenses, including mileage reimbursement and audio or video tape or DVD costs, related to participation in community outreach programs (that do not involve any political advocacy); and (8) Meetings such as those listed above for which a meeting stipend is expressly authorized under this policy. All other expenditures require prior approval by the City governing body. Examples of personal expenses that the City will not reimburse include, but are not limited to: (1) The personal portion of any trip, including meals, lodging, and other incidental expenses; (2) Political or charitable contributions or events; (3) Family expenses, excluding spouse or significant other's registration or meal expenses when accompanying member on City-related business within San Mateo County; (4) Entertainment expenses, including theater, movies (either in-room or at the theater), sporting events (including gym, massage and/or golf related expenses), or other cultural events; (5)Non-mileage personal automobile expenses, including repairs, traffic citations, insurance or gasoline; (6) Costs of alcoholic beverages; and (7) Personal losses incurred while on City business. Any questions regarding the propriety of a particular type of expense should be resolved by the City governing body before the expense is incurred. f nct C'nntrnl To conserve City resources and keep expenses within community standards for public officials, expenditures should adhere to the following guidelines. In the event that expenses are incurred which exceed these guidelines, the cost borne or reimbursed by the City will be limited to the costs that fall within the guidelines. Transportation The most economical mode and class of transportation reasonably consistent with scheduling needs and cargo space requirements must be used, using the most direct and time-efficient route. Charges for rental vehicles may be reimbursed under this provision if more than one member is attending an out of town conference, and it is determined that sharing a rental vehicle is more economical than other forms of transportation. In making such determination, the cost of the rental vehicle, parking and gasoline will be compared to the combined cost of such other forms of transportation. Government and group rates must be used when available. Airfare. When possible, members should arrange for air travel to be paid for in advance by the City at the most economical and reasonable round-trip fare consistent with the member's scheduling needs. If advance arrangements cannot be made due to lack of advance warning or other extenuating circumstances, members may be reimbursed for the expense of the airfare, so long as it is the most economical and reasonable round-trip fare consistent with the member's scheduling and official business needs. Automobile. Members shall use City vehicles for travel in performance of official duties, when available. If a City vehicle is unavailable members may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in traveling by personal vehicle on official business at the annual Internal Revenue Service Standard Mileage Rate. The distance of travel will start from the place of work or from home, whichever is closer to the destination point of official business. Reimbursement shall include road and bridge tolls. Members shall be responsible for procuring and maintaining liability insurance for their personal vehicles. Car Rental. Members should arrange for car rentals to be paid for in advance by the City at the most economical rate available. If advance arrangements cannot be made due to lack of advance warning or other extenuating circumstances, members maybe reimbursed for the expense of car rental. Since the City is self-insured, members shall not be reimbursed for optional liability insurance or other fees. Taxis/Shuttles. Taxi or shuttle fares may be reimbursed, including a 15 percent gratuity per fare, when the cost of such fares is equal or less than the cost of car rentals, gasoline and parking combined, or when such transportation is necessary for time-efficiency. Lod~in~ Lodging expenses will be reimbursed or paid for when the location of the official City business is greater than 50 miles from the member's work or home, whichever is closer to the destination. When possible, members should arrange for lodging expenses to be paid in advance by the City at the most economical and reasonable rates for single occupancy lodging that is in a location that is reasonable and convenient in relation to the member's scheduling and official business needs. Conferences/Meetings. If such lodging is in connection with a conference, lodging expenses must not exceed the group rate published by the conference sponsor for the meeting in question if such rates are available at the time of booking. Other Lodging. Travelers must request government rates, when available. Lodging rates that are equal or less to government rates are presumed to be reasonable and hence reimbursable for purposes of this policy. Actual lodging costs that exceed the government rate for the area may be reimbursed conditioned upon performance of a good faith effort, evidenced by documentation (e.g., Internet search, phone calls) that demonstrate an attempt to find median-priced lodging. Meals Members may be reimbursed for expenses incurred for meals consumed in conjunction with travel on official business. Reimbursable meal expenses and associated gratuities will not exceed the following rates: Breakfast $12 Lunch $18 Dinner $40 Such amounts will be annually adjusted to reflect changes in the cost of living in accordance with statistics published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, all urban consumers for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area. (The annual adjustment will be based on this area whether travel is within the area or not.) If a meal is provided by a conference or organized educational activity, or otherwise included in the payment of registration fees, members may not be reimbursed for meals purchased in lieu of, or in addition to, the provided meal. Meal expenses incurred by a member's spouse or immediate family shall not be reimbursed, except where the meal is part of an event or function located in San Mateo County at which the member is performing his or her official duties, and the spouse or significant other's attendance at the meal is appropriate given the prevailing business practices. Additional Incidental Expense Reimbursement Members maybe reimbursed for actual and necessary incidental expenses incurred in connection with a conference, organized educational activity, or other performance of official duties. Incidental expenses include reasonable gratuities for hotel and airline employees, baggage fees, parking fees, cab fares, public transportation costs, tolls, telephone calls, telegrams, faxing, and special delivery services related to the performance of official duties, telephone calls of a personal nature, hotel Internet charges, and other such incidental expenses. Members may be reimbursed for such incidental expenses related to reasonable gratuities for which receipts are not customarily given. Reimbursement for expenses incurred in placing telephone calls of a personal nature shall be limited to $10 per day for travel within California, and $20 per day for travel outside of California. All other actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of official duties that are not described in this Policy shall not be reimbursed unless approved before the expense is incurred. Prohibited Expense Reimbursements Members shall not be reimbursed for non-business expenses including, but not limited to, entertainment expenses such as movie rental fees, theater tickets or sporting event fees, fines for parking citations, laundry, replacement fees for lost keys, fees assessed for damage to lodging premises, and expenses incurred pursuant to personal portions of business travel, including extra lodging and meals. Expense Report Content and Submission Deadline All member expense reimbursement requests must be submitted on the Expense Reimbursement Form found in Appendix 3 of this Handbook. Expense reports must document that the expense in question met the requirements of this policy. For example, if the meeting is with a legislator, the local agency official should explain whose meals were purchased, what issues were discussed and how those relate to the City's adopted legislative positions and priorities. Members must submit their expense reports within 30 days of an expense being incurred, accompanied by receipts documenting each expense. Restaurant receipts, in addition to any credit card receipts, are also part of the necessary documentation. Inability to provide such documentation in a timely fashion may result in the expense being borne by the member. Audits Of Expense Reports. All expenses are subject to verification that they comply with this policy. Reports To Governing Board. At the following City governing body meeting, each official shall briefly report on meetings attended at City expense. If multiple members attended, a joint report maybe made. Compliance With Laws. Members should keep in mind that some expenditures maybe subject to reporting under the Political Reform Act and other laws. All agency expenditures are public records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, among other laws. Violation Of This Policy. Use of public resources or falsifying expense reports in violation of this policy may result in any or all of the following: (1) loss of reimbursement privileges; (2) a demand for restitution to the City; (3) the agency's reporting the expenses as income to the elected official to state and federal tax authorities; (4) civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day and three times the value of the resources used; and (5) prosecution for misuse of public resources. ~: * :~ I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: July 12, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT -USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW AND PRELIIVIINARY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A PHASED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF FOUR OFFICER&D BUILDINGS TOTALING APPRO~MATELY 534,500 SF, 5,500 SF OF ANCILLARY COMMERCIAL SPACE, AND RELATED LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS ON A 15.75 ACRE SITE; TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO RESUBDIVIDE A 15.75 ACRE LOT INTO 5 PARCELS WITH RECIPROCAL PARKING AND ACCESS EASEMENTS THROUGHOUT, AND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW CREATION OF LOTS WHICH DO NOT ABUT A DEDICATED PUBLIC STREET; TYPE C SIGN PERMIT FOR A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM; AND, REQUEST FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Case Nos. PROJECT NO. POS-0019: UPOS-0005, DROS-0043, EIlZOS-0001, SIGNS06-0008, PMOS-0002, PUDOS-0001, TDMOS-0001, & DA05-0004 Applicant: Alexandria Real Estate RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing and take the following action: 1) Adopt a Resolution certifying EIROS-0001, including findings and a statement of overriding considerations for traffic impacts, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and approving UP05-0005, DROS-0043, SIGNS06-0008, PMOS-0002, PUD05-0001 and TDMOS- 0001, including conditions of approval; and 2) Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance to approve Development Agreement DA05-0004. BACKGROUND/D IS CUS S ION (A complete discussion of the proposed project is contained in the attached Planning Commission Staff Reports dated December 1 S, 2005, May 4, 2006 & June I5, 2006.) Project Description The applicant proposes to redevelop the former Georgia Pacific site, located at 249 East Grand Avenue, into acampus-style research & development complex. The project consists of four (4), three- to five Staff Report Subject: 249 East Grand Avenue Project Page 2 story office/R&D buildings totaling approximately 534,500 square feet, 5,500 square feet of ancillary retail space, and a four (4) level parking garage. The requested entitlements include the following: a Conditional Use Permit since the traffic associated with the project will exceed 100 Average Daily Vehicle Trips (ADT) and because the proposed buildings will exceed 60 feet in height; Design Review Approval; a Type C Sign Permit for a comprehensive sign program for the campus; a Transportation Demand Management Plan to encourage a reduction in drive alone trips to the site; a Tentative Parcel Map and Planned Unit Development Permit to divide the 15.75 acre lot into five (5) parcels with reciprocal parking and access easements throughout and to allow one of the lots to not directly abut a public street; and a Development Agreement. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to analyze the environmental issues associated with the proposed project. The EIR has identified impacts which are found to be significant and unavoidable. Consequently, certification of the EIR will require adoption of a statement of overriding considerations, indicating that the benefits of the proj ect outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects. Environmental Analysis Significant Impacts -The Draft_EIR identifies 27 significant or potentially significant impacts. With the exception of three (3) impacts, all related to traffic, mitigation measures are identified to reduce all other impacts to a less than significant level. Of the identified significant traffic impacts, two (2}relate specifically to the intersection ofOyster Point/Gateway/LTS 101 flyover which would degrade the PM peak hour level of service (LOS) from LOS E to LOS F in both the near term and the long term due to this and other approved development within the city. No feasible physical improvements have been identified to fully mitigate this impact. The third identified significant impact relates to cumulative traffic impacts on US 101 due to this and other approved development. The Project cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which balances the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable transportation impacts. It is recommended that the City Council consider the following project benefits in its deliberations: 1. Implementation of General Plan Goals and Policies. The Project implements the City's vision to redevelop former industrial property into higher and more economically sustainable uses. 2. Employment Benefits: The Project would be asource of office/R&D/biotechnology industries in South San Francisco, generating an estimated 1,500 jobs. 3. Campus Development: The Project site plans include generous open space areas, and pedestrian plazas and paths linking the buildings and the parking structure. 4. Economic Benefits: The Project would increase property and other tax revenues to the City. 5. Transportation Demand Management. Although the Project will create unavoidable traffic impacts, the FEIR includes innovative TDM measures to reduce vehicular trips and air pollution, Staff Report Subject: 249 East Grand Avenue Project Page 3 including a broad range of incentives for employees to ride-share, vanpool, ride BART, Caltrain, use shuttles and other transit, ride bicycles, or work from home. The Program would be aggressively managed on an ongoing basis by one or more designated "transportation coordinators" to facilitate wide participation. An earlier Statement of Overriding conditions that was made by the City Council would also apply to the subject project as follows: The City of South San Francisco approved an update to its General Plan and Environmental Impact Report in October 1999. The City Council made a statement of overriding considerations in its approval of the General Plan update because the measures identified to mitigate for traffic congestion along US 101 and for cumulative air quality impacts would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. 2. The 249 East Grand Office/R&D Project would impact some of the same freeway segments that were identified in the General Plan EIR and whose traffic effects could only be partially mitigated. 3. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that was made for approval of the General Plan would also apply to decision-making on the 249 East Grand Office/R&D Proj ect by the City. Development Agreement City Staff and the developer have negotiated the attached draft Development Agreement to clarify and obligate several project features and mitigation measures including trail improvements, public art and TDM reporting and monitoring requirements.. Rails to Trails -The northerly edge of the proj ect site abuts a former rail corridor that is identified in the General Plan as a future bike path (see attached Fig. 4-3), but the property is presently privately owned and not available for immediate conversion to public use. The applicant has agreed to improve the approximately 1,000 ft. long segment of this former rail corridor should it become available for public use during the term of the Development Agreement. If it should not become available the applicant would instead be obligated to provide an equivalent amount of funding to the City to improve substandard portions of the Bay trail. Public Art -The Agreement sets out minimum requirements for the value of public art on site ($540,000) as well as for timing of installation. TDM Monitoring and Reporting -Provisions have been included in the Development Agreement to specifically outline the TDM reporting and monitoring provisions for amulti-building, multi- tenant complex. These provisions are identical to those included in the Bay West Cove Owner Participation Agreements and the Britannia East Grand Development Agreement and are also included in the Proposed Conditions of Approval. Staff Report Subject: 249 East Grand Avenue Project Page 4 Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission held public hearings on the project on December 15, 2005, May 4, 2006 and June 15, 2006 (staff reports and minutes attached). At the initial hearing the Planning Commission noted several concerns, and provided direction to the applicant to refine/revise the proposal. The applicant subsequently revised the plans to address the Commission's concerns. At its June 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the attached resolutions recommending the City Council certify the EIR and approve the project and Development Agreement, with the comment that they would like to see the public art include a prominent water feature visible to the general public from East Grand Avenue. CONCLUSION: The proposed project complies with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan to develop high-quality, well-designed office and R&D developments throughout the northern portion of the East of 101 area. In addition, the project complies with all the development standards and requirements of the P-I Planned Industrial Zone District. An EIR was prepared which thoroughly reviewed and analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Development Agreement and the Proposed Conditions of Approval provide adequate controls to ensure the orderly development of the site. Consequently, Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Adopt a Resolution certifying EIROS-0001, including findings and a statement of overriding considerations for traffic impacts, and approving UPOS-0005, DROS-0043, SIGNS06-0008, PMOS- 0002, PUDOS-0001 and TDMOS-0001 to approve the Use Permit, Design Review, Comprehensive Sign Permit, Parcel Map, Planned Unit Development permit and draft TDM Plan for the 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project, including conditions of approval; and 2) .Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance to approve Development Agreement DA05-0001. By: Approved: u ~ Marty Van Duyn .Nagel Assistant City Manager City Manager Attachment: Draft Resolution Draft Ordinance -Development Agreement General Plan Figure 4-3 December 15, 2005, May 4, 2006 & June 15, 2006 PC Staff Report and Draft Minutes Planning Commission Resolution No. 2654-2006 (CEQA) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2655-2006 (Project &DA) Draft EIR, Partial Revision to the Draft EIR & Final EIR Preliminary TDM Program Plans MVDak RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING UP05-0005, DR05- 0043, SIGNS06-0008, PM05-0002, PUDOS-0001 AND TDM05-0001 TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF AN 15.75 ACRE SITE FOR AN OFFICE/RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE IN THE P-I PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Alexandria Real Estate Equities to approve a 540,000 squaze foot Office/Reseazch and Development Campus including above grade parking gazage and ancillary retail and fitness center ("Project") at 249 East Grand Avenue, in the P-I Planned Industrial Zone District; and WHEREAS, the City determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, The Final EIR (FEIR) for the Project consists of the Focused EIR, the Partial Revision of the Draft Focused EIR, and response to comments made on the Focused EIR and Partial Revision of the Draft Focused EIR, and the Mitigation and Monitoring Program; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR and Partial Revision of the Draft EIR were prepared and each circulated for 45-day public/agency review period from October 6, 2005 through November 21, 2005 and March 28, 2006 to May 12, 2006, respectively; and WHEREAS, notices of the availability of the Draft Focused EIR and Partial Revision of the Draft Focused EIR were published in the San Mateo Times, mailed to property owners within a 300- foot radius of the site, noticed to local agencies and cities, and circulated through the State Clearinghouse; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed meeting during the review period on November 3, 2005 to take public testimony on the Draft Focused EIR; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report reviewed and analyzed the following potential environmental impacts: • Aesthetics including the visual character of the proposed project, including lighting; • Air Quality, including construction dust; -1- • Biological resources; • Geology and Soils, including ground shaking, soil stability, landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction and expansive soils; • Hazardous materials; • Hydrology and Water Quality, including water quality degradation; • Land Use and Planning, including the maximum square footage of development allowed by the General Plan; • Noise; • Public service impacts; • Transportation and Circulation, including trips generated in peak hours, impacts to freeway segments, declines in Level of Service at nearby intersections, and restrictions on parking to reduce congestion; • Utilities, including waxer availability, and impacts to aging wastewater collection facilities and cumulative demand for wastewater treatment capacity; • Project alternatives; and • Cumulative impacts WHEREAS, a Final EIR was prepared, including responses to comments received on the Draft EIR and Partial Revision of the Draft EIR, and sent to agencies and individuals from whom comments on the Draft EIR were received; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the DEIR, Partial Revision of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR at a duly noticed public hearing held on July 12, 2006, and certifies them as objective and accurate documents that reflect the independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and mitigation of the Project's environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Proj ect to reduce identified impacts to a level of less than significant for all but three impacts; and -2- WHEREAS, the proposed mitigation measures for three transportation impacts cannot reduce the impacts to acceptable levels; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopts the required findings of Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines for the Project's significant environmental effects, which effects cannot be reduced to an acceptable level, with regard to transportation impacts; and WHEREAS, the Project cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which balances the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable transportation impacts, and an earlier Statement of Overriding Considerations was made by the City and applies to the Project as follows: 1. The City of South San Francisco approved an update to its General Plan and Environmental Impact Report in October, 1999. The City Council made a statement of overriding considerations in its approval of the General Plan update, because the measures identified to mitigate for traff c congestion along US 101 and regional air pollution would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. 2. The 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project would impact some of the same freeway segments that were identified in the General Plan EIR and whose traffic effects could only be partially mitigated. 3. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that was made for approval of the General Plan would also apply to decision-making on the 249 East Grand Project by the City. 4. Additionally, the Project offers specific benefits as stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted for the Project, as found in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations incorporated herein. WHEREAS, the South San Francisco City Council held duly noticed public hearing on July 12, 2006 to consider the Environmental Impact Report and the proposed Project, including the Use Permit, Design Review application, Type C Sign Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, Planned Unit Development Application, Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Program, Design Review minutes and Development Agreement and finds that: 1. The EIR was independently reviewed and analyzed by the City and reflects the independent judgement of the City as lead agency; and 2. The documents, including, but not limited to, the 1999 General Plan, the 1999 Certified Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Draft Focused EIR for the Project, Partial Revision of the Draft Focused EIR, Final EIR, Response to Comments, Findings and Analysis for Impacts identified in the EIR, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, letter from Stephen Richardson of Alexandria dated -3- June 14, 2006, staff reports and testimony received at public hearings on the environmental documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings on the EIR and the Planning Commission's review thereof. Said documents are located at the Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco. 3. Certain specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the three Project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR, with the exception of the proposed Project, in that: A. The "No Project" Alternative, required for analysis under the California Environmental Act, involves maintaining the site in its existing condition and denying the City of the following opportunities: to improve and make use of an under-utilized site, to provide long-term employment, to receive additional tax revenues, and to enjoy site amenities which are proposed to be financed by the_ Project. B. The ".50 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Alternative", would allow the same mix of office and R&D facilities as in the proposed Project, but in reduced quantity according to incentive-based FAR bonuses and standards in the General Plan. The reduction in Project square footage would help to reduce traffic congestion, water demand and wastewater treatment capacity, but not in a substantial way, for any of the categories of significant impact discussed in the EIR. C. The ".3 9 Floor Area Ratio/Tree Preservation Alternative" would provide half the office and R&D facilities as the proposed Project, which would reduce traffic and parking lower than the Project and would retain 14 existing trees considered protected under the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. However, the Alternative is determined to be infeasible as it does not fulfill project objective number 4, to "Build a project which is viable in the East of 101 Area based upon market conditions and projected service requirements for the Area." WHEREAS, as required by the "Use Permit Procedure" (SSFMC Chapter 20.81}, the "Planned Unit Development Procedure" (SSFMC Chapter 20.84), and the "Minor Subdivision Procedures" (SSFMC Chapter 19.48), the City Council makes the findings contained herein in support of the request to approve a Use Permit, Design, Type C Sign Permit, Parcel Map, Planned Unit Development permit and draft TDM Plan for a Research and Technology Project consisting of 534,500 square feet of research (laboratory} and office space arranged as a campus with shared open space connected by landscaped pedestrian walkways, public art, 5,500 square feet of ancillary retail, restaurant and fitness space, and parking garage on a 15.75 acre site located at 249 East Grand Avenue, and which includes requested exceptions for the number of parking spaces; and, WHEREAS, these findings are based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council which include, but are not limited to: Use Permit Application and plans, including site plans, floor plans, building and garage elevations and landscape plans dated May 4, 2006, prepared by Dowler-Gruman -4- Architects; "Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Program", dated September 1, 2005, prepared by The Hoyt Company; Master Sign Program submitted by Alexandria Real Estate Equities; Tentative Map dated January 2006 prepared by Kier & Wright; 249 East Grand Avenue Environmental Impact Report (Draft Focused EIR, Partial Revision of the Draft Focused EIR and Final EIR Response to Comments); minutes of the Design Review Board meetings of June & August 2005, and April 2006; Planning Commission staff reports dated November 3, 2005, December 15, 2005, May 4, 2006 and June 15, 2006; testimony received at the November 3, 2005, December 15, 2005, May 4, 2006 and June 15, 2006 Planning Commission meetings; City Council staff reports dated July 12, 2006; and testimony received at the July 12, 2006 City Council meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of South San Francisco hereby certifies EIR OS-0001, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds as follows: 1. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The General Plan specifically contemplates the proposed type of project and the suitability of the site for development was analyzed thoroughly in the environmental document prepared for the project. 2. The project is consistent with the General Plan which designates the property for a mix of Business and Technology Park. Office/R&D use is considered an appropriate use under this designation. Additionally, the category provides for a floor area ratio (FAR) of .50, with permissible increases to a maximum FAR of 1.0 based on implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program as outlined in the City's TDM Ordinance. The proposed FAR of .79 requires that the applicant prepare, implement and maintain a TDM Plan designed to achieve a 32% shift to alternative modes of travel other than single occupant vehicles. Guiding Policy 3.5-G-3 -Promote campus-style biotechnology, high technology, and research and development uses specifically supports development of the proposed project. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan which the General Plan identifies as the guide for detailed implementation of General Plan policies. Policy LU-16 supports development of campus settings and is consistent with the Design Policies of the East of 101 Area Plan. 4. With the exception of parking, the proposed project meets or exceeds the minimum standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance which designates the site P-I Planned Industrial. The exception for the number of parking spaces is warranted based on the following: a. The project is of a superior quality which offsets any potential adverse impacts of the requested parking space reduction. The Design Review Board and the Planning Commission find the proposal of very high quality -5- in terms of architecture, building materials, site design and provision of landscaped pedestrian walkways and public art. b. The parking exception will serve to support and promote the TDM program required of the project. c. The project provides 91% of the required parking spaces and is required, through the TDM program, to achieve an alternative mode use of 32%. the site is not anticipated to result in a shortfall of on-site parking or create the need for overflow parking off-site. The parking ratio is supported by studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers which identify an average need of 2.79 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space, and which support a lower ratio far research and development use based on its lower employment densities. d. The parking standards proposed will be adequate for the proposed uses because of the offered alternative solutions for providing and managing parking. The project is required to implement a Transportation Demand Management Program on an on-going basis over the life of the project with a required alternative mode shift of 32%. The aggressive TDM requirements required of the project, the fact that similar reduced standards have been accepted and/or successfully applied within several large campus developments in the city, including the Gateway Specific Pian District, Bay West Cove Specific Plan District, Britannia East Grand and the Genentech Campus, and the studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) all support a reduced parking standard. e. The reduced parking rate reinforces the overall efforts of the City's General Plan and the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance which encourage reduced parking standards as an effective tool in encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles. f. The number of parking spaces provided by the reduced standard will serve all existing, proposed and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would the standard number of parking spaces required by Chapter 20.74. As described above, there is ample evidence to support the proposed parking reduction, and there is added concern that an overabundance of parking could have a deleterious effect on the goals and objectives of the City's TDM efforts since such would serve as a disincentive to use of alternative modes of transportation. 5. Transportation Demand Management a. The proposed TDM measures are feasible and appropriate for the project, considering the proposed use or mix of uses and the project's location, size -6- and hours of operation. Sufficient measures have been included in the plan to achieve a projected 32% alternative mode usage, as required. b. The performance guarantees provided in the plan will ensure that the target 32% alternative mode use will be achieved and maintained. Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan, which must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit, shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys and triennial reports. Additionally, the applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program costs associated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM program. 6. Tentative Parcel Map and Planned Unit Development a. The proposed tentative parcel map is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the PI Planned Industrial Zone District. The proposed parcels exceed the minimum lot size and dimension requirements the district. Parking requirements and Floor Area ratio allocations will be satisfied through cross easements, allowing the requirements to be met in the aggregate rather than on each individual parcel b. The tentative parcel map complies with the requirements of SSFMC Title 19 (Subdivision Ordinance) and with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. c. The design and improvements of the tentative parcel map are not in conflict with any existing public easements. d. The requested exception to allow lots which do not abut a dedicated public street is warranted since the map will include cross access easements to provide each lot direct access to a public street consistent with the intent of the requirement. e. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of land use proposed. 7. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project which will reduce all but three identified impacts to a less than significant level. The City Council adopts the required findings of Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines for three of the Project's significant environmental effects, which effects cannot be reduced to an acceptable level, with regard to transportation impacts. The proposal will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of -7- the community, nor unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. 9. Subject to minor modifications, included as conditions of approval, the proposal complies with the City's Design Guidelines. 10. The Owner and City have negotiated a Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq. The Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit C, sets forth the duration, property, project criteria and other required information identified in Government Code section 65865.2. Additionally, the Agreement requires the Owner to provide public art and trail improvements. Based on the findings in support of the Use Permit, the City Council finds that the Development Agreement, vesting a project for a campus style development of three Research and Development buildings, is consistent with the General Plan and consistent with the applicable zoning regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of South San Francisco hereby approves a Use Permit, Design Review, Type C Sign Permit, Parcel Map, Planned Unit Development permit and draft TDM Plan for the 249 East Grand Avenue Project subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit D, and by separate Ordinance, approve Development Agreement DA05-0001 as provided in Exhibit C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. ~ * ~ I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council for the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held an the day of 2006 by the following vote: ' AYES NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: 841732_1 City Clerk -8- EXHIBIT B FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OS-0001 FOR THE 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE OFFICER&D PROJECT Findings must be made by the City prior to approval of the Project, pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. Under CEQA, the City is required to make written findings explaining how it has dealt with each alternative and each significant environmental impact identified in the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (DEIR}, October 2005, and the Partial Revision of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (PRDEIR), March 2006. The DEIR, PRDEIR and responses to comments on the DEIR and PRDEIR comprise the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). All mitigation measures are required and may not be substituted except in accordance with state law. ALTERNATIVE 1: NO-PROJECT No impacts are associated with the No-Project Alternative because the Project site would remain vacant. Therefore, none of the impacts identified for the proposed Project would occur. Finding: No-Project Alternative Infeasible The City fmds the No-Project Alternative to be infeasible because it would not support the General Plan in improving vacant and underutilized properties in the East of 101 Area of the City. The No-Project Alternative also would not achieve the social, environmental and economic goals of the Project to convert the site to acampus-planned office/R&D commercial project; to increase employment opporhuuries in the community, and to increase tax and other revenues to the City and the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. ALTERNATIVE 2: 0.50 FLOOR AREA RATIO ALTERNATIVE The 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would allow the same mix of facilities as the proposed Project, but in reduced quantity. The alternative would reduce the allowed square footage of gross officelR&D space by about 35%. The reduction in Project square footage would help to reduce traffic congestion. Compared to the proposed Project, the 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would result in the following types of impacts: Aesthetics: Light and glare impacts generated by the proposed 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would be essentially the same as those generated by the ]-9- Project. • ~' Qu~ty: Construction dust generated by the 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would be same as those generated by the Project. • Biological resources: The 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would result in the removal of all trees on site (and installation of a new landscaping) as would the Project. • Geology and Soils: The 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would be developed under the same geotechnical conditions as the proposed Project. However, accepted structural design practices required by the City should mitigate the danger of earthquake-related instability and expansive soils to less than significant levels. • Hazardous materials: The Project and the 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would have the same potential to house businesses that are likely to store and transport both hazardous and potentially hazardous materials that would eventually require disposal and would be governed by the same local, state and federal regulations. Under both alternatives the development could potentially conflict with the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan and would necessitate the same FAA approvals. • Hydrology: The Project and the 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would have the same potential to degrade surface water quality during construction and operations. • Noise: The Project and the 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would result in similar construction related noise impacts although the impacts related to the Alternative would be proportionally less due to somewhat smaller structures. Mitigation measures would be the same as for the Project. • Transportation and Circulation: Levels of service at study intersections would be proportionally lower than the proposed Project, but not low enough to result in less than significant traffic impacts. Mitigation measures for the traffic impacts of the 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would be the same as for the Project, except that TDM mode shift requirements would be reduced to from 32% to 28%. • Utilities: The 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would use about 65% of the water and wastewater generated by the Project and have an impact on the City's sanitary sewer system. They would also have the same mitigation measures. • Cumulative impacts: The 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would have the same cumulative impacts to transportation as the proposed Project. Both would also create unavoidable impacts to cumulative traffic conditions. Finding: Reduced 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Not Beneficial -10- The City fmds the 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative inappropriate because it does not significantly reduce the impacts of the Project. As discussed above, impacts of the alternative would be similar to the impacts of the proposed Project, and mitigation measures would not change. ALTERNATIVE 3: 0.39 Floor Area Ratio Under the 0.39 Floor Area Ratio Alternative the project's FAR would be reduced from the currently proposed 0.78 FAR to a square footage of 270,000, while ensuring that the 14 significant trees on the site are incorporated into the Project's landscaping plan. Compared with the proposed Project, this alternative would result in the following types of impacts: Finding: 0.39 Floor Area Ratio Alternative Infeasible The City finds that the 0.39 Floor Area Ratio Alternative is infeasible as it does not meet the project objective to build a project which is viable in the East of 101 Area based upon market conditions and projected service requirements for the Area. The project sponsor has documented the need for a higher floor area ratio, as designed in the proposed project, to respond to market demand for Class-A, Mid-Rise Facilities, and large scale campus developments, as well as to justify the investment. Alexandria has indicated that they do not consider the 0.39 Floor Area Ratio Alternative a viable option and would not undertake such a prof ect. -11- Findings for Certification of the EIR with Preferred Protect AESTHETICS Impact 4-1: Light and Glare. The indoor and outdoor lights associated with the project would potential be substantial sources of day and nighttime glare. Mitigation Measure 4-1: Glare Minimization Design Standards. Lighting designs should employ fixtures that would cast light in a downward direction, and building materials should not be sources of substantial glare. Finding 4-1: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-1 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. AIR QUALITY Impact 5-1: Construction Dust and Exhaust. Construction activities would generate exhaust emission from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. Mitigation Measure 5-1: Dust Suppression Procedures. The applicant shall incorporate dust control measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Finding 5.1: Implementation of Mitigation Measure S-1 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 6-1: Removal of Protected Trees. Construction at the Project site would require cutting down 104 trees, 14 of which are considered protected trees under South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 13.30 (Tree Preservation Ordinance). Mitigation Measure 6-1: Tree Replacement. The applicant must obtain a tree removal permit prior to removing any Protected Tree. A tree cutting permit requires replacement of a tree with three 24-inch box or two 36-inch box size trees for each tree removed. Finding 6-1: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6-1 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact 7-1: Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a high probability that the proposed development would be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from an earthquake during its design Life. -12- Mitigation Measure 7-1 a: Compliance with Uniform Building Code and California Building Code. Incorporation of seismic construction standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure. Finding 7-1 a: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7-1 a is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 7-lb: Compliance with recommendations of a design level geotechnical report. Proper foundation engineering and construction in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer shall be included in the Project. The feasibility level geotechnical investigation was completed without a development plan. Following development of a building plan, a design level geotechnical investigation shall be completed with recommendations specific to the proposed structures. At a minimum, the structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the feasibility level geotechnical report adopted from the California Building Code. Site specific seismic response criteria shall be developed as part of the design level Geotechnical Investigation Finding 7-lb: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7-lb is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 7-lc: Obtain a building permit and complete final design review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake Finding 7-lc: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7-lc is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 7-2: Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading in a sensitive area near the San Francisco Bay. During construction, grading would disturb soil and displace topsoil that could potentially impact local drainages and could eventually impact Colma Creek and the Bay. Mitigation Measure 7-2a: Erosion Control Plan. The Project applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The Plan shall include winterization, dust, erosion and pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, with sediment basin design calculations. The Erosion -13- Control Plan shall describe the "best management practices" (BMPs) to be used during and after construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Finding 7-2a: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7-2a is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 7-2b: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Applicant shall file a SWPPP prior to start of construction including best management practices to reduce soil erosion. Finding ~-2b: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7-2b is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 7-3: Unstable Soils. The site contains shallow groundwater and variable depth of fill soils which could become unstable if improperly compacted, stockpiled, or excavated during grading. Mitigation Measure 7-3: Construction in Accordance with Design Level Geotechnical Investigation. A design level geotechnical investigation shall be completed that includes subsurface investigation in areas now occupied by structures. The design level geotechnical report shall include recommendations for site preparation and grading, foundation design, retaining wall design parameters, concrete slabs-on- grade, pavement section design, surface and subsurface drainage measures and site specific seismic response criteria. Finding 7-3: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7-3 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 7-4: Expansive Soils. According to the feasibility level geotechnical report, potentially expansive clay soils were encountered. Expansive clay soils may shrink and swell, resulting in damaged foundations, concrete slabs, pavements and other improvements. Mitigation Measure 7-4: Design and Construction in Accordance with Design Level Geotechnical Investigation. The design level geotechnical report shall recommend mitigation measures for expansive clay soils. Finding 7-4: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7-4 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. AA7,ARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 8-1: Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Due to the nature and design of the proposed facilities there are likely to be both hazardous and -14- potentially hazardous materials stored and used on the site that will eventually require disposal. Mitigation Measure 8-la: Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. Businesses occupying the development must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. Finding 8-la: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8-la is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 8-lb: Hazardous Waste Generator Program. Prior to operations, businesses should check with the SMCEHD if they need to register in the hazardous waste generator program. Finding 8-lb: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8-lb is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 8-lc: Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations. All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures including the posting of placards, signs and other identifying information. Finding 8-lc: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8-lc is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 8-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. Operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of hazardous materials since the site is proposed to include Class A laboratory facilities where hazardous materials maybe store, used, and disposed of. Mitigation Measure 8-2: California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP). Future businesses at the development shall need to check the state and federal lists of regulated substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Should businesses qualify for the program they must complete a CaIARP registration form and submit it to Environmental Health. Following registration, they must submit a risk management plan (RMP) designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (T~ of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Finding 8-2: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8-2 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 8-3: Emissions Near Schools. The Early Years Children's Center is located at 371 Allerton Avenue, approximately 400 feet east and downwind of the northeast corner -15- of the property. It is likely that hazardous chemicals will be stored and used on the Project site which could potentially spill, mix, ignite, or volatilize and cause a hazardous emission near the childcare center. Mitigation Measure 8-3: Meet standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Each independent R&D facility operating on the property shall adhere to BAAQMD standards and periodically demonstrate compliance with all other local, state and federal requirements for emissions. Each facility shall also meet OSHA and California OSHA standards for R&D facilities. Finding 8-3: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8-3 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 8-4: Handling of hazardous wastes within one-quarter mile of a school. The Early Years Children's Center is located at 371 Allerton Avenue, approximately 400 feet east and downwind of the northeast corner of the property. It is likely that hazardous chemicals will be stored and used on the Project site, in close proximity to occupants of the childcare center. Mitigation Measure 8-4: Regulation of hazardous materials in accordance with the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Programs. Registration and regulation in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, Hazardous Waste Generator Plan Program, and California Accidental Release Program. In addition, the applicant shall establish an early wanting and evacuation plan for the child care center in the case of a hazardous materials release. Finding 8-4: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8-4 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 8-5: Potential Interference with Emergency Response Plan. The proposed project would interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan if on-site circulation does not allow for adequate emergency vehicle access. Mitigation Measure 8-5: Fire Department Review. The applicant shall submit construction plans for Fire Department review, and shall establish temporary alternative emergency routes necessary for the duration of the construction project. Finding 8-5: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8-5 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 8-6: Airport Land Use Plan. The proposed prof ect would be located within the jurisdiction covered by the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan for San Francisco International Airport. -16- Mitigation Measure 8-6: FAA Regulations Compliance. Public Utilities Code, Section 21659, "Hazards Near Airports Prohibited" prohibits structural hazards near airports. To ensure compliance with this requirement and Federal Aviation guidelines the developer shall submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) to the Federal Aviation Administration. Finding 8-6: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8-6 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. HYDROLOGY Impact 9-1: Site Conditions May Be Unsuitable for Infiltration. Appropriate evaluation of site conditions is critical to the effectiveness of infiltration trenches. Mitigation Measure 9-1: Evaluate Project Site for Feasibility of Infiltration as Water Quality BMP. The use of infiltration trenches at the Project site may be limited by several factors, including soil characteristics, distance to groundwater, and proposed land uses. The feasibility of infiltration BMPs at the Project shall be evaluated. Finding 9-1: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 9-2: Potential Contamination of Local Groundwater. The Project site is located within a groundwater basin as defined by the DWR. The potential for groundwater contamination from infiltration BMPs must be carefully considered. Mitigation Measure 9-2: Preparation and Implementation of Project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during and after construction. Finding 9-2: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-2 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 9-3: No Treatment of Runoff for Parking Garage. No water quality BMPs have been proposed for the parking garage. Mitfgation Measure 9-3: Implement Water Quality BMPs for Stormwater Runoff From Parking Garage. The Project applicant shall implement storm water quality BMPs for treatment of runoff from Parking Garage. Finding 9-3: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 9-4: Site Drains to Colma Creek Flood Control Channel. The Project drains to the Colma Creek flood control channel but the site is not located within the Co1ma Creek Flood Control Zone. -17- Mitigation Measure 9-4: The Project applicant shall Reroute All Flows to Southeastern Corner of Site and Out of the Colma Creek Watershed. The Project applicant shall investigate the feasibility of routing all site runoff to the existing drop inlet located at East Grand Avenue just below the southeast corner of the site. This would entail designing the Project drainage infrastructure to drain to the southeast. This configuration would likely increase peak flows to the southeastern drainage system and would require evaluation of the existing drainage infrastructure from Littlefield Avenue to the point of discharge at San Francisco Bay. Inadequate capacity in the southeastern drainage system may require offsite drainage improvements. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that Project design has mitigated the potential impact to a level of less than significant. Finding 9-4: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-4 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. NOISE Impact ZO-1: Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. Mitigation Measure 10-1: Noise Abatement. The applicant shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance which may require installation of noise controls on construction equipment. Finding 10-1: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 10-1 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 13-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The Project would exceed 100 trips during peak hours. The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) requires that local jurisdictions ensure that the developer will mitigate all new peak hour trips generated by the Project. Mitigation Measure 13-1: Transportation Demand Management Plan. The DEIR requires implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan using programs acceptable to C/CAG to reduce vehicular trips. Finding 13-1: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 13-1 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The TDM program must be implemented by the Project sponsors as a condition of issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and once implemented, will be an on-going for the occupied life of the development. -18- Impact 13-2: Freeway Level of Service. The addition of traffic generated by approved development in the year 2008 Baseline Without Project would cause two freeway segments to operate at LOS F, both during the AM peak hour). The project would increase volumes by more than one percent on both of these segments. In addition, Project traffic would result in one segment of the freeway changing from LOS E to LOS F operation. Mitigation Measure 13-2: The DEIR requires the Project to implement a TDM program to min;mi~e potential increases in freeway traffic. Finding 13.2: Implementation of the TDM measures would not reduce impacts to less than significant levels, so the impact remains significant and unavoidable and will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition for Project approval. Impact 13-3: Year 2008 Intersection Impacts. The Project would cause a decline in LOS below level "D" at the following six intersections: • East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue • East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue • South Airport Boulevard/LTtah avenue • Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue • South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue • Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard /U.S.SB Flyover Off-Ramp. Mitigation Measure 13.3: Intersection Modifications. Modifications are recommended for the following intersections: East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Intersection Prohibit left turns from Allerton Avenue to East Grand Avenue until the intersection is signalized-or-Cut back the hillside on the northeast corner of the intersection to improve sight lines to/from the east to at least 400 feet. Stripe a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach. This will require removal of parking on the south side of East Grand Avenue. Provide a fair share contribution towards having the intersection signalized by the time of project occupancy-or-provide signalization when construction is complete and receive paybacks from other local developments as they are constructed. (All needed for Base Case operation.) Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS B-13.2 seconds average vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS C-25.6 seconds average vehicle delay East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue Intersection Widen the northbound Littlefield Avenue approach to provide two intersection approach lanes. Stripe as one exclusive right turn lane and a combined left/through/right turn lane (needed for Base Case operation). Resultant Operation -19- AM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.4 seconds average vehicle delay South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue Intersection Restripe one of the northbound South Airport Boulevard through lanes as a shared through/right turn lane. Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS C-32.1 seconds average vehicle delay Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Intersection Sign the intersection as anall-way-stop. Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS B-14.1 seconds average vehicle delay South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Mitchell/Mitchell Avenue Intersection Add a second through lane on the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach (needed for acceptable Base Case operation). Add a second right turn lane on the southbound Gateway Boulevard approach. Resultant Operation PM Peak Hour: LOS C-28.2 seconds average vehicle delay Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp No feasible physical improvements beyond those included in the East of 101 TIP have been identified at this study intersection when it would exceed LOS standards. The impact at this intersection wauld remain significant and unavoidable. Finding 13-3: Implementation of the intersection improvements would reduce impacts to a less than significant level for 5 of the six identified intersections. However, for the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp location no feasible physical improvements beyond those included in the East of 101 TIP have been identified when it would exceed LOS standards. The impact at this intersection would remain significant and unavoidable and will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition for Project approval. Impact 13.4: Year 2020 Intersection Impacts. Project traffic would produce a significant impact.. at the intersection of Oyster Point BoulevardlGateway Boulevard/US 101 Southbound Flyover Off=Ramp. Mitigation Measure 13.4: No physical improvements considered feasible have been identified to improve operation to Base Case conditions or better. Finding 13.4: The impact at this intersection would remain significant and unavoidable and will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition for Project approval. -20- Impact 13.5: Year 2008 and 2020 Project Intersection Queuing Impacts. Project traffic would not increase acceptable year 2008 95th percentile Base Case queuing at any of the three analyzed off-ramps to unacceptable levels during either the AM or PM peak hours. Project traffic would not increase acceptable year 2020 95th percentile Base Case queuing at any of the three analyzed off-ramps to unacceptable levels during either the AM or PM peak traffic hours, but would increase AM peak hour volumes more than 2% at the northbound off-ram intersection to South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane, where 95th percentile Base Case volumes would already be exceeding available storage. Mitigation Measure 13.5: Signal Phasing Adjustment. Adjust signal phasing at S. Airport Blvd/US 101 Northbound Ramps/Wondercolor Lane to mitigate Base Case AM peak hour off-ramp queuing. This would also provide acceptable Base Case + Project 95th percentile off-ramp queuing and intersection level of service. Finding 13.5: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 13.5 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 13-6: Project Driveways. The westerly driveway intersection along East Grand Avenue is currently signalized, and includes a 100-foot-long left turn lane on the eastbound approach to the site. During the AM peak hour, the 95th percentile queue of inbound traffic using this left turn lane could extend about 275 feet in both 2008 and 2020, blocking the flow of eastbound traffic. Mitigation Measurel3-6: Lane Extension. Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach to the Project's signalized entrance by 200 feet. Finding 13.6: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 13.6 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Impact 13-7: Internal circulation. A two-lane loop road is proposed to circle the campus of four buildings, connecting to the two driveways accessing East Grand Avenue and to Cabot Road through the parking garage. There are eight parking aisle connections to the loop road that intersect at 45 to 60 degrees rather than a preferred 90 degrees. In addition, parking and backing maneuvers to/from some of the parking stalls near many of the 45- to 60- degree connections could impact traffic flow on the loop road. Mitigation Measure 13-7: Parking Revisions. Modify the site plan to eliminate parking stalls that will result in parking or backing maneuvers on the project loop road and channelize 30- to 45-degree parking aisle connections with the loop road to 80- or 90-degree connections. Finding 13.7: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 13.7 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. -21- Impact 13-8: Site Parking. The Project proposes to provide 91.5% of the parking supply required by South San Francisco City code. South San Francisco promotes reduction in parking from City zoning standards as a way to support trip reduction goals. Mitigation Measure 13-8. No Mitigation required. Finding 13-8. No mitigation is required to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. Impact 13-9: On-site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. No sidewalk connection is proposed from the site to the Cabot Road sidewalk. Mitigation Measure 13-9. System Improvements. Provide a sidewalk connecting Cabot Way with the internal campus sidewalk system, or to a garage elevator which will provide access to the internal campus sidewalk system. Finding 13.9: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 13.9 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 1-22- Exhibit B to Resolution STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the applicable economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). To approve the project, decision makers must make a "statement of overriding considerations," setting forth reasons why the particular benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effect. A decision-making agency's determination must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The City of South San Francisco has prepared and certified an FEIR for the proposed 249 East Grand Avenue Project that satisfies the requirements of CEQA. The following adverse impacts of the Project in the South San Francisco area are considered significant and unavoidable, based on the DEIR, PRDEIR, FEIR, and the findings discussed previously in Sections 2 and 3 of Exhibit A: 1. Impact 13-2: Freeway Level of Service. The addition of traffic generated by _ ~ approved development in the year 2008 Baseline Without Project would cause two freeway segments to operate at LOS F, (both during the AM peak hour). The project would increase volumes by more than one percent on both of these segments. In addition, Project traffic would result in one segment of the freeway changing from LO S E to LO S F operation. Mitigation Measure 13-2: The Final Environmental Impact Report, which includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Partial Revision to the Drift Environmental Impact Report requires the Project to implement an aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program designed to achieve a 32% alternative mode shift in the project and thereby to minimize potential increases in freeway traffic. The TDM Plan shall contain all Required Measures and Additional Measures contained in the City of South San Francisco's TDM Ordinance, South San Francisco Municipal Code section 20.120. The Project applicant is subject to penalties for non-compliance. Implementation and achievement of thirty two percent alternative mode use would lessen the impact but not fully mitigate it to a less than significant level. Therefore, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. 2. Impact 13-3: Year 2008 Intersection Impacts. Traffic generated by the Project would cause a greater than two percent increase in traffic during the AM peak hour (5.8%) at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard _Zg_ 1 /U.S.SB Flyover Off-Ramp, a location with unacceptable base case Level of Service (LOS E). Mitigation Measure 13.3: No feasible physical improvements beyond those included in the East of 101 TIP have been identified at this study intersection when it would exceed LOS standards. The impact at this intersection would remain significant and unavoidable. 3. Impact 13.4: Year 242a Intersection Impacts. Project traffic would produce a significant impact at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/L7S 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp. Project traffic would contribute a greater than two percent increase in traffic (4.4%) to this intersection which is projected to degrade from an unacceptable LOS E to an unacceptable LOS F. Mitigation Measure 13.4: No physical improvements considered feasible have been identified to improve operation at this intersection to Base Case conditions or better. However, Applicant will be required to pay City traffic fees (oyster Point Overpass Fees and East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee) for area wide traffic improvements and will be required to implement an aggressive TDM Plan. Nevertheless, the impact at this intersection would remain significant and unavoidable. Because of the Project's overriding benefits, the City is approving the Project despite the above significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. In deciding to approve the Project, the City has considered both unavoidable and unmitigated significant environmental impacts and, although the City believes that unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR will be substantially Lessened by the mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, the City recognizes that approval of the Project will result in certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects. The City finds that, to the extent the adverse or potentially adverse impacts set forth above have not been mitigated to a less than significant level, specific economic, social, legal, environmental, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh its significant effects on the environment. The City fmds that any and each of the following considerations, in and of itself, is sufficient to approve the Project despite any one or more of the unavoidable impacts identified, and that each of the overriding considerations is adopted with respect to each of the impacts individually, and that each consideration is severable from any other consideration should one consideration be shown to be legally insufficient for any reason. The following benefits of the 249 East Grand Avenue Project outweigh the foregoing, unavoidable environmental impacts and support approval of the Project: -24- 2 1. Implementation of General Plan Goals and Policies. The Project implements the City's vision to redevelop former industrial property into higher and more economically sustainable uses. The existing site was formerly occupied by a large industrial building used to manufacture paper and cazdboazd products. Construction of the Project will replace an outdated under-used industrial property with a total of approximately 540,000 gross squaze feet of mixed office/research and development and biotechnology industries, in four buildings. Redevelopment of the site will 1) facilitate construction of a viable biotechnology research campus with fully landscaped pedestrian trails and open space 2) make the site more aesthetically pleasing and 3) result in a higher and better use of existing land within the East of 1 O1 Area; and, 2. Consistency with the General Plan: The South San Francisco General Plan, adopted in 1999 and as amended thereafter, encourages biotechnology uses in the East of 101 Plan Area. The proposed Project is a campus style research and development/office project that implements the City's goals of revitalizing underutilized properties and growing a highly educated work force; and, 3. Employment Benefits: The Project would be a source of office/R&D/biotechnical industries in South San Francisco, generating jobs within 540,000 gross square feet of office/R&D space; and, 4. Campus Development: The Project site plans include generous open space areas, pedestrian plazas and paths inter-linking the buildings containing research and development, offices and parking structures; and, 5. Economic Benefits: The Project would increase property and other tax revenues from the Project site to the City; and, 6. Transportation Demand Management. Although the Project will create unavoidable traffic impacts, the FEIR includes innovative mitigation measures to reduce vehicular trips and air pollution. The measures take the form of a "Transportation Demand Management" program which includes a broad range of incentives for employees to ride-shaze, vanpool, ride BART, Caltrain, shuttles, and other transit, ride bicycles, or work from home. The Program would be aggressively managed on an ongoing and monitoring basis by "transportation coordinators" to facilitate wide participation; and, 7. Best Use of Ezisting Property. The Project would provide a beneficial mix of office, R&D and biotechnical industries, redevelopment of a former manufacturing site and develop a project that is more aesthetically suitable for the surrounding uses and that will generate increased property and use taxes for the City which outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts. The City Council therefore adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for the 249 East Grand Avenue Project. Additionally, because the City has previously made a -25- 3 Statement of Overriding Considerations to approve the South San Francisco General Plan Update (Dyett &Bhatia, June; 1999} which caused some of the same unavoidable impacts as the proposed Project, that previous Statement of Overriding Considerations would support approval of this Project. In particular, the General Plan EIR (Dyett & Bhatia, September, 1999) identified measures to mitigate for traffic congestion along US 101 but found that such impacts could not be reduced to Iess than significant levels. The 249 East Grand Avenue Project would impact some of the same freeway segments that were identified in the General Plan EIR and whose traffic and air quality effects could only be partially mitigated. Therefore, the statement of overriding considerations that was made for approval of the General Plan Update would also apply to action on the 249 East Grand Avenue Project by the City and the fmdings related thereto re-adopted to supplement the record for this Statement of Overriding Considerations for the 249 East Grand Avenue Project. -26- 4 GA f/.~(~~{ 1"~ : l ti~ V `+ A - 4 ~ _ V' ,, i ~ ~ bA ~ ~ ~ o ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ !p~~~ o ~ ~ W ry. ~~ li V] ~° ~ ~ '`~ ~ ,~ U a ~' ~ °'° ~ o ~ .~ ' ,~ ' L~ , e~ °A ~ ~ o : q ~ O U ~~ I - D ~ v ~ W V Z N . ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ '. r FBI ~'y Q O 'd ~i :.. Q'9 ~ _. I ~ _ ~ ~ ,y _ ~ C7 ~ 'v J a., Ll. ~ ~ ~ m - ~ d = ~ O O ~ L ~ ~ A ~ t ~ ~ o ~ cAa" ~ k '~ ~ ~ . ~ ' v ~ ~ ayi " : C7 ~ J o c ~ o p. ~ rh v ~ i- n ~ A. , LL 0 N N ~ ~ u O 'C H ~ ~ cd ~ ~ ~ W - ~ ~ N O bA ~ `° ~; • ~ m ~ o a ~ :: O ~ ,,,,, .j o .~ ,Q ~ ~ ~ v o N °' u ~ Q' ~ eC ca ~ ~ ..aC ~ u u ~ :~ ~ ~ ^ ~~ ~ ~ m ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' b ~ o ~ baJ n . ~ ~ .a ~ , , o ~, o -d ~ ~ ' , •~ ~ c ~ ~ • c o d o ~ C ~ l ~ ~ N • - j + o c _ ~ ~ y ,__ ~ ~ F. o ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ,~ ~ O ~ n, .~ ~ U r ~ • i ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ld ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ r - ~ ~ ~ N 8 ~ ~ ~ ° H o a ~ m _ ~ ~ a A ~ U b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'ti ~.~ N ^ ~ ~ ,, ao H "d ' ~ ti ,~0 O m V ~ ~ '.~ N ~ ~~ bA ed h ~ ~ ~ ~ t.11 0 dN+ id O ~ N ~ ~ 61 ~ O ~ ~"+ ~ ~ ~ ~ cU6 ~ ~ ~ ~ i.+ 'b .H~+ ~ ~ • h 1~ ~ ~ N •'~ u ~ b ~ `~ ~ wd c ~ ~ tl N .p c o ~ ~ ~ v V ' ~ ~ A ~' ~+ O " ' ~ ' p U O ~. ~ ~ ;~ d . a t ~ . ;~ N ~ v aq ~ ~ u ~ ,~ o ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ w o a N ~ .x c b m ~ N ~ o ~~ - ~ ~ uy '~ ~ ,yam,: ~ ~ ~ }J N ~ ~ ~ ~ F o ~ ~ ~ O U ~ vi LL ~ m _ '~ ~ O ~ ~ '.7y ' ~ C V C ~ r . v u c M r J w C~ 4 W J Z_ 1 F-- V..~ 1 O Q' Z Q W O~ N -27- J M :~ _ II~ c,- °f ~ 1.„ c _ ~~~ _ ~;_ 'd~. u; tp: ~~ ~_ ++_. •~, ~_ ~..~ J Q Z I w O d Z Q W D~ '~T N ', w O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° N ~ a o •~ ~ ,-. cVa „ • ~ v h .q v .~ o o ~ ° ~ q •a N ~ H a ~ y ~ 'S7 ~ L~r ~ D. O ' y 3 .yy 61 ~ w ~ ~ ~, ~~ u .~ „~a v ~ p ,.d ~ y ~ y 0 ~ ~ 'C7 eta ~ ,~ ~ Aa .~ ~ q ce r~u" vii a o~ ~' ~ w` C ~A 0r ,~ n. ~ lea .~.~ ... ~ w ~ .~ v ~ ~ ~ •.n o ~ H c• ,~ :~ ~ o ~cja ~ •n V L1 ~ i.i y ~ ~ h ~ i~ • ~ N ? ~ ~ (lj y ~ o o y ~ a~ „ w _ ~+ -c ~y ~~~11 ~ ~ Q y ~ ~ ~ 1~ y ~ ~ x ~ ~ o ,,., ~ ~ ~ ~ v h N s • W • • • • • O • • ~ -28- /Q ~.J Z w Z Q Z O Z Z O Q o: W ~"' Q S U °b ~ ~ 'J' i "r,,:zF 11 I ~ ~: U € ° ~ ~ : ~' ~ ~ ~ 0 o .:.rL ~~ ,~ ~ z_ ~ . ~.,, ,: 4` J 1 I .~ o _: .~. D a ~, .~ ~ ~ o- U O+ 1 ~ ti ~% ~ ~ ~ ^_ ~, , - A ~ ~ , ~ C7 { z ~~ ~_ ~.. ~,_. ' r~ . W ~ N H N O ~ ~ o o ~ o ~ a u . ~ o ~ ~n ,~ ~ ~o N 7'-I O OJ ~j~j y~...11 ~~ ~ i ~ C y ce v AA o~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ Q ~ - y o ~ C ~ o y c y ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ v ' •~ ~ v ~ u ~ o ~ 3 H ~ t d H Oz~" ~ ' y V O Cr U O" .OyJ uu yy N p N ~ V O ~ ~.I n CL1" a,, O ~ U ~ v GC U ~ e~~ p a~ O U A.1 ~7 ~,Cy+ ~ 3 b4 a~ y 4w'a ~ ~ ~ td '~ p.l ~' U m d ,~ a'7 • C "C7 _O p " ~ O A "D d ~ .1°i d ~ ~ R+ ~ ~ a. A+ + ~ ~ ~ + ~ - 0 ~ y ~ id ~++ H ~ r.y 50 Q ~I..I ~ i~+ . ~.1 ~ ~ •:.J • a ° 1 ~ ~ ~W ~ o r7 • ~ rn y~g~o w ~ e~ U _ t4 ~ 7~ ~ U D C ~ • w ~ ~ .D y C ~ C b ~ ' Q ~ , O y U rn to C ~ OJ to O ~ d '~ O ~ U ~ e U Q+ 'b .D 'ice .C o~+ 'y •y7 N O .p ~+ [ ~ ~ ~ A. L: 'p ~ ."i ~.~. ed N C". ~ '~' fV u ~ y A., CL-` O C as • ~. ~ rr ~ O '~ ~ O O ~ .ti p 0 ~ .~ ~ [ O N i.~ ~ W y ..,i O •b ~ ~ ~ i .~' ~ ~' ~ ~ O S: ~ o ~ a~ L O ~ ~ ' - _- - - -- ~ - H i ~y ~ ~ • ~ y~ ~ ^~i w ~ ~ ~ ~ N Cd y •~ fA ~"'1 Cutl y "C3 O ~ Al Q~ Q ~ ~ U '~ ^IIi C p L'i ~ ~ 'd }v.~0 r 7{~'iJ- hl~ .Q L ^1 A. - ~~ ^~ G M ~ ~I V O ~ M ~ LL ~ . y O ~ ~'.1 N ld ~ L C-' G U / ~ H ..i~ CE J ~i ~I N y,l 1M r w Q ~_ w J Q z u. U W O 4- Z Q w N -Zy' b ~~ v Q ~ y_ U y,; ~A ;~ ao '" ~ . o ,«~ c ro .~ ~ '.I ~ ~` Q fir, U '' `~ ~' •~ V ' u ~ ,~ ark ~w -- w -- >' w ~ ~ Q y ~' A~ O - q Q 1]. 1 r`G 0 '~ U O ; ~ ~:, _ . ~ }~ ~ _ ~~1 L ~ V 1 ~ Q u y 'yJGA ~ ~.: ~ ~ ,~ J N R H !+1 ~ y .~ p .) }d ~ o w W ~ ~ p ~z _ ,~ '~ ~" •~ •0 opt ~.` ~ ~ cd C y -fl y '~ '.r7 ~ ~ .~"" of 5 •~ U ,~ m N O r.+ ~ cQ rti ~ U ~ ~y ~ U p N ~r U ELI .~ ed p V ~ ~ 0) ~ ~ y 7-1 ~+ .b ~ ~ OO~j 7.1 v U Q1 ~ ~ •;~ a~ a~ O ~•'~ 'Zy ~ v ea lE 7 U rU+ ~ U ~ 'b ~ U '~ H '~ (!~ ~t +U. G~ u ~ Q/~ Q H ~ H • O ~ p i O ~ °~ ,-q •~ ~ • ~ y api ~ ~ O ce 'y ,~ U tyy~" w id ''. v~ '"r ~ {~ '~ U O .'1 LL m ~ ~ "~ w of cv ~ LI N ~ i"f ~ ~ ~ ~ CyI G7 U ~ ~ ~ y ~ ed •~ O ,,n~• U ~ u eL~ "~' ~. Ar s.i Ay n ~I O 3 •~ y; .-. U U a+ ... M U U cV p 'C ~ O ~ p p O v 'b h ~ ~ 'O p ~ y ~ ~ ~d api II~~, ^ ~ u ~ ~ Li ^ rah. U L1~ 1~~ ~i C ~ ...~ ,ar ~ V N ~ L' ~ ~ U1 ~ ~ ..y ~ O ~ MI I v ~ ~ .'~ C a~ '~ ;~ ~ ~ ^p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~y ea av., ~A U v ~ O 4 w id u v~ > v o a., -o '~ o o ~ ~ ~ n. cn "a h ~ w cti u .a ~ ~ h ~ ~ c. ~ R, a v . ~ -~ -~n- w J Q Z I U w 0.. 0 z Q ,Q' V tiJ O~ d' N a• n w C7 4 L Q O ,~ V Z H O W O Z Q Z O Z Z O C~ W U i i ~' ., I i e+ ~ ~'i ~ I ° ~~' a ~„ ~ {' ~~ ~ r l {~ 1 I -J ~ ~ ~ ' OA ..+ - I bD .+ ' O. -0 ! ~ ~ i 0 ~ P+ m .l q ~ ~ - CJ Q - U Q r,,,~ ~,,'' -, :. a _ C[ ;s o .. ~ i ~ O ~ u p., ~, ~ w ~ D Pr ~ 4A ~ ~ ~~ ~ i 0 rp , H ~ O (~ - A+ tL _ A i 'C ~ ~ .. ~ ~' _ ~ ~ C7 .., ~r~ n a. -~ n, .. o ~ ~ -~ -C ~ r ~ ~ ~ W ""' _ ^ W ~ O f~ , ~'+ a A x4 ~° ~ ' u ~ u jjy ~ ~ ~, _~ 1~ 7' ~3 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ FQ ~ O W ~ °' ~ - '~ z ~o - v ~ ~o~~~vv~ o ~ ~ ~ _ ~ -gib ~ ~ ~ ~ N ° ~ H y o a H ~ i ~ ~ 7J ~ C y ~:..1 ao ~ ~ ~ ~~+ W ~. ~a CL . Q" U ++ ~ ~' v b O CO .-~ a ~ i+ N Sn b ~ p ~ 'Sy 4r ~ d n v _ o m v o y . ~ ~ ., . .,. ~ o n~ o -d ~ ..1 '~ 3 o ~ v '~' ~' ° ~ yr ~ ~ ~ ° ~ v ~ ~ b A.. C ~ ~ ~ W ^C a •~ y ~ i ~ ~ v ~~ eno ~ ~.•~ g ~ ~ o ~ .° . ] oho ~'ti v~ iy p1 V ~ N n y bA n. p i ~ ~ v ~ ~ .+ O C '~ 0 y a~ -~ ., ~ v o ~ •5 .d p ~+ u .b •y ~ D i ' bA .5 y pA '~ '~ ~ IN ~ ~ w cGa v ~OCJ~.~ ; ~ 0 ~ ~ C ~ W ~ ~ .~ ^ ~ • ~ ~ U ~ .~ . ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ a~ t7 ~ ~, ~ V ~ '~ o '° o ~ o ~ a ~ ca I ~ ~ ,~~' ' Cf ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~~1 0 ~ Cd ~ ~ ~ y ~i ~ ~ on 4°. rA d ~ ~ •i '~ ~ ~ ~ [d ~ y Y--I ri 4r a~ ' ~~ C V rt r C p °~ w w 'a '~ t~ u v ~ V ^~ v a .~ ~ -Q ~' ° ~ ° v ~ ~ ~ era ~ '~ '~ o b o ~ `~' -~ _: . q u ~ ^ b ~ .~ O ' ~ V O .~ N L7 ~ . ~ C ~ `+j u ~ n p ~ G O Q ~ o u " b ` o - abi • ~ _ V C ° .'~' v p a~ ~ y.., ~ aJ o .~ ~ ,~' °: do .p v V g o '~ ti +, .. v a~ c~ ~ o~ u ~ o w O Q a. w Q Z u. U w O o: 0 Z Q Q! w o~ N -31- ~. o- 'Q V O o! Z o! Z C~ Z Z O Z O Q C~ C fY W d Q U ~~. •^- ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~e of bA p • ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ y .y Y' A y U Q V W ~A WQ _~ N "~ I"Y ~ ,~ O ~ O ~ ~ y C O w Gy ++ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ C7 O ~ ~' ~ ~ ' C7 7 y, ~ a ~ _ H ,~ _ W ~ _ ~ ~ ~-+ O ~ A q ~ ~:_~ - ~ ~ ~ ~~ y~ F-i ~ j - ~ y Fri ~''' U~ -di y p ~ O d' - C7 H - +If I i ~. a '~ ,.~ ~ u :~ ,~ an°", ~ ~ '0 ~ ao eq ~ no -d ;~ •a° u m N ~ H ~ ~+ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ..+ p a~ ~ Ra U O ('} ~ ~ by ~' '+^7 ~ 'L1 O O p. ..y ~ R, Q ~ c4 -O '-+ ~ b ~ v &o °~ y a v q ..; v .~ o ~i ~+ D ~ 0 ,~ ~ ~ W ~ '.D O W E '0 G U u DAB y v o > o ~ ~ y t~ ~" V O ~ 'C1 ^a" '~` ~ K Py ~ y ~ ~ U d '~ ,~,, U m i~ O'+ ~~.. ~ a.r .^~7, ~ ~ 'n ~ y O 0 C ~+ 'J ~y ~ ~ ~ u V .~i ~ c0 ~ py Cp ,~ .~ ~ ca H v , yyfl' d .q "b v ~ 'C3 r• m ~ O ~ •~~'1 ~ ~ ~ °J bu . ~ W ~ ~ ~' ~ U~~~~ p y •b '~ .~ ~ ~ o y ~. h p ~` b u C7 .~ ° .a ~ U ~~ ~a ~ o '~ a ~; •a ~ ~ •n ~ ° o C~ ytS` f1, o ,~ ~ ~ ~~.~~ y v' i H 0 aoi ~ (~ .N ~ ~ ;~ ~ ao ,~~ .~ U ~~ ~' " ~ .a '~ ti b N ~ 0 ~~r U C.y U '7 ~ .~ ~ O "C7 ~ ~ H v q ~ d ~ ~ 'J p • ~ ^adi ~ w o ~ ~~ ' ~' V v y y 'O ~ ~ ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ o 'C C~, w y -32- ~ w ~ ~ '~ c ar ~ ai .G ~ ~ ~'-~ o y ~ v ct u o .~ o h ~ U O ~.r d '~ bA ~ y y y fsl ~` b C '~ y ~ y ~ ~ ~ q ~ y ~ `~ OU ~ U •~ O ~i y .~ ~ ~'~ h ~ ? ~C~ ew o '~ ~ eCd .b rU„ 'n ^a '.~ '~ O a vw ~~ ~ o~•y V ~ ~ M w C 'ri .~" ~" U y,,, "0 C U ea 'b ~ a~ ~ O OJ ~ Cn '~ oA ~ U w w +-. ++ w °~ H ~ 0 ly N .~+ "'y L' ~ o. u ca °~ p 'C '7 ~ °~ w C p ~ v ~ .~ 4 'y '+~ O in U ~ 'b ~bA "3 ~ ~ ~ ~ h cCa bA y m O a; ~~~~~ cuoC7 °u o 0 ~ ~ a. ~ . ~ a ::~j w ~U a . v ?; .~ 0 0 0 P, o ~ ; ~ W a ;,~ U .~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ,~ '~ ~ u o '~ O U ~-C.~~ v C "~ O G ~, 0 ~ •N W O d0 ~ ~ .~ ea V ~ ~ b ~ N G ~kh O i '~ ~ `~ V O ~ y Zvi r.~1 G~ N 0 W W ~ a.+ ~ v ~ '~ ~ q h ~ ~~~~ ~~ p ~ ~ '.L ~ O U N `~i ~ ~~ ~~~~ ca Q a~ ai "b u0 ~ ~ J Q Z lL I-- W O Z Q C~ ~.~..~ o~ N W C~ Q U' .~ C ~ ,o N •/'~~ A r ~B .~.~ M W /~ A v C6 - O~ A" U ~z ' ; t id _ __ ~; _ ~ - p.. ~' V ~ N. ~ ' I""1 RN ' ^ '~ O ~ O n ~' ~ 1~1 [7] ! a ~ A 3~ Y ' A ~ , ~ F~ /~ V ~y ~ f ~ W O H - IN O 4i O z ~~~ ~ O o v .L1 ~ G U y0 O O w H ~ N T J y 5~! ~ ~ • 7 V c 4 ~ ~ ~ -. -€ ~ ~ V q y b ~.~.Fi+i-v i ~ ~ ~ ,~ O ~ '~ L r ~ R p ~~ -- !~! C~ ~ a w ~ O _ ~ 0 ~ ri i ` O ~ C3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 I ~ ~ ~ O 'FJ O u .n u y v ~ ~ Q _ c- d O ~ U -d ~ t~ ~ w ~ C ~ +•ICr „ z - - ~ n W ~.. 0 ar ~ ~ /0~ i~V I~ W y /~ FF~~ 0 V U n^~O O F~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •O ~ '~ Ld U ~ ~ ~ n ~ 0 ~ ~ ^^~ y ~ p •;~ Fa b ~ O p ~ b ~~ .ftl+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i./ y ~ U y y t}d~~ ~0 ~ ~ (/~ I~ ~ ~ 61 C/J y ^ ^d O h~1 v ~ y y y~ O nA U ~ y +~ y :d ya Or W v o a ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ y Qd ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~~ ~ y ~ w~1 ' H ~ ~ 0 ~ +~ , 'D ~ 'b y,I CO O i td y y ~~-!! ~i I"~ y p , ~ • ~y QU ~ • ~ ' A u y ~ y U .1 1'a Ql i ~ '.~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y i.l O ~ W .U..i u ^." L o '" '~ ~ y ~ ~ U ,~ `n `~ ~ ~ y 7 ~ ^ OJ y M .fir ~ 'J' 'O td ~ y a.+ ~ .V~. 4 " ~~ ~ H vOUi A. V .Q ~ O ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ u n" 0 ~ fV ~ v r uu+ 'ti ~ O d u ~ . ~ H U ~ d N' cd ~ .^~ " ^7 y a ~ +' ai~ + ~ m 'D " ~ +" ~ O O U U ~ O D T H N ~ q y y ~ ~ 0 ' w ~• y ~ ~e ~ ~ O u U aui '.yam !~ .7 C1 U ~ W i~-1 y , y G~i ~ /r F[ O „~ ~ a ca b U y O O '~ ~ B ^~ p 11 ~ ++ '.: C~ ~ ' U '~ ~ v .. p-~ b ~ U y O y O U (~ +r v etl ^ ~ ~A ea ~ • 0 ~ ~ ~ O ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ A ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ 0 ~ ~ D p" 0 r: e~ D•i L y y •~ H h~1 ~O O ~I ~••1 .~ L~+ C U O ~ .~ ~ 0 w ~ ~ A~~ ao y ~ ~[ ^~ 'd ~~' +FJ' M r d i .~ 1 'U ~ b r ~y ~ ~ ~ b y v '~I ~ ~ ~ ~ y .~ ~ o ' a ~ C'+ y bA ^ ~ GO e0 U bA + !C •~ , y y b . j ~ y ~' d ~' ~ O •~ u ~ N . ~ ,+~ h 'C .a .~ °~ i „ ~~ •~ ~ ~ N ti-IE N CrS O ,~ ~ ,~ L". A. .O U v °• v o ~~ b M > ~" ~ . H ~ ~ a ~ ~ w . ~ u ..w 3-I u y v ~ y C'. A O O ` ' U d O "d ~ ~ O ~ bA ~'~ '~ o " ~ U . ra .~ ~ h b v i w C~ Q ~.. _~~_ U, {{hI I. ~~j i ~~ L L~yy ~ ~fl v U C~ ' h p a `c ~ ._~ 4 cd V n ,'~ N q ~ QI ~ '~y[+ ~ u ~ ~ [~ ~ ~ it ',~ • cUd ~ h d ~ b0 0 ~ CO ,~~- i"i 4! "d ~ OJ ~ U i~ vi ~ 01 y vi D ~ ~ ii bCA '~ ~ ~ • ~ ti O ~ dA C rL' ~~ ~ W ~ AV.~ O ~ ~ ~ u ~ 17 ~ u D N ~ v v '" ~ ~ ~ y Nfr+ ' cd ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ x n+ . ~ m ' y m V py *'" 'J O C1 M u O A. vi A. y 'b U ~ O k COA p i C +~ ~ m D ea '~ '~ bq i" ~ u ~ r~ ~pO+t~ ~wj,, aui a" y ~ ~ °~ C t~'tl U ~ (~ ~e r.~l • ~ ~ ..'~. ~+ ;~ •.7 "(pJ u d v0, ++~ ~~„ 1a _ O ^~ '~ bA v' ill C+ t7~ ~ '~ v v .S~yV" .~ ^a0i ~, m ,~ 'C1 ^d ~ v ~ 0 V m ~ "~ O ~ O ~ ~ . ~ cCe ~ `° ~ b ,~ ~ w . ~ h ,~ ~ y D ~ 11uyy ~ 'ti ce ~ '~ d ~ u V ~ U y 41 ~ d ~ ~ ~~' ~ 2y v~ i C r" W y v N ~ v ~ .i ~C y N ~ ~ iiali N .~ ~ i7-I Q 4f '~ ~ ~ ~ C7 r~.r +' y ;,~ A.+ r ~ ~ ~ ~0, y '~" .9 C u U •.17 qq~ ~c ~ v, v' 7 J ~" ~~i :~ O~ ..ra' CL C d m O? v O '~ .~ m Q tiq C ,y. O N ^ ~ ~ r'r 7.i [7 C6 ~ ~ V 'j~ r~ ri ~b CCi Lei ~ y ~y ~ ',~ y YJ • ~ c ~ v eqA °~ c. ~ v ~ ~ ~ y y b ~ ~ ~~.. Q y ° ~ ~ " ~ G dq t+' O ~ O ~ ~ > ~ w P, v v A. b ~ ~ d [ ,~ u yw aJ V U N .y ~i pac ~+ y i-1 ~ '~ oo a.~~tly byp '~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ $ w a 'ti~ ~ ~° u o K ~ C7 ..~ ~ w ~ l: in V ed n ~^ bA k F4 ~ Fri ~ :: '~ v, ~ w ~ uN. • -34- I ~ J Q Z LL H W '~ Q' 0 Z Q ,~ V L11 d' N /w V E 0_ Q 0 Z 0 w 0 z Q Z CZ L z O ~i W F- 0_ S U i ~ ~' ~_ ~~ . . L ~~ - ~ o I ,~ ,.a,/ F~1 ; (, y ~ . __ 1 ~ I ~. . I ~ ~ - ~ . . _ ~ ~ I r ~~ i y `~ ~ .Q - ',. O M FQy~ ~.. rW~ V ° ~o~ y a ~ . • ~ ~ ' ~ u I ~ ~ ~ '" = ' 7 ~ ~ ;~ O ~ `ri ~'! U 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ - w ~ '~ - , W a - 1 I u ~ bA - y ~ Ly+ • ~ ~ J ~ v O w ~I V . O O W Iy H ~ ~ N p - y ~+ y `~ N ~ ~ b u ~ ~ °~ u ca `u' C a i OqA y •a a'i ~ b y ~ ~ 'b y b a .~ ~ ~ °' ~° ~ a o ~ ~ 'ti ~ .d ° ~ '~ ~ ,~ o ~ w ~ 'ti N ~ ~ ~ N o U ; ~ v ~ ~ o v a o a ~ y m ~ ~ n :~ a o~ ~ ~ N y a ~ .a~ ~ O .rr ~ U ~ .~ d .~ -o ~ ~ o c ~ O b , , ,~ Zvi ~ O r ftl ~ ; ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ H ~ ~ 'Sy ~~ H ~ ~ d ~ D ~ R ~ y ~~ N 'm ~ ~"" q V .^7. "d O ~ '~' +~+ v~ ' v . ,~ j ~''~ . U ~ u vd' p O r: dJ a., ~ ed p~ LL u y u ~ ~0 AO O .b ~ y O J ~ .~ C CS, i v d ' G ,?; ~ ~ ~! u O : ~ ~ ~ d Cd d ~ ~ V y , ' _ . H ~ „Sy ~ ~. ~ . ~i ~ Q~ C fn y y ~ ~ ~ O ~ lid ~C ~ ~ m V! '~ ~--I V ~ ; ~ ~.1 "~ ~ s~~-+' V ~ ~ ~ i 6 u ~ • ~ o ~ ~ • ~ 'd ~ C c ~ °' ~ ~ O ~ , ~. ~ ~ A ~ ~ ° Cg ~ ~ o ,~o p ~ ~ d P, q ~ ~ a 'm •~ ~ aCi y ~ ~ .a W r ~ ~ ' ~ m ~ ~ ep o v ~ A ° ' ° ' ~ ~ ° ~ . ~ .~ ~ aa C ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ [~ a0i I a a`~i ~ q '77 w ~ C ~ H ~ O c ~' O `~ C bA ~ ~ ~ W ~ a~ SA O y c ~ C7 H q ^ ~ ~ e: O i ~ p d ' O G V .~. d b ~ "~ ~ O' *J" q ~ ~~~•b o . u w p ~•~ ti 0 •p~ n y 4J C ~a ~o V ham-. b~Q ~ :. ~ ~ w ~ A. ~+ b v ~ ~ d 'v O ~ y '~ ~ ~r ~' ~ , a! ~i m p ~A b ~e C _ y by bA ' i i ~ h u " r ' v • _, c, ea °: u ~ ~ R g, ~ ~ -o ~+ 3 ~ :; ° ~ 3 ~ w a ° ~ G. ~ ~. W Q W J Q Z W Q_' z ~.~..~ O~ N -35- -o v a~ o, ~ Q o G Z - ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ w ~: ~ c ° ~ ~ •° O y ~ o t~., ° .~' Q ~ _ ~ ~" Q ~ _: i _ ~ I ~ i ~ ~ q W ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ' ~ d- N it H Zr ~' H ,'~~: y ~ - t~ - _ C~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ C o~ F., ,~ ~ ~C w° ?~- o w - ~ a _ ~ ~ _ - ,~ A . ~.. ' :A '~" w o ~ ~ ~ •~ z °~ ~~ ~-~ oc oW, ~ ~ ~ N p' ~r 4 a: .~ api 'C .~ u Fj. I +" k' - to t!! N W ~ ~ p N ~Ny .i~ O ll' ~ ~d 'ti 'd w O `'~ G y u u ~0 00 ~ ~, ~l3 a .--. ~ ~ . ~ cOtl ~ ~ w O ~ O 0 v O ~ ~ v O ~ y p+ O ~ _ .I y c ~ c ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ y ~ ~ . ~ o ~ y p ~ $ o '~ cA _ ~ ~ 0 (~ Ld . _ E ~~ i„i ~ U ia+_I G ° O [C GJ '~' '~ ~ ~i +' 13 M ~, `° ~ a ~ ~ -~ a u ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~° ~ .~ ~ o as G cya k 'b 'i '~' ~ 0 0 QA h ~ d «. O vi N v ~ ~ cua y '~. Lti' y ' H v H b i LL O to ed b G~, ;~ w - ~ ~ w ."y L~ 1 "7 "d ~ ~ ~ ~ d h +y'~ ~ p+ '~" to p ~ {yy ~ ° C 4-1 '" ~ 1'.dy7 '~tl ~ W • `'"'~ r~ ~y f~/i p U ~ y ° 1~1 ~ r1~' O ~ p >, v ~ ~ I PPP ~! ~ ~ ~ ~' v .b +~+ v y is W O y u ~ ~ • ~ ~ -o ° ~ ° ~ x •~ h ~ ~ ~ v ~'' v v ~ 'b p y ~ o ~ ~ cV ti O ~ ~ u ,~ 07 O Pa d m d ~ ~ m" F,~' C y ~ `~ ~ .UO O~. X -y N ^yj N ~ ~ '. yyyy~ y r.Vyi •~ ~ ~ ~ GJ ~ CC C N r~ V] '+j 3.1 y' ~ ~V.+ y h C a.+ ~ 4J .~ ~ 1 y i.~ ~+ .'y p ~~p+I. +OO . . ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ 0 O p .t"y?' O m m O ~ O '~' O y~ O p, ~n O ~.. ~ i [E N Cd h '17 i'J ~ •~C CE 'O V O "~ ~'.~ L/~ ~ '~ ~4 ctl •L~ 0~ a G U Lf~ ~ ~ ~ K cd ^u ~ a . S ;, y S e 'r; u .~ E ~ n., ~ ~ o- ~'a Sao ~' ~ ~ o- o cn 0 ~ -36- o: O o! D_ C~ Z o' w 0 Z Q Z z Z O Q SH ,,L^^ '+ J w Q U ~' i J ~ ~ I ~~ F I . ~,_ bA . ~r~ bA ~ C C eo ~ ~''~ ,~ ~ O c °' _ ~ o...~ E' a A ~ [ •~ ~ ~ a v r ~ ~, ^, ~ ~_ Cj '-' Cj W w ~L y W - ~' O ~ ~ is _~ V ~ w ~ o ~ w ~ ~ ° n°". .` ~ ~ ~ -C - ~ u O ~ I~ H N H '~ ~ ~ ~ Q1 ~ O' A r.+/ L Cl - ^^ ~ r f C~ 0 Us-+ ~ - ~ o ~ ~ ~ A A l J. :~ ' b ~ ~ p h ~- ~ ~' p o~ ~ y~ ~~ ~ . O ~ ~ O O ~ W H~ ~ H ` N O ~', - N 4' ~ N rr H ~1 [may N nnp lb ~vJ1 N 1r , ~ ~j ' N ~ 4 ~ ~ !tl ~ N ~ ~ . .b V fn O ~ O O ~ H Lyy ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~~~rr ^ ~ ~ y rTl ~ iq ~ w WV ^ '7 ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ V y~y u ~ . y ~ ~+ .`~ ~ ~ N N ~ 4N•1 ~ • N n,~ ~ fq ~ a'~ p ~ L7. ~n +~+ O O° v n' h .~ ~ ~ O u ~ m O W w ~~ O U w~ 'b ~ 'O O Q O +-~ O O ~~' d u i id ~ N ~" ed ~ O [ !) ~ ~ U u ~ C • { a A. , O pp • ~ ee ..~ O '~ v ~ v ~ v ~ ~ N ~ c a A. ~y' '~ V v CL ~ y ~ ~ ~ Q u y ~ .O ~ V V ~ ~ ~ ~ 7.> u ~ ~ ~ > v ~u O al vi O ' w b ~. M ^ ~y ~ ~ O O " N ~" ~ ~U+ O G.1 ~ O • £ -, _ , ~. ~ ly U p O ~ ~ d QI ~ O i\ v d ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ y B •7 Q.I ed ^'~ r n Q D O R S."i ri ~ ~ cd .w+ O ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ (C ~ O .n b ~ (d 0 J.+ 55~ ~ ~ 41 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 41 ~ y *~ .~ ~i ~ O ~+.~ { 7y (0 ~ ° O p ^V ~ C • ~ V y { fE y N '~ LI V ~ ~ 0 ^ry~, u aJ c~ a ~ ^~~ ~~ V r VO L7 NH ~ 'I..i N v y ~ . m p r..+ V ~ ~ .b V ~ ° y :~ O %"~ t+_5,~ W y ~ ry~ l O A ' I- (~ ~y fC y d ..' A ~ ~ p ~ G L 'C t~ + O U ~ U eN0 u y U d V v ~ C '~ ~ n^y' ~~.. 'O d U I--~ ' p, p :: U LL ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ td Cn ti .+ G in y i ,i 'I] U u V eua ON ~ i ~ 'b ~ ~ ~ ~; U + N ~ ~+ ~ () O ~ p .b ~ ,~0, O ,*JO, .D u \ O ~ L'r ~ :-.~ O Q ~ a+ t7 O ~ .1" ed +~+ H 3 y y L' .b y TL O .~,~+ O u p U O ^i ' ~ ce U +'~ O . TJ ~ h ~ !l. uu :--~ O.~ u W H etl ry ~ 4.~ ~ U a. u ~ ~ ++ A •A ~ •--~ U rC «' /-, .a ~' u cuc ~+ 61 ~ '~ .b ~ ~ v'i O ~ a d ..d V O ~ ~ ~ ~ O v, ~ U La ,~ ^p ~ .~ 'b W +~ ~ pp y v: w ~ r V H O ~, Ar ~ ed ~ , O ~ cn ~ O a cOa H ' ~ N O ca h cd `p a~ ~ ~ .~3 ~ ~ a. V ~ ~ ~ ~ p O v, ~ b ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ^ i p C a1 GJ ~ . + w ~ +-7 C ~,., • u b a+ ~ ++ ~+ y" U CJ 'a+ N ~ ~ N ~ J Q . ~ V ~~ .S 'b n Q ~ O ° } ' ~ ~^ •~ O 'O ~"~ v ~ ~ b p A~ O '~' .r ~ ,. 5 A ' •L" pp -: -= ~ _ _ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ W N '~ ~, " C O .n i ~ H LL ~ h Q . /'L~ ~ O M d m r u h ~Ctl1 7 ~ w ~ h / ` -r - b t lJ V I I I~ . /y V Ri R$ ~ .~ ~ Fi W ~+ w C7 Q L.L.. w J Q Z w Z Q w N -37- -~ _ ~ ^, 'A ~: °. _, U ' ~ w ` c ~ ~ ~ as ~: q L -~ ~ O H ~" ~ ' V~i ' Q ~~+~~i 0 ~ 0 '" W ~, ~? -~ ~'~Q v " ~Q ~ . ~ w V v ~ I I,y-' ~• 4 C0 ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 'C o ° a o, O G ~ C ~' ~ . a. y a n. "~ ~ ar "~ C7 ~ O _ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ C7 E , ~ a, aY ~k _ w ~ .~ ~ ~ `~ €~ ,~: a ~ ~ ~ w 0 ,~yQJJ' Q! j,,," h C7 ~ v o ~ v ~ y a. N ~ ~ ~ ° '~ h~1 ~ ~ w ~ g~ ~ ° C7 ~, H; cry .~ F4 ~~, Rc",, .~ ~ ,... N p ~w p~ ~ u ~~~ a.~ ~ V.~ N ~ y „..,b o +~ o -.n '- ~ q ~ ° N ~ ~e H C~ ~~ R~ ro a ~ C. ~, r. v a3 v H ~ O oa y~ a~i ~ Q ° aJ ~ '~ ~' 0 ~ u ~ w v ~ .°.~ v a7 C~ ~ m O CL y ~ Gp ~ C ~ ~ c A,~.°. b~b(~ o v.d ~ ~ ao~ o ~a °.~ ~~'~ v b~ MFG a vi .~~' N .~- H ° N C.0.~ ~ cpi `'~ ~ N ~+ .b H O "C ~ "0 u ~ p ~`? ~ rr ~' _' •.y ~ cd ~ ~ 't3 :.~ ~ N t!J ~ ~ .L7 N ~ ~ N ~ R+ vA ,b m a+ ;~ ~ ~ t4 O ^~~q+U •-.y spy _ ~+ 4) p ~ ~y CC +. ~ ~` '^7' '.7 I ~ 'p ^" Cl+ y ~ '7 ~ ~+r v~ 0 ~7 GN.t ~ A ,~ .~~' -G ~'~e «f" 'yC O .r v 0 ~' ° ° ~ O O ~ ~ '.' p w ~ a~ '^ ~ .E° TJ Ly ~ "~ O . •• •- fA h N N y ~r 5 a r M ' O U O iG R. t'7 f!J V ~ ~ U V] +w sa ~ '~ +r .: "O ~ ~ e~ .~" '+1' y Q Q w J Q Z LL ~- U w !Z Q o: LIJ N n w^ V Q L a (~ O C7 Z O Z Q Z Z C Z O `Q W Q 2 U v . I . a V~_ eA ~ eta y Qo ~^ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ .~ ~ p.t .. .~ ~'. Q ~..' ~ {~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i W H -G=: w ! -- , __- ; ~ _ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q p `' ' DA -' ~ aUi fl., W ~ ,,,,, ~ f~ i w Q Q - { ' ~ - ~ ~ w 0 a 4 r' h+i N w bl ~x,; V _ _ _ .i F~1 ~ ~ ;j ~A ~ ~ ~ ~~jr L `~ ~ ~'~~ ~i 1 ~'Y ~1 Y ~ ~ ~ ' U O ~ ~ f ' w ' w ~-' o .~ ai A ~ ~ ~ ~" w ~ ~ e0a ~ ~ i .~ °~ € C7 _ ~, ~ • o ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~~ o ~. w • ~ x o a ~~a a ~~~~- ~ O ~~ a ~i N z' ~ ~ .~ ~, ~ w o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b '~ ~ O ~ 'b H { ~! ~ .s7 N ~ O ~i 'wry ~1 '.~' N ~ ~ ~ ~ 'h' ^ 1~i ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ 4-1 ~ ~1Q ~ Vi Q Q ~ ~ • G U iy+ - _ • ~ .7 ^J . ~C~' F ^ A.I CCU C~ 4~ fn ~-H! ^ . y ~•I w lQ [mod pVC Q 'O ^,~ ~+d ~ ~ V G~ Ci ~ :-~' .~ t'7n "'~ ; _°; ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ . ~~' a1 ' 3 0 Q • ~ '~ '+..r x M O aGi ^ ~ ~ D s~ w' 0 ^ c0"a ~ ~ ~ •, Ri Q '~ -~ 3 w S ~ . :ti fn O N O ~ O , + + 'Ty F ~ w ~ ''' ~ GV d ~~+ ed ...ay n U ~ ~ w~ ~ CC C.) w 1 y ~i~ 1n ^ ~ . ~~y - i a~ '~d1 ~ !7 Q+~ lL ~ `4 . , ~~~V ~yy . y iM ' v • / ~1 S Fy ~ i ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ .y 1"~ + M CSI y ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ 4.1 d ~ r~ ~+ 1 ~ ~ i'7 ~ ~ ~ L Q~ .~7 ~y ~ ~ . ~ O • y ~ C ~ O v ~y 0 ' y ~ ' ~''' Q ~ G~ r ~ ~ G) ~ ; ~+ O -~ '7 W L~' "~ ~° O ~ .^'~ , ~ ~ Q C~tl , c1 y C~5tl O • i-i ~ •? l'E !7 y ^d ~" O ~ ~ ~ 1~.1 ~ F + I W r J ~ Q O ?I 'b C F ~ Q ~ ~ ~ " •~ ~ 1 !tl w 6! y 0 "d •~ wh4y p 7 ~ Vi 1 ~ ~~ ~ y QI l+Qr 1+1 y,~ •~ ~ ,.L ~ ~ r+ " •+, ~ ~N i N ~ " i L yNyj7 ~ F y ja rJ Qi y Vy1 4 to ~y 4 - td ~. ~ , i y .~ s.~ _ ~+ 4.1 67 'S ~ + .t'i to CC ^~ ~.+ i •~ " j,' n~' ~ C~7 ~.-~ Cll Q N v ~ r ' [ t0 y ~ t~ lay VJ ' ~" i-1 ~ yi i ~ C "~' fn OJ ~~' "4 ^ '~ -__-. O ~ U Q ~. eC id .J ~ ~ :~ pp ~ 4S 0 + .~, ce Ri V O ~. U 0 A. ~ O 0 ~ +, .7. a1 bA a ~a ~ ~ u ~ b tz. ~ ~ ,~ ~ a x d: ~ ~" ~, -G ~ a°. y ~ . S vi N v ~ q ~ ~ rs+ .ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ I~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ y W y ~ y N ~ N ' ~ .~, H ~ ~ vi ~ W -,y ti O cd O m •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~7 ~-I d y ~ '~ DA y w "b + .. -~ r p Q a+ i'7 p U ~ ~ ~ y 67 m p •b ~ c ~ v ~ ~ 0 v~ A ~ ~ O ''+ .~ O cn p C ed G ~ O y D '~ 7 Q 'O ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ V O C'r ~ ~ n" 0 A. yvi ~ ~+ Rf •b q 'G rn ~ y w ~ .~• b ^~O N ~ C '. ~ '0 y . ~ . , ~ v ~ , ~ i py ~ ~ - p ;, -^~' y c3 ~ • ~ ~ H O j; ••7 d 'y i'7 "~ O 7 ~ ~ ' v ~ ~ O ~ v ~ ~~ V ~,~ q t]y y •0 v q ~ ~ m 'b C C p y ~~ ~ l7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ C u ~ y a O ':, uu ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ - ' , ~ „ ++ N as ^ ~ ~ b - ~ O ' ~ w .~ O" ~ , 0 a~ D ~ °' '~ 'b ~ vy, ~ ' ~ ~ ap . O ~ ~ y' m o ^~ +0. ~ ~ '~ +a ~ '~ s~ C Ar m :.,~' •'~ ,-o q C 'a ' ~ Q. A y ~~ p ~ p. ~~ii - ~i ~ a i >, rr M U ~ i a 'b W ~ w N ~ C1 ~~ r1 N iG to A ~-+ P. C1 p W N ea W ~ !~ a~.+ U 'J w ~ U N ter w C7 Q w Z w I ~- w O 0 Z w U N -39- i _:: ,~ ~~ ~ y., ~' _ bA 0 '~ ~~ ~: - . a A ~ .. ,. .___:~:.. ~._~. ' z ~ '~ Fj F.t ' O ~., 'S ~ ~ ti 0 ~ I~ Pi Q ~ ~;. A ~ ~, ~ ~ ' ; ~ w W O _ ~ z : N Q ., z H ~ ~ -_ o ; n ~ I 1~ H _', '_ C ~~ -~ O ` f I O Li •~ - m ' ~ y - _ O ~ ~ ~ ~• _ „r , ~' ~ r ::v ~ ~ o ~ o„ o O '~ '~ , ~ ~ y, '~ o 'C ~~ ~~ _. U is ~ O t,0 , ': ~ 0 'G P , W J Q _z LL ° U ~ • ;~ , N W G Q ~ ~ U ~ D O Q o ~ y O C6 .~ rT "' '7 N o N p '~ N o ~ o ~ a"..E' o. ~ a~ U 'y N O y u O .~ W ~ G .~ w ... ~ x o ^0 C ,., ° ea ~ O y a. v '~ O U v 0 y ~ ~ .~ N A.. ~ a i-~ '0 '~ ay+ ~ P, o v y 'd ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ N ~ LC i~ '~ ~ ~[ ' ^ N ~ C~ vri i.l ~ ~ ~1 i~-1 ~ ~i N i.+ y U ~ ~j~ ~ 'Zy O ed B "" 6J Cd Vi V "~ ~ ~ ce ~ L2+ ~ p~n,'1 n' ca 'C '~ ~ -,4' ~ A U ~ ~ -. ~ w OyJ 4~ ~ h ~"~ +v+ v F y ~` ~ 0 ~ . O Y ~ ~ ~ U m ^ ~ ~ y ~J I ~ y ~" O . ~ ~ ~ C/1 ~ ' ~ 'y "y ~ es ed d O • e6 N +~ + 1 O ~ ~ ~ 6! ti w ~ ~ ~ y C ~ p' , ~ ~ ~' C, a ~ v ~ o~~ .y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~.~ a~ .~ a. O ~ ~ .'a ~ w y O y eC ~~~r/~~y O 13~ ~ W 67 O N ~"i 'b y ~ ~ r{~Oy~i. M~ e3 61 ~ ~ u N • "~" yy !2 1~ ) ~ w v' g i+0. ~ O ~i. ~ rL. ~ ~ ' , ~ ~ 0 ~9 ri ~ N ~ J d , YJ ~ ~ !C y ~ ~ GJ ~ W ' .~ 'UC b Cd ~ ~ LL ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ '~ ~ v.~ 11y.~ ] -O ~ '~ 'b ~ U ~ ui O ~ ea '77 ~" a+ ~ O ' N .7 y ~ ~ w y c~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ yt ~ Y iti : C ~ y ~ ~ C O p s~ ~ Ol N ~ ~ w N C a~ O1 y N v ~ i G ~ . °; ~f " tC ea O~G.r ~ j~ u ~ L ~ a~ C O ~ .~ ' i .~J' , ~i N O .li ~ C .C u ~ w ,~ N N ~-I O ~ , „ ~ ~'n p 0 y ~ G ' ` ~ u ~ ~ q t~j. N ^ C ~ o ~ G .d. ~ ~ O q ' y . ' ~ w 'mayy H v ~ '+j' C ~ ~ 'L7 r~i R+ "~ . ~ ,~ ~ L1r N c~ [~ M ~ u~ ~7 ~ t ~ .L ~ A. ~wi ' m Ou ~- -40- ~. A- J ~-; ;, c _~ CJ ~ ~ » ~ o ~ W ~~~ ~f ~,~ _: ~ ~~ ,~ '' ~ ~ `~ °a a . o O .~ ~ N i i.! . ~ U ~~ ~. ~ ., H ~ ~ N rr ^^ _ 1--1 /w , ~ ~ td F~1 U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, v x ~ v ~. ~ o p~~ ~ W a, ' O.~ ~ q ~ A z ~ ` " ~ -~ ¢ x C7 ~ ? ^~ ~~~~; ~ ~ o ~ N f r1 _ J ~E .i '^ .l_ ~ QI W E'a = 1 ,~ o "z _ N O F ~~ 6~.~ .~ ,~ w ,~ c ~ c ~ y q 'ti o }~~ v v' b ° '~ ~ a ° ~ ~ v ~' ~ a y -G ~ x a ~ ~ a a u , '~'i C ~ d .°~~ .~q ~~" ~i~~"+ G a ~ ~ u N v' ti . ~ ~ 0 ° p 0 v~ y z _ 'J p" ^"'+. +~ B . `a ~i to ^ 0 .~ ~ 'a~ ~ ca 'C~+f ^d O v' u +a U •~ ^~^ ` ~, m yd ~ R, y a+ ^V N . {N~ O Q G ~ !~ J^ 4p '~ y 61 '~ ° V CW 6J .L': Q) y ~ 'I~ ~ .a d "' N .~ b v Cn C7 y 'y "~ C ~ i."i ~ R rn H `'~ ~ bA ~ v °°' ~ a 'n t7 '7' ~, ~ Q N i C 6n ~ o '~ ap ~ ~r. 4.1 N Q~ ~tjo.~ ~+ y ~ ~ ~~.(.yCy _ ~ o "~,] .,0 r3 ~ 0! 'L7 ~ r7 p +^7 ' y ~ ed [d U C" iii _ o ''A v, '~ ~ ~ +~ ,b ,~ c~ p,l a G [f O ~ iVi 0 ° N a H ~ ~ ° ~ a'7. ~ ~ .~-.i ~ b ~ •~ a 'D ,(!~,' O ~ ,~ 7J y y ,~ c v ~ '~ b ~ a c ~ ~ ~ o a cn ~ ~ -~ I- r ~ ~ i :.i 'C7 d ~i t7 i-I QA ~ yy.~ 01 N O ;~ ~ . ~ ~ 'ri G1 w [~tl ~y 'y y~.'" yy U - G ';II VJ A 'a~ c/) G4 vi 4~", ~i ~ +~i "O ,^~ O A. N ~ . ] FA ~ .O eta M w ^O ~ ' ~ w C7 Q W Q Z W O z u..i D` N '~tl' ~_ ,, 0 ~~• ~ =' O o' ~, x •~ • ~, ~ a~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~, " Ha U O q .-~ ti ~ A ~ " I ~ .~ ~ ,.: ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~; - w° ~z :v p ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ U ~ ~ G d ° y ' o o ~ ,~ • H ,~ ~ o e~ a~ ~ ~ o ~ w o z , ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ggay ~ O v '~ ~ ~ H I ~ ~~ r O ~ u 0 G7 ~~~ ¢~'i o "G ~~ q ~ p %~ •O y ..d v, . v t~ ~ .~ . ~ m ce y ..q q O b ~ ~ ~ a~ ,y~ v +.+ p A a+ a.. '~ ed O ~ ~ a+ ,n w ~ L 'b to O 'b y ~ ++ a, ~ U ~ ~'-~ , D o ~, v ~ .y ~ ~ a~ ~ ..o y v ~ ~ y ~ d [ F' ~ ~ o y .~_ ~' ~ ~~ w O h 'C p ~' O eJ O ~ ° i "O '. L]y ~ r `7' O.I • d~ ~. .~~ °~ .~ y O ~ u ~ ~i' O' p ~ 'O O ca 'C C ~ W .~ ,~ N LL `" +' O O O p EQ ~ O cd ~ a~ U ~ "d ~ q O U ea ~ ~ O N _ ~ ~~ O L~ .~ !3a v w '~ y w w w ~.. bA +~ cs ti. •~ ~ v~ ~ a~ r ~ a a o ~ ~ ~ ° '~ c o ,.° o ~~" N '~ coo ~ ~ ~' ~ G ~' v i . ca v~ ^, O ..~ m to m q ~-p a~ ~ 7a w r ~ •~ ~ K U a td G ~ cd ~ ~ ~. ,.^~ :J QD 5! ~ • ^ :~ ~ CJ -42- w z U w O 0 z Q ui o~ N Q ~.. C9 Z ^O 1..L Z a z O Z Z W h- D_ Q S U ~y ~~;c. i ~i.. ~ ~"; i ,~, .i .^. ~ ' w J_,: '~ ~ ., ~ r :a ' h .a '~ ~ o ^ N ^ n • t~ ; - ' '` v ~ '% ~ ,~;; ?,: ~'- v ~ ~ u. cn • o ~ ~ ' p c ~ . ~ o P'' ~, o _ u P+ A ~ ~ C7 a ~ ~ ~' ; L L - n U v 'C .~ ~ ~ i U O }c ~ W a O A ~~ f a ++ O v' W ~ b O ~ ~~ Wy p ~ .. ~ ~ y o ~ CJ `~ v- ~ ~ o ~ 't~ c c . ~ ~ ~ ° c o~ a0 ~ ~ u e ~ ~ a~ -o o ~ -~ ~: o ~ ~ 'a ~ y a p ~ uy y ~ o ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ f O ~ . N ~ ~ ~ 1 N v ~ y 4y ~ CJ °' o '~~ ~ ~ o '~ b ~ '~ v b , v , -. ~ ~ H o ~ . , p ~ A ,~ A _ ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ ea F' „a„ •d o 0 ~ c o ~ 0 0 ~ ~ w H o ~ ° a '~ ~ :~ ~ coa ~ ~ a ~ d ~ °' ~ b ~„ ~" , ~ ~ r. ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aui ° y W o ~ o _ . ~ H .~ A p ++ o~ i U~ O U •~ ~ V ~ '~. ~ m y ~ O v d eC ~ ~ ~ ~ n a ~ N ~ ~ U ~ N V P O ~ .~ H ~ 'L7 ~ .~ . g +~" sa ~ U O '~ w b. - FQ O ^"' e R ~ V cd , ~ 1 . a L+ ~ ~ d ~ ~y y,+ ~+ ~ U '~ w 4~ v 'b `f U 3'" ~ u cd ~ ,'~' ~ ~ (~ J ~ y y., ~n "~ 7~ ~, ~ HAl ate. a °~ .. y v V a , a~ O ~ . ~ ~ C ^y U a~ ~ Q~ ~ ~ ,~ U ~o y u~ ~ ~ .~ ~ 'b a ~ ~ y o a ~ o . U ^d O ~ ~ ~ ~'' ~ I.y ~ C b ,y 'b O ~ d ~ ~ ~ O P, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ^~ M p p+ a ,~ ~ U y ~ L N ~ ~ '~ ~"+ G v 'w a ,aui ea > ,y v G d ~ :: ~ ~ ~ ~W ~; ~.~ ' o o e u u o,w y y o ~ ~ ;; a ma , ~ ~ ~ y ~ ° ° ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~o~ ~ N ~ ~ °; o ~ b , , a a • ~~~~ Q y, w ea o y p as ~ N ~ . d .~ g v .a + 47 ew ~ y~ c~ ~ y~ s ~ v ~ ~ u H a, ~ " ~ n' u . `~ ~ ~ a ~" °' -d ~ ~ 'n k , ~,~ m bA W ~ '~ ° • ~ ~ • y eA o .moo ~ a ~ ' 0 r ~ ° ~ ° a ~ ' ~ -d b ^~ bA G pC o o w cd 6 '~ 0 .~ o • s ~ ~ ~ + y ~ y ~ ~ " ~ •^'~ f~ M 4.1 N N C ~ d y J +. q A. ~ r O aJ pp q d by ~ O y ~ b~A ~ ~ ue °~ ~ ~ bA ~ v ~ a ~ ~ ~ o w O °~ ~ ~ _ 17 ~ ~ ~ L4 C ~ eC . a i ~ .... ~ '~ ~ w •~ O t]. C ' ~ L=~^ : ate. SJ U ~ ~Nr p ~ Gi r w ~ d c~ 7 ~ ~ O O ~ . ~ ~ - ~ ~ O7 ed .~ ~ ~ ~~ h 1~~ ~ CI) .~ V [d ~ ~ _ v i yy ~ 1 /r h h~ ~ + ~-+ O a-i U W V ~ vpi N 'O C/1 q N .".. R N G= i w (~ Q L.L w J Q Z ~..L f- U w O Z w O~ '~ N -43- Q7 U -t F - v. I LL J ~ ., ( -J U Z d ~ :~ ` u • o ew en U .G ` ,7aq p h O.' O~ F-~ Q G c2 O ~~ o U~~~ U O '~'` Q Lam' Q ~ ~~, ` ~' . ~ U U Q ~ , ~ ;.~ ~ U u u W _ ~± U -~ ~ •~° y ao ~ Go C ~ ~ ~ Q ,H ~ Q y ~ .y •~` ~ o~ o~ U U t7 ~ ~. ~ ~ eC c~ y F C A. ~ ~ H ~_~' ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~~ ~ o ~~ x ~, ~ - ~ b A ~ a ~ ,~j t ' L ~,~ O ~ ~ •b a`~i-Ire' C +' ~` ~ .u ~ `` .r ~ ~ ~ O ~ _ O ~' O p O ~ 'p w W ~ cj ov ~'So a+`~ C ° ~-•• _ O i ~ .7 t.r ~ (, c'3 ~ ``+ ~ Q b y Q ~ ~ CL y Pr y ~ v '~ ea v I4 ~ ~ ~ 'h .a a y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q c v a env ~Q •~ ~ ~Oi H I - _- y fC y ~ ~ 61 _ - ~ ° !/J ° v^ ~ td ~ ~ ~ .moo ~ to /-~ O ,p A+ •b .. LL ~ O a - G1 • `" y R. ~+ ~ C .~ L].i y ed - ~, O u ca u to i,+ 4 a+ ~ G c1 '~ u v ~ q v w A '~ fs. ;+ W bA „~O v ._ , .~ ~ u a°i ~ h i7 c a y C ;,y, ~ +~ v ~ n +' y ~ v) _ p 4, '~ p 4~, ~ 'D II@'I i I r•+ Lr' by C ^ON a0 p, a1 w r N ++ r U '~ G) ~ ~ 67 O ~ •7~ O.t I `~' I r"i a ° ~ LL ° f~ fl-I ° '~ ~ ~ y0 y . r~+ - r i ~ ~~' y "Cy au1 ~ ~ ' ~~ Oar ~ ~ y i'~~y7 i '7 .~ vii ~ ~L11~ ~ V ~~ ~ h •N d Cy~tl ~ H ~ _ ~ h A. ~ ~ '^~ ~° V] ~ [d RS uPI r~ ~ _ ~ ~ c '$ u '' o ~ a o cv q ~ C ~ ~ N aCi ~' U ~ • ~ c°'n ~ °' ~ °~' °w' °~ u k, { ~ '. P. N O O ~ - '~ ~ '17 'C7 ~ ~ 'y ~ ~ u ~ ~ V Q y LL ',~, .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 F ~! C~ ~'q~ G =. ~y c6 m o! t7 H _ I ~ ~ o P. !~ a •~ ~ u ~ 'd II - ~' bA pp ~ ~ u c~ a~i V H ~ 'y DA ~ u ~ w - -44- ;, v .,. .,,,: -~ : v ;~ ., ~ ~ ~ I ~ ,~, ~ ~ .~ Q .~ ~ ' o- ~ U •~ .., c ~. q A y CI W I~ '. o, '~ ~ {n > - v ,~ ' ~ ~ i _ P R~ ~ ' - ~ i i 1 ~ ~ ~ O ~~ '~ / '~ 4.1 ~. yy •N 1 - . T r ~, V ~J ~y 7i ~ ~ I Qd a 1 1 I~1 _ 1 ~ I ~'I - U LLLL~~11 ':Q~ ~.y i ry ~ V ~~ ~ : ~ i ' O ~-:, ~ ~~ ^/ ~"1 ~ -. v O N q '~ a f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~'0 -^ ~ ~ O 0 ,~ z N O~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ v 1~--1 I ~ ~ ~ eery ~ N y N w ~ ~ ~ I-~ G ~ N O ~, Q~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ I ..~1 V ~ N O ' ^ ~ „W ~. fA ~ ~ ~ - C ~ ~ U C7 F~ [ ~ ~ ~ '~ P, ~ , ~ ~ p c ~ ,~ p ~ ,~ `~ ' ~ q ~ ~ " y ~; y ca ev ~ ~ P ~ ,^.~ ~ tl ca O ~ a1 0 . y • ~ ~, p, ~~ yy Cd ~ W ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ b ~ ,~ W ~ N O ~ y v to ^~ ~ ...1 O C .~ O c3 ~ u 4+ ~ `~ 'l7 b N 61 ~ P P ~ ~ ~, ,~ ~ to "d ~ LI W 6~ 6~ ,~ J.+ '7 ~ ~.+ .y N ~ ^, ~ ~ ~ RI "~. N .~ U a1 N ~ ~~yy N ~ ~ • N r ~ ~ ~ {.~ m i ~ ca ~ .~ O~ ti '~ ~ ..O p yy . W } i O i ti P1 i p p y N ~ P W y L.' C - :: ++ O A, i+ f]y VJ VJ ~ ~ v C v u + v r+ ~ '~ N ~ '~ C '~ ° ^ M ..7 v ~ m - V •~ i.l ~ d U G. ,I] d ~ ~ .. i u ~ C v u~ ~ ~ u u ~ ~~~,~~ ~ a ~~~~ oA a as I.~ y ~ ~ a ~ N a i a i N N ~" ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~ `" `" ~ '~ 'a ~ o ~ c ~ ~ ~ as cv L - ~ ~ '~ a, ~ ~ ~ ..Vr ~ •. n G d 6I ~ ~ ~ i-7 ~ ~ ~ N Q ~ W ~ ~ r' O W OJ , ' ~ ~ C7 ri ~ rr L"i N y Cp , u ~y ~y ':~ r U cC '.7~+ cd ; ~ W ~6+l, R` M w m N , ~ .a ee . f i m i''1' ~ ~a ~ +.i ~. d -. N f1. ' ~ ' ~ v ~" a u ~ t~" ~ C '^ Zt v C '7 w ~ w a~ O a~ ~ , '~ M p ~° pp ~ m •O «I O ~ ~ •~ ce. "' u p d ea y d u !], .O R ~ R bA _ "O w v O. ~ o ~ ~; ts. p, as ~r.,,'b ' ~ ~ ~ o ° bA ~ ~~ ~ '~ H d w ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ° - r^r ~,~~ - o v ~ N v S o ,~ : v~ ~ G ~ ~. w U ~ ~ ° °~' u° B ° ~" °~' ~ ° W W . S v °~r ~ °; ~ .c ° - i o a ~ w ~ o.. o~ w C7 Q d -45- Q d Z ~_- O w D Z Q Z O z O Z O Q C? ~_ o: w d Q S U - '7 ~ U C-.+ _ C. ~ ,~ y U u c .~ 0 C7 ~ .~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~' ~ it Z ~ G = o j-, ~ ~ c. U O - ~ } O ~ _ ~ ,`I A ~ ~ 1 z ~_ .a :7 ~ ~? ..... y... -.. ..._~ O H z~ :~ o z ~~ d ~ ~° o ~° ~ ~ ai d a O .o ~ o U' b G ~ H O U ~ ea ~' ~ ~ (~ ~. O coo ~ 'ti cv -a b ~ "~ m ~ t .. ' i~ ~ v ~ v a~ ~ y a~i '~ -$ • ~ .v ~ ~ ~ ~ 'h w ~ O '~ .~ a ~ U '~ o • $ cA.a ~ ~ ~ c 0 ~ ~M ~ ~ .~ ~ Cq ~ °: O O ~ ~ ~ cd .o ~ ~ a ~ ~ p ~ _I K ~ N ri y .~.. ~ H ~~ H ~ N 7-( O - ~ as ~ x o .. ~ ~ 3 0 °: a a a ' a ~ •~ ~ y °a' b C ~ m ~ ~ ~ '~ y '~ O c .. V~ ca '. a~ ~ C./) 0 0 0 0 0 Q a~i '~ o Q ~ o p p a 'a ~ ~ p a o c~ ~ °~ ~ ~ O ~ a~i `~ bi. of ai ~ q° ~ ~ ~, y w s "CA ~ q ~ ~ ~ Q" LL ~ ;~ v ~ ~ cyd y C~ m 'L7 vim, v y t' i Rai R ~ ~ ~ ~Ci 4 ~ Py ~ -46- ~_ W Q Z I ~- U w O n z ~? u~ N N w O Q `a { v ~ ~ ~ '~ o '~ 0 '~ 0 v „ „ y - ~ :, ~ ~ U.~Q V.SA H bb V. ~'~ rl ~ ~ A ~ ~=a '~ ~ W W W r ~ ~ ,: ~I' ~, _I _~~ J ~_ I U ~ ~I ~1 L C~ O o„ f~ .~, ~_ :p ~, ~„ ~ ~ .` _ ~ ~h ~ o ,~ ~. ,.. ti ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ i A ~ '` ~'~ V ~ t~ U - 3 W O ~ 'h -~ _. .. - ' V • ~ z_ N ; ~~ ~I ~ .~ w~.~ ~ ~~ - ~ - 0 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~+ ~ ' ~n a ~ _, C C q .~ ° ~~ ~ V V y ~ ~ y i O y ~"~ ~ ~ ~ •~ . G .~ "~ P, ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ,y. y U td ,I ~ ~ ,~ y ~ ~ °; n ~ ~ ' . ~ b ~ b b y , . . D -~ : .~ -. '~ C ,.~ cd ,N 7i rw. ''r~y C ~ ,a L1. v y C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'DF,~ ~ ~ {' I w r. ~ o ~ z° ~•~ ; w w w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ a R" ~ o Q i i L'. ~ ::7 a :=1 a ,~ °" 4 a , Q: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S-~ ~ g-~° ~ 0 o p" o o p" o o ~'' ~" ~ w ~' ~ w ~' ~ w . . . ~ N ~ .d .~ u ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ o C d "' '~ ~ ~ o O w m Gov p ~ N ~ •y O ~ a~ d ~ ~ ~ k y c0 (~ ~ ~ ~ a~~ o .~ ~~ Hc~w~ .. u; ~ o v ~ W o u b ~ ~ y O u o C ~~ C-: O ~ ~ c ^~ a ~ ~ a ~, ..~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ 0 M v O y ~Sy Qy+ ~ b .n u~ cam to ~ H y ~ "o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~~~o ~ ~ N.~.n~a ~ L ~ '~~+ G 'SON 5 ~.~ v, U O ,n .~~~°~ ~~~,~° w~~ N o ~ u ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ 'O ~ ~ o ~ o y ~ ~ ~ G\ R v ~ O H "yrJ ca a, ~ ' ~ ~ d ~" rn C L4 O s~ o ~ ~ fN c ~, .~ v .~ ~ ~ o~a~ aAa ~~ ~ c ~ ~. O v ~ U q _ F ~s=R _ I N '~ ~ C E- N ~r,- a ~ u 4` o .~ ~U .b C. v y U ~.~ U O I y ~ ~ U .~ o ,~ -o s~ ~ o - .~ ~ •~ ~~,~ E °" ~ .a ~ o o ;~ n. ~ ~ a °' N .O v Von~~ ~ •~ y h ~ ~ ~ y ~ i o v ~ ~ •.,, ~ ~ ~ _ .~ aa, O ~ ~ ~° " ~ N w C9 aA ° •~ o G~ y ^ .may H I~f V ~, o ~y u ~ C h a N a u O [A cy .a a b o ~, c ~ ~ ~ u .~ O O ~ b .'+. 1~ "'' U b ~ !~ ~ ~ a a. ~ ~ ,. v ~'o ~ a y ~ ~ ~ ~ N v ^° ~ ~ y a ~- ~ .~ ~ a ~o~,o .. ~xo~~~>^ V N ~V ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~ rs. ., o •y o y ~a~ d ~ ~ U U ~ 'O rn ~`'' O ~ '~ U B ~+ ~ o ,~ ~~~.b~o~ ~'^ ~ ~ ~ a .~ w ~ ~ G v •.. ~y+ O O s.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ISa ~ is m G. a~ a~ A.+ a '~" ~ O p ~ ~,_, T o a c ~, o app y :j en ,~, n, ,~, :a c, a o '~ aN a °xa ~ u °~ O u '"~ °~ CL O Q LL O w -~/ EXHIBIT C DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 249 East Grand Avenue Office/Research and Development Project This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE OFFICE/RESEARCHANb DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ("PROJECT") is dated ,2006 ("Agreement"), between ARE-SAN FRANCISCO N0. 12, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Owner"), and the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("City"). Owner and City are collectively referred to herein as "Parties." RECITALS A. WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 authorize the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property or on behalf of those persons .having same; and, B. WHEREAS, ARE-San Francisco No. 12, LLC, the Owner, has a legal interest in the real property subject to this Agreement; and, C. WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, the City has adopted rules and regulations, embodied in Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, establishing procedures and requirements for adoption and execution of development agreements; and, D. WHEREAS, this Agreement concerns property consisting of a 15.75-acre site located at 249 East Grand Avenue, as shown and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("Property"); and, E. WHEREAS, the Owner['s parent company] has submitted a development proposal to the City, commonly known as the 249 East Grand Office/Reseazch and Development Project, consisting of construction of four 3- to 5-story office/research and development buildings, totaling approximately 534,500 squaze feet, with 5,500 squaze feet of ancillary retail space and a four-level parking garage, as depicted on the 249 East Grand Plan Set, dated ,. -~ prepared by [bowler-Gruman Architects], including application for a Use Permit dated ` " ,attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference ("Plan Set"), to be located on the Property ("Project"); and, F. WHEREAS, Owner has requested. that the City enter into this Agreement to set forth the rights and obligations of the parties relating to the development of the Project; and, G. WHEREAS, all proceedings necessary for the valid adoption and execution hereof have taken place in accordance with Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5, the Page 1 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -49- California Environmental Quality Act and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and, H. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning Commission have found that this Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan as adopted on October 13, 1999 and as amended from time to time; and, I. WHEREAS, on , 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. approving and adopting this Agreement and the Ordinance thereafter took effect on 2006. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows: Effective Date Pursuant to Section 19.60. I40 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, notwithstanding the fact that the City Council adopts an ordinance approving this Agreement, the Agreement shall be effective and shall only create obligations for the Parties from and after the date that the ordinance approving this Agreement takes effect ("Effective Date"}. 2. Duration This Agreement shall expire ten (10) years from the Effective Date of this Agreement, but in no event later than December 31, 2017. In the event that litigation to which the City is a party against the Owner, or any of its officers, agents, employees, contractors, representatives or consultants, should delay implementation or construction of the Project on the Property, the expiration date of this Agreement shall be extended for a period equal to the length of time from the time the summons and complaint is served on the defendant(s) until the judgment entered by the court is final and not subject to appeal; provided, however, that the total amount of time for which the expiration date shall be extended as a result of such litigation shall not exceed five (5) years. 3. Proiect Descriution• Development Standards For Proiect The Project shall consist of four Office/Research and Development buildings totaling approximately 534,500 square feet, 5,500 square feet of ancillary retail space, afour-level parking garage, and related improvements as provided in the Plan Set and as approved by the City Council. Page 2 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -50- (a) The permitted uses, the density and intensity of uses, the maximum heights, locations and total area of the proposed buildings, the development schedule, the provisions for vehicular access and parking, any reservation or dedication of land, any public improvements, facilities and services, and all environmental impact mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions for the Project shall be exclusively those provided in the Plan Set, Use Permit, Development Plan, Environmental Impact Report, this Agreement (as approved by the City Council) and the applicable ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date (including, but not limited to, the applicable provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code in effect as of the Effective Date), except as modified in this Agreement. (b) Subject to Owner's fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement, upon the Effective Date of this Agreement, the City hereby grants to Owner a vested right to develop and construct on the Property all the improvements for the Project authorized by, and in accordance with the terms of, this Agreement, the Plan Set (as approved by the City Council) and the applicable ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date. (c) Upon such grant of right, no future amendments to the City General Plan, the City Zoning Code, the City Municipal Code, or other City ordinances, policies or regulations in effect as of the Effective Date shall apply to the Project, except such future modifications that are not in conflict with and do not prevent the development proposed in the Plan Set and as approved by the City Council; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or preclude the City from adopting any land use regulations or amendments expressly permitted herein or otherwise required by State or Federal Law. (d) The Use Permit granted by City shall not require an extension during the term of this Agreement provided Owner is not in material breach of the terms of this Agreement or the Conditions of Approval for said Use Permit. 4. Permits For Project Owner shall submit a Development Plan for development of the Project within sixty (60) days of applying for a grading permit for any phase of the Project. The Development Plan shall address, at a minimum, the landscaping and common improvements required for each phase of the Project. In connection with said Development Plan, Owner shall provide to the City an Irrevocable Letter of Credit substantially in the form attached as Exhibit C, reasonably approved by the City Attorney, in an amount equal to One Hundred Twenty Five Percent (125%) of the estimated reasonable costs to construct the landscaping and common improvements identified in the approved Development Plan for the phase to be covered by the grading permit. Said Letter of Credit shall be submitted within sixty (60) days of receiving a grading permit for any phase of the Project. The City may draw under the Letter of Credit as provided below to complete the landscaping and common improvements and to reimburse the City for costs related thereto. The Letter of Credit shall be reduced as the landscaping and common improvements are completed by Page 3 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -51- Owner and accepted by City in an amount equal to the completed improvements and landscaping's proportionate share of the original estimated reasonable costs to construct the landscaping and common improvements identified in the approved Development Plan for the phase to be covered by the grading permit. If Owner fails to complete the landscaping and common improvements for a phase of the Project prior to Owner's application for a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in the next phase of the Project or Owner fails to complete the landscaping and common improvements for the final phase of the Project prior to Owner's application for a Certificate of Occupancy for the fmal building to be constructed as part of the Project, City may give Owner written notice of such failure and City shall be entitled to withdraw funds from the Letter of Credit and complete said landscaping and common improvements if Owner does not so complete the same within 90 days after receiving City's notice of such failure. City shall also be entitled to draw funds under the Letter of Credit in the event Owner obtains a grading permit for any phase of the Project and (1) Owner fails to request a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy for any building within that phase by December 31, 2016; or (2) Owner fails to complete the landscaping and common improvements for that phase by December 31, 2016. For each phase, the City shall issue building permits and Certificates of Occupancy only after the City has reviewed and approved Owner's applications therefor. City staff review of applications for permits or other certificates or approvals shall be limited to determining whether the following conditions are met: (a) The application is complete; and, (b) Owner has complied with the conditions of the City Council's approval of the Project, all applicable Uniform Codes, the South San Francisco Municipal Code, CEQA requirements, including any required mitigation measures, governing issuance of such permits or certificates and Federal and State Laws; and, (c) Owner has obtained Design Review approval for the Project; including required approval of Landscaping and Common Improvements; and, (d) All applicable processing, administrative and legal fees have been paid subject to the provisions of this Agreement; and, (e) For Certificates of Occupancy only, Owner has completed, and City has approved, the landscaping and common improvements for earlier phases of the Project. Vesting of Approvals Upon the City's approval of the Design Review, Parcel Map, Planned Unit Development, Transportation Demand Management Plan, Use Permit and this Agreement, such approvals shall vest in Owner and its successors and assigns for the term of this Agreement, provided that the successors and assigns comply with the terms and Page 4 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -52- conditions of all of the foregoing, including, but not limited to, submission of insurance certificates and bonds for the grading of the Property and construction of improvements. 6. Cooperation Between Parties in Implementation of This Agreement It is the Parties' express intent to cooperate with one another and diligently work to implement all land use and building approvals for development of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Accordingly, the Owner and City shall proceed in a reasonable and timely manner, in compliance with the deadlines mandated by applicable agreements, statutes or ordinances, to complete all steps necessary for implementation of this Agreement and development of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The City shall proceed in an expeditious manner to complete all actions required for the development of the Project, including but not limited to the following: (a) Scheduling all required public hearings by the City Council and City Planning Commission; and (b) Processing and checking all maps, plans, permits, building plans and specifications and other plans relating to development of the Property filed by Owner or its nominee, successor or assign as necessary for development of the Property, and inspecting and providing acceptance of or comments on work by Owner that requires acceptance or approval by the City. Owner, in a timely manner, shall provide City with all documents, applications, plans and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations hereunder and to cause its planners, engineers and all other consultants to submit in a timely manner all necessary materials and documents. 7. Acquisition of Other Property; Eminent Domain In order to facilitate and insure development of the Project in accordance with the Plan Set and the City Council's approval, the City may assist Owner, at Owner's request and at Owner's sole cost and expense, in acquiring any easements or properties necessary for the satisfaction and completion of any off-site components of the Project required by the City Council to be constructed or obtained by Owner in the Council's approval of the Project and the Plan Set, in the event Owner is unable to acquire such easements or properties or is unable to secure the necessary agreements with the applicable property owners for such easements or properties. Owner expressly acknowledges that the City is under no obligation to use its power of Eminent Domain. 8. Maintenance Obligations on Property All of the Property subject to this Agreement shall be maintained by Owner or its successors in perpetuity in accordance with City requirements to prevent accumulation of litter and trash, to keep weeds abated, and to provide erosion control, and other Page 5 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA )uly 12, 2006 -53- requirements set forth in the South San Francisco Municipal Code, subject to City approval. (a) If Owner subdivides the property or otherwise transfers ownership of a parcel or building in the Project to any person or entity such that the Property is no longer under single ownership, Owner shall first establish an Owner's Association and submit Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") to the City for review and approval by the City Attorney. Said CC&Rs shall satisfy the requirements of Municipal Code section 19.36.040. (b) Any provisions of said CC&Rs governing the Project relating to the maintenance. obligations under this section shall be enforceable by the City. 9. Fees No fee requirements (except those identified herein) imposed by the City on or after the Effective Date of this Agreement and no changes to existing fee requirements (except those currently subject to annual increases as specified in the adopting or implementing Resolutions and Ordinances) that occur on or after the Effective Date of this Agreement, shall apply to the Project. Owner shall not be responsible for any fees imposed by the City in connection with the development and construction of the Project, except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, the Use Permit, the Planned Unit Development Permit, and those in existence as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. (a) Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing, administrative, legal and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. 10. New Taxes Any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply to the Property provided that: (1) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. I1. Assessments Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from common benefit assessments levied against it and similarly situated properties by the City pursuant to and in accordance with any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services which benefit the Property. 12. Additional Conditions Owner shall comply with all of the following requirements: Page 6 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -54- (a) Traffic Impact Fees. Owner shall pay the following Traffic Impact Fees: 1. Ouster Point Overpass Fees -Oyster Point Overpass fees shall be determined based on the application of the formula in effect as of the time such Oyster Point Overpass Fees become due and payable. The City and developer agree that the approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of ancillary retail space will be treated as "General Office Building" for purposes of calculating the Oyster Point Overpass fees. 2. East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee -East of 101 Traffic Impact fees shall be determined based on the application of the formula in effect as of the time such East of 101 Traffic Impact Fees become due and payable. The City and developer agree that the approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of ancillary retail space will be treated as "Office/R&D" for purposes of calculating the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee. (b) Rails to Trails Improvements. 1. Should the rail corridor abutting the north boundary of the Property, and identified in the General Plan as a future bike path, become available for public use prior to July 31, 2011, the City may elect, at the City's option to be exercised in the City's reasonable discretion, to have Owner either install the improvements described in subsection 12(b)l.i. below for the portion of the comdor that directly abuts the Property or provide the cost estimates and funds described in subsection 12(b)2. below. The City shall give Owner written notice of its election. i. If the City so elects, Owner shall install improvements at its sole cost and expense for the portion of the corridor that directly abuts the Property. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, paving, lighting, and landscaping of a design and scope consistent with standard portions of the City's then existing Rails to Trails corridor of the Bay Trail. ii. Pursuant to Owner's obligation to install said improvements, Owner shall submit plans, including a cost estimate, for the improvements, to the City for review and approval. Owner shall complete construction of said improvements by the later of (A) the date that is two (2) years after the City gives Owner written notice that the City has elected to have Owner construct said improvements, and (B) December 31, 2013. 2. If the City does not elect to have Owner construct the improvements described in subsection 12(b)l.i. above or the rail corridor abutting the north boundary of the Property does not become available for public use Page 7 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -55- prior to July 31, 2011, then, prior to expiration of the Development Agreement: Owner shall (1) provide City with a cost estimate, subject to City review and approval, of the costs that would be required for the improvements described in subsection 12{b)1. above; and (2) provide to the City the funds described in the cost estimate, to be used by the City solely to upgrade substandard portions of the City's then existing Bay Trail. ii. Owner shall provide said cost estimate and funds prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the final building to be constructed as part of the Project, but no later than December 31, 2013. 3. If at any time the City decides to form an assessment district with the objective of acquiring and completing a rails to trails conversion for the rail corridor abutting the north boundary of the Property, Owner agrees not to oppose the formation of such a district. (c) Public Art Contribution. Owner shall install and provide artwork for public display in the Project. Said artwork shall cost in the aggregate no less than Five Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($540,000), and shall be installed on the Project site on or before the earlier of (i) the date on which Owner receives a Certificate of Occupancy for the fmal building to be constructed as part of the Project, and (ii) December 31, 2014. The artwork to be installed by Owner shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the City of South San Francisco prior to installation. Artwork installed pursuant to this section shall be maintained by Owner or, in the event Owner's interest in the property is conveyed or subdivided, by Owner's successors, or, if applicable, by the Owner's Association for the Project. If an association of owners is created, said maintenance obligations and a budget related thereto shall be included in the CC&Rs for the Project. If Owner fails to complete installation of the required artwork on or before December 31, 2014, Owner shall be required to pay an in- Iieu fee for such artwork in the amount of Five Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($540,000), less the documented cost of any public artwork actually installed by Owner in the Project provided the art work installed by Owner was approved by the City prior to installation. In the event the art in-lieu fee is paid, the costs/value of the artwork to be installed shall be adjusted annually on January 1st beginning in 2007 in an amount equal to the lesser of (x) the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Costs Index for the San Francisco Bay Area, and {y) three percent (3%). The in-lieu fee shall be paid on or before January 31, 2015. Page 8 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -56- (d) Transportation Demand Management. Owner shall prepare an annual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) report, and submit same to City, to document the effectiveness of the TDM plan in achieving the goal of 32% alternative mode usage by employees within the Project. The TDM report will be prepared by an independent consultant, retained by City with the approval of Owner (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) and paid for by Owner, which consultant will work in concert with Owner's TDM coordinator. The TDM report will include a determination of historical employee commute methods, which information shall be obtained by survey of all employees working in the buildings on the Property. All nonresponses will be counted as a drive alone trip. 1. TDM Revorts: The initial TDM report for each building on the Property will be submitted two (2) yeazs after the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy with respect to the building, and this requirement will apply to all buildings on the Property except the pazking facilities. The second and all later reports with respect to each building shall be included in an annual comprehensive TDM report submitted to City covering all of the buildings on the Property which are submitting their second or later TDM reports. i. Report Requirements: The goal of the TDM program is to encourage alternative mode usage, as defined in Chapter 20.120 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The initial TDM report shall either: (1) state that the applicable property has achieved 32% alternative mode usage, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (2) state that the applicable property has not achieved the 32% alternative mode usage, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached, and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to attain the TDM goal of 32% alternative mode usage. ii. Penalty for Non-Compliance: If, after the initial TDM report, subsequent annual reports indicate that, in spite of the changes in the TDM plan, the 32% alternative mode usage is still not being achieved, or if Owner fails to submit such a TDM report at the times described above, City may assess Owner a penalty in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) per year for each percentage point below the minimum 32% alternative mode usage goal. a. In determining whether a financial penalty is appropriate, City may consider whether Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals. b. If City determines that Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals but a penalty is still imposed, and such penalty is Page 9 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -57- imposed within the first three (3) years of the TDM plan (commencing with the first year in which a penalty could be imposed), such penalty sums, in the City's sole discretion, may be used by Owner toward the implementation of the TDM plan instead of being paid to City. If the penalty is used to implement the TDM Plan, an Implementation Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to expending any penalty funds. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amount of any penalty shall bear the same relationship to the maximum penalty as the completed construction to which the penalty applies bears to the maximum amount of square feet of Office, Commercial, Retail and Research and Development use permitted to be constructed on the Property. For example, if there is 200,000 square feet of completed construction on the Property included within the TDM report with respect to which the penally is imposed, the penalty would be determined by multiplying Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) times a fraction, the numerator of which is 200,000 square feet and the denominator of which is the maximum amount of square feet of construction permitted on the Property, subtracting the square footage of the parking facilities; this amount would then be multiplied by the number of percentage points below the 32% alternative mode usage goal. d. The provisions of this section are incorporated as Conditions of Approval for the Project and shall be included in the approved TDM for the Project. 13. Indemni Owner agrees,to indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by City subject to the reasonable approval of Owner) and hold harmless City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by the Owner, or any actions or inactions of Owner's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Owner shall have no indemnification obligation with respect to gross negligence or willful misconduct of City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any public improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). 14. Interests of Other Owners Page 10 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -58- Owner has no knowledge of any reason why Owner, and any other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, will not be bound by this Agreement. 15. Assignment (a) Right to Assi~ri. Owner may at any time or from time to time transfer its right, title or interest in or to all or any portion of the Property. In accordance with Government Code Section 65868.5, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to Owner. As a condition precedent to any such transfer, Owner shall require the transferee to acknowledge in writing that transferee has been informed, understands and agrees that the burdens and benefits under this Agreement relating to such transferred property shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the transferee. (b) Notice of Assignment or Transfer. No transfer, sale or assignment of Owner's rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without the prior written notice to City and approval by the City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The City Manager shall consider and decide the matter within 10 days after Owner's notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications and other information are provided to the City Manager. (c) Exception for Notice. Notwithstanding Section 15(b), Owner may at any time, upon notice to City but without the necessity of any approval by the City, transfer the Property or any part thereof and all or any part of Owner's rights, interests and obligations hereunder to: (i) any subsidiary, affiliate, parent or other entity which controls, is controlled by or is under common control with Owner, (ii) any member or partner of Owner or any subsidiary, parent or affiliate of any such member or partner, or (iii) any successor or successors to Owner by merger, consolidation, non-bankruptcy reorganization or government action. As used in this paragraph, "control" shall mean the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of management or policies, whether through the ownership of voting securities, partnership interest, contracts (other than those that transfer Owner's interest in the property to a third parry not specifically identified in this subsection (c)) or otherwise. (d) Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of Owner's rights, interests and obligations hereunder pursuant to Section 15(a), Section 15(b) or Section 15(c) of this Agreement, Owner shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment or the effective date of such transfer, sale or assignment, whichever occurs later; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser or assignee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes any right, interest or obligation of Owner under this Agreement, Owner shall be released with respect to such Page 11 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12,2006 -59- rights, interests and assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval. (e) Owner's Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obli ations Notwithstanding Sections 15(a) and 15(c), Owner may withhold from a sale, transfer or assignment of this Agreement certain rights, interests and/or obligations which Owner shall retain, provided that Owner specifies such rights, interests and/or obligations in a written document to be appended to or maintained with this Agreement and recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder prior to or concurrently with the sale, transfer or assignment of the Property. Owner's purchaser, transferee or assignee shall then have no interest or obligations for such retained rights, interests and obligations and this Agreement shall remain applicable to Owner with respect to such retained rights, interests and/or obligations. (f) Time for Notice. Within ten (10) days of the date escrow closes on any such transfer, Owner shall notify the City in writing of the name and address of the transferee. Said notice shall include a statement as to the obligations, including any mitigation measures, fees, improvements or other conditions of approval, assumed by the transferee. Any transfer which does not comply with the notice requirements of this section and Section 15(b) shall not release the Owner from its obligations to the City under this Agreement until such time as the City is provided notice in accordance with Section 15{b). 16. Insurance (a) Public Liability and Property aye Insurance During the term of this Agreement, Owner shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with aper-occurrence combined single limit of not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) and a deductible of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per claim. The policy so maintained by Owner shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross-liability endorsement. (b) Workers Compensation Insurance. During the term of this Agreement Owner shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed by Owner for work at the Project site. Owner shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Owner agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Owner's failure to maintain any such required insurance. (c) Evidence of Insurance. Prior to City Council approval of this Agreement, Owner shall furnish City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in subsections (a) and (b) and evidence that the carrier will provide the City at least ten (10) days Page i2 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -60- prior written notice of any cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy if the reduction results in coverage less than that required by this Agreement. 1. In the event of a reduction (below the limits required in this Agreement) or cancellation in coverage, or change in insurance carriers or policies, Owner shall, prior to such reduction, cancellation or change, provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice to City, regardless of any notification by the applicable insurer. If the City discovers that the policies have been cancelled or reduced below the limits required in this Agreement and no notice has been provided by either insurer or Owner, said failure shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 2. In the event of a reduction (below the limits required by this Agreement) or cancellation in coverage, Owner shall have five (5) days in which to provide evidence of the required coverage during which time no persons shall enter the Property to construct improvements thereon, including construction activities related to the landscaping and common improvements. Additionally, no persons not employed by existing tenants shall enter the Property to perform such works until such time as the City receives evidence of substitute coverage. 3. If Owner fails to obtain substitute coverage within five (5) days, City may obtain, but is not required to obtain, substitute coverage and charge Owner the cost of such coverage plus an administrative fee equal to ten percent (10%) of the premium for said coverage. (d) The insurance shall include the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives as additional insureds on the policy. 17. Covenants Run With The Land The terms of this Agreement are legislative in nature, and apply to the Property as regulatory ordinances. During the term of this Agreement, all of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees and all other persons or entities acquiring the Property, any lot, parcel or any portion thereof, and any interest therein, whether by sale, operation of law or other manner, and they shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors. 18. Conflict with State or Federal Law In the event that State or Federal Iaws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified (in accordance with Section 19 set forth Page 13 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -61- below) or suspended as maybe necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Owner shall have the right to challenge, at its sole cost, in a court of competent jurisdiction, the law or regulation preventing compliance with the terms of this Agreement and, if the challenge in a court of competent jurisdiction is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. 19. Procedure for Modification Due to Conflict with State or Federal Laws In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be approved by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 20. Periodic Review During the term of this Agreement, the City shall conduct "annual" and/or "special" reviews of Owner's good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. City may recover reasonable costs incurred in conducting said review, including staff time expended and attorney's fees.. 21. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement This Agreement may be further amended or terminated only in writing and in the manner set forth in Government Code Sections 65865.1, 65867.5, 65868, 65868.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 22. Agreement is Entire Agreement This Agreement and all exhibits attached hereto or incorporated herein contain the sole and entire Agreement between the parties concerning the Property. The parties acknowledge and agree that neither of them has made any representation with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement or any representations inducing the execution and delivery hereof, except representations set forth herein, and each party acknowledges that it has relied on its own judgment in entering this Agreement. The parties further acknowledge that all statements or representations that heretofore may have been made by either of them to the other are void and of no effect, and that neither of them has relied thereon in its dealings with the other. 23. Events of Default Owner shall be in default under this Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events: Page 14 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -62- (a) If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Owner to the City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; or, (b) A finding and determination by the City made following an annual or special review under the procedure provided for in Government Code Section 65865.1 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code that, upon the basis of substantial evidence, Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; or, (c) Owner fails to fulfill any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement and such failure continues beyond any applicable cure period provided in this Agreement. This provision shall not be interpreted to create a cure period for any event of default where such cure period is not specifically provided for in this Agreement. 24. Procedure upon Default (a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default, City may terminate or modify this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65865.1 and of Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (b) The City shall not be deemed to have waived any claim of defect in Owner's performance if, on annual or special review, the City does not propose to ternnate this Agreement. (c) No waiver or failure by the City or Owner to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any provision of this Agreement or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. (d) Any actions for breach of this Agreement shall be decided in accordance with California law. The remedy for breach of this Agreement shall be limited to specific performance. (e) The City shall give Owner written notice of any default under this Agreement, and Owner shall have thirty (30) days after the date of the notice to cure the default or to reasonably commence the procedures or actions needed to cure the default; provided, however, that if such default is not capable of being cured within such thirty (30) day period, Owner shall have such additional time to cure as is reasonably necessary. 25. Attorneys Fees and Costs If legal action by either Parry is brought because of breach of this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing Parry is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. (a) Action by Third Party. If any person or entity not a parry to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of Page 15 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -63- this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action. Owner shall bear its own costs of defense as a real parry in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by City in defense of any such action or other proceeding. 26. Severability If any material term or condition of this Agreement is for any reason held by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, and if the same constitutes a material change in the consideration for this Agreement, then either Party may elect in writing to invalidate this entire Agreement, and thereafter this entire Agreement shall be deemed null and void and of no further force or effect following such election. 27. No Third Parties Benefited No person other than the City, Owner, or their respective successors is intended to or shall have any right or claim under this Agreement, this Agreement being for the sole benefit and protection of the parties hereto and their respective successors. Similarly, no amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall require the consent or acknowledgment of any person not a Party or successor to this Agreement. 28. Binding Effect of Agreement The provisions of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties originally named herein and their respective successors and assigns. 29. Relationship of Parties It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Owner and that the Owner is not an agent of City. The parties do not intend to create a partnership, joint venture or any other joint business relationship by this Agreement. The City and Owner hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Owner joint venturers or partners. Neither Owner nor any of Owner's agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be agents of City in connection with the performance of Owner's obligations under this Agreement. 30. Bankruptcy The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 31. Mort~a~ee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure (a) Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to all liens placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date on which this Page i6 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -64- Agreement or a memorandum of this Agreement is recorded, including the lien of any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against all persons and entities, including all deed of trust beneficiaries or mortgagees ("Mortgagees"), who acquire title to the Property or any portion thereof by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise. (b) Mortgagee Not Obligated. No foreclosing Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to construct or complete the construction of any improvements required by this Agreement, or to pay for or guarantee construction or completion thereof. City, upon receipt of a written request therefor from a foreclosing Mortgagee, shall permit the Mortgagee to succeed to the rights and obligations of Owner under this Agreement, provided that all defaults by Owner hereunder that are reasonably susceptible of being cured are cured by the Mortgagee as soon as is reasonably possible. The foreclosing Mortgagee thereafter shall comply with all of the provisions of this Agreement. (c) Notice of Default to Mort~a ee. If City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Owner hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, City shall deliver to the Mortgagee concurrently with service thereof to Owner, all notices given to Owner describing all claims by the City that Owner has defaulted hereunder. If City determines that Owner is in noncompliance with this Agreement, City also shall serve notice of noncompliance on the Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereof on Owner. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Owner to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the condition of default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City's notice. 32. Estoppel Certificate Either party from time to time may deliver written notice to the other party requesting written certification that, to the knowledge of the certifying party, (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and constitutes a binding obligation of the parties; (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or, if it has been amended or modified, specifying the nature of the amendments or modifications; and (iii) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, describing therein the nature and monetary amount, if any, of the default. A party receiving a request hereunder shall endeavor to execute and return the certificate within ten (10) days after receipt thereof, and shall in all events execute and return the certificate within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof. However, a failure to return a certificate within ten (10) days shall not be deemed a default of the party's obligations under this Agreement and no cause of action shall arise based on the failure of a party to execute such certificate within ten (10) days. The City Manager shall have the right to execute the certificates requested by Owner hereunder provided the certificate Page 17 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -65- is requested within six (6) months of the annual or special review. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by permitted transferees and Mortgagees. At the request of Owner, the certificates provided by City establishing the status of this Agreement with respect to any lot or parcel shall be in recordable form, and Owner shall have the right to record the certificate for the affected portion of the Property at its cost. 33. Force Majeure Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, either Party shall be excused for the period of any delay in the performance of any of its obligations hereunder, except the payment of money, when prevented or delayed from so doing by certain causes beyond its control, including, and limited to, major weather differences from the normal weather conditions for the South San Francisco area, war, acts of God or of the public enemy, foes, explosions, floods, earthquakes, invasions by non-United States armed forces, failure of transportation due to no fault of the Parties, unavailability of equipment, supplies, materials or labor when such unavailability occurs despite the applicable Party's good faith efforts to obtain same (good faith includes the present and actual ability to pay market rates for said equipment, materials, supplies and labor), strikes of employees other than Owner's, freight embargoes, sabotage, riots, acts of terrorism and acts of the government. The Parry claiming such extension of time to perform shall send written notice of the claimed extension to the other Party within thirty (30) days from the commencement of the cause entitling the Party to the extension. 34. Rules of Co}~struction and Miscellaneous Terms (a) The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. (b) Time is and shall be of the essence in this Agreement. (c} Where a Party consists of more than one person, each such person shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of such Party's obligation hereunder. (d) The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of this Agreement and do not in any way limit or amplify the provisions thereof. (e} This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California in effect on the date thereof. 3 5. Exhibits Exhibit A -Map and Legal Description of Property Exhibit B -Use Permit, including Plan Set and Conditions of Project Approval Exhibit C -Form Irrevocable Letter of Trust Page 18 of 20 249 Easf Grand Avenue DA July Z2, 2006 -66- 36. Notices All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person (to include delivery by courier) or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or by overnight delivery service. Notices to the City shall be addressed as follow: City Clerk P.O. Box 71 1, 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Notices to Owner shall be addressed as follows: ARE-San Francisco No. 12, LLC c/o Alexandria Real Estate Equities 385 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 299 Pasadena, CA 91101 Fax: (626) 578-7318 Attn: Corporate Secretary A party may change its address for notice by giving notice in writing to the other parry and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Page 19 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -67- 1N WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the parties on the day and year first above written. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney Barry M. Nagel, City Manager OWNER ARE-SAN FRANCISCO NO. 12, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Alexandria Real Estate Equities, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Its Managing Member By: ARE-QRS CORP., a Maryland corporation, Its General Partner 833875_] 249 East Grand Avenue DA Page 20 of 20 By: _ Name: Title: July 12, 2006 -68- EXHIBIT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION All that certain real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, more particularly described as follows: PARCEL ONE: LOT 27, BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF "CABOT CABOT AND FORBES INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 1-B", FILED MAY 25, 1966, IN BOOK 64 OF MAPS, PAGES 49-51, SAN MATED COUNTY RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS, WITHOUT RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, CONVEYED TO THE CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY IN THE QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION RECORDED MARCH 23, 1965, IN BOOK 4917, PAGE 314, OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL TWO: AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES PURPOSES, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, IN, ON, UNDER, OVER AND ALONG A STRIP OF LAND, 15 FEET IN WIDTH, LYING ADJACENT TO AND SOUTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY FROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED NORTHWESTERLY AND WESTERLY L1NE THEREOF. BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL, NORTH 33° 24' 33" EAST, 540.00 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG LAST SAID LINE, NORTH 12° 40' 08" WEST, 131.46 FEET TO A POINT ON THE GENERAL SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID CABOT ROAD, SAID EASEMENT BEING CONTIGUOUS AT ITS NORTHERLY EXTREMITY WITH LAST SAID LINE AND AT ITS SOUTHERLY EXTREMITY WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2, AS , SAID LOT AND BLOCK ARE SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "CABOT CABOT & FORBES INDUSTRIAL PARK, UNIT N0. 1, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", FILED FOR RECORD IN VOLUME 61 OF MAPS, AT PAGES 45 THROUGH 49, SAN MATED COUNTY RECORDS. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 015-050-440, 015-050-450 -69- EXIIIBIT B USE PERMIT PLAN SET -70- EXHIBIT C FORM IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT -71- [MUST BE SUBNIITTED ON BANK'S LETTERHEAD] IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT # City of South San Francisco Attention: Barry M. Nagel, City Manager City Manager's Office 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 DATE: 2006 EXPIRATION: Perpetual (see conditions for termination described below) By order of our clients, ARE-San Francisco No. 12, LLC("ARE"}, we hereby issue in your favor this Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit for any sum or sums not exceeding ($ )which is available against your draft(s) at sight on [Insert name and address of banking institution issuing letter], when accompanied by a statement signed by a purportedly authorized representative of the Office of the City Manager, Cityof South San Francisco, CA certifying the following: ARE is in default of any one of the provisions established by that certain "Development Agreement For 249 East Grand Avenue Office/Research And Development Project" ("Development Agreement") entered into between the City of South San Francisco and ARE (collectively, "the Parties") and dated the _ day of , 2006, and has failed satisfactorily to perform the terms,- covenants -and conditions contained therein. 2. Proceeds of any draft drawn on this Letter of Credit will be used solely for the purposes and interest described the Development Agreement entered into between Parties. All drafts must be presented at the counters of the [insert bank name and address], and must include the statement "Drawn on the, Letter of Credit Number ." Partial and multiple drawings are .pemutted. -72- OfFce of the City Manager, City of South San Francisco Letter of Credit # Page 2 This Letter of Credit shall remain in full force and effect in perpetuity without expiration until the completion, including review and approval by the City, of all requirements listed in that certain "Development Agreement For 249 East Grand Avenue Office/Research And Development Project" incorporated herein by reference. We hereby undertake that all drafts drawn hereunder will be duly honored by us if drawn and presented in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit is subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 Revision, International Chamber of Commerce, Publication Number 500.) In addition, the undersigned hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or additions to the terms of the Development Agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any way affect its obligations on this Letter of Credit, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Development Agreement, the work or to the specifications. If suit is brought to enforce this Letter of Credit, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive in addition to the face amount of this Letter of Credit, its costs and expenses and fees, including attorney fees, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The Letter of Credit inures to and binds the successor and assigns of the parties. Sincerely, Executed by [insert bank intuition] this _ day of , 2006 Bank Name Signature of Authorized Agent Printed Name of Authorized Agent -73- PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 249 East Grand Office/R&D Project POS-0019 (As recommended by Planning Commission on June 15, 2006) A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follow: EXI~BIT D 1. The project shall be constructed substantially as indicated on the attached 249 East Grand development plans dated May 4, 2006, prepared by Dowler-Gruman Architects, except as otherwise modified by the following conditions: 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures identified in the 249 East Grand Avenue Project EIR. - Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall prepare a checklist outlining mitigation measures and status of implementation. 3. Child care - In accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.115, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall pay a childcare fee estimated to be $115,789.00 based on the following calculation [540,000 sf x $0.50/sf. _ $270,000.00, less credit for existing sf warehouse 328,258 sf x $0.47/sf = -$154,281 = $115,719.00]. 4. Site development plans shall designate short term parking areas within the surface parking lots to accommodate visitors. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide appropriate evidence. to ensure that buildings are designed so that the calculated hourly average noise levels during the daytime does not exceed and Leg of 45dBA, and instantaneous maximum noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA. 6. The applicant shall cooperate with the City in the development/implementation of a regional shuttle service if such is considered by the City. 7. TDM a. In accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.120.070, prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan for review and approval by the Chief Planner. The Final TDM Plan shall substantially reflect the "249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan", prepared by The Hoyt Company, dated September 2005. The Plan shall be designed to achieve a minimum 32% alternative mode use over the life of the project. b. The Final TDM Plan shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys and triennual reports as outlined in the Development Agreement, and as specified below: 1) Transportation Demand Management: Owner shall prepare an annual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) report, and submit same to City, to document the effectiveness of the TDM plan in achieving the goal of 32% alternative mode usage by employees within the Project. The TDM report will be prepared by an independent consultant, retained by City with the approval of -74- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Grand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page 2 of 15 Owner (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) and paid for by Owner, which consultant will work in concert with Owner's TDM coordinator. The TDM report will include a determination of historical employee commute methods, which information shall be obtained by survey of all employees working in the buildings on the Property. All nonresponses to the employee commute survey will be counted as a drive alone trip. 2) TDM Reports: The initial TDM report for each building on the Property will be submitted two (2) years after the granting of a certificate of occupancy with respect to the building, and this requirement will apply to all buildings on the Property except the parking structure. The second and all later reports with respect to each building shall be included in an annual comprehensive TDM report submitted to City covering all of the buildings on the Property which are submitting their second or later TDM reports. 3) Report Requirements: The goal of the TDM program is to encourage alternative mode usage, as defined in Chapter 20.120 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The initial TDM report shall either: (1) state that the applicable property has achieved 32% alternative mode usage, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (2) state that the applicable property has not achieved the 32% alternative mode usage, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached, and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to attain the TDM goal of 32% alternative mode usage. 4) Penalty for Non-Compliance: If after the initial TDM report, subsequent annual reports indicate that, in spite of the changes in the TDM plan, the 32% alternative mode usage is still not being achieved, or if Owner fails to submit such a TDM report at the times described above, City may assess Owner a penalty in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) per year for each percentage point below the minimum 35% alternative mode usage goal. i. In determining whether a financial penalty is appropriate, City may consider whether Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals. ii. If City determines that Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals but a penalty is still imposed, and such penalty is imposed within the first three (3) years of the TDM plan (commencing with the first year in which a penalty could be imposed), such penalty sums, in the City's sole discretion, may be used by Owner toward the implementation of the TDM plan instead of being paid to City. If the penalty is used to -75- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Grand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page 3 of 15 implement the TDM Plan, an Implementation Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to expending any penalty funds. iii. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amount of any penalty shall bear the same relationship to the maximum penalty as the completed construction to which the penalty applies bears to the maximum amount of square feet of Research and Development use permitted to be constructed on the Property. For example, if there is 200,400 square feet of completed construction on the Property included within the TDM report with respect to which the penalty is imposed, the penalty would be determined by multiplying Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) times a fraction, the numerator of which is 200,000 square feet and the denominator of which is the maximum amount of square feet of construction permitted on the Property, subtracting the square footage of the parking facilities; this amount would then be multiplied by the number of percentage points below the 32% alternative mode usage goal. c. The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program costs associated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM program. 8. All signs shall comply with the "Master Sign Program for Alexandria Technology Center, 249 East Grand Avenue" submitted by Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. 9. All roof-mounted equipment shall be contained in screened enclosures, subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. 10. The applicant shall revise the tree planting program along the street frontage to incorporate a double row of trees. Plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Chief Planner prior to issuance of a building pernut. 11. The applicant shall comply with all standard conditions as outlined in the "Standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial Industrial and Multi-Family Residential Projects", dated Revised February 1999. Accordingly, minor changes or deviations from the approved plans maybe approved by the Chief Planner; significant changes shall require approval of the Planning Commission. (Planning Division contact: Susy Kalkin {650) 877-8535) -76- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Grand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page 4 of 15 B. Engineering Division requirements shall be as follow: USE PERMIT CONDITIONS 1. STANDARD CONDITIONS The developer shall comply with the applicable conditions of approval for commercial projects, 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. 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS a. The developer shall design and construct at no cost to the City the approved recommended mitigation measures adopted by the City Council for 249 East Grand Avenue prepared by Lamphier-Gregory date July 2005, which includes extension of a left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach to the project's signalized entrance by 200 feet and sidewalk connection from Cabot Way to the internal campus sidewalk system, or to a garage elevator which will provide access to the internal campus sidewalk system. b. The applicant shall dedicate at no cost to the City a 10' wide utility and sidewalk easement along the entire frontage of the property, adjacent to and north of, the existing East Grand Avenue right-of--way line and install per City standard a meandering sidewalk and landscaping within the dedicated easement. Due to the heavy volume of existing traffic, providing a separation between the roadway and sidewalk will increase pedestrian safety. c. The applicant shall underground the existing utilities along the entire East Grand Avenue frontage of the property and install new City standard streetlights to replace the existing City wood pole mounted lights. All work shall be done at no cost to the City. d. The developer shall remove the existing railroad crossing lights, signs, tracks and appurtenances on East Grand Avenue. The developer shall replace the rairaoad crossing with a new pavement structural section in accordance with plans approved by the City. All work shall be done at not cost to the City. -77- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Grand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page 5 of 15 e. The developer shall incorporate bio/grassy swales within the project and shall be approved by the Engineering Division. f. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the proj ect, the applicant shall pay the various fees as detailed below. 3. OYSTER POINT OVERPASS CONTRIBUTION FEE Prior to receiving a Building Permit for the proposed new office/R&D development, the applicant shall pay the Oyster Point Overpass fee, as determined by the City Engineer, in accordance with City Council Resolutions I02-96 and 152-96. The fee will be calculated upon reviewing the information shown on the applicant's construction plans and the latest Engineering News Record San Francisco Construction Cost Index at the time of payment. The estimated fee for the entire subject 535,252 GSF office and R&D development is calculated below. (The number in the calculation, "8403.59", is the October 2005 Engineering News Record San Francisco construction cost index, which is revised each month to reflect local inflation changes in the construction industry.) Trip Calculation 535,252 gsf Office/R&D use @ 12.3 hips per 1000 gsf = 6,584 new vehicle trips Less credit for existing trips: 328,258 gsf warehouse X 4.5 trips per 1000 gsf = 1,477 vehicle trips Total new trips = 5,107 vehicle trips Contribution Calculation 5,107 trips X $154 X (8403.59/6552.16) _ $1,008,712 4. EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC Ilv1I'ACT FEES Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any building within the proposed project, the applicant shall pay the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee, In accordance with the resolution adopted by the City Council at their meeting of September 26, 2001, or as the fee maybe amended in the future. Fee Calculation (as of October 2005) 535,252 gsf OfficelR&D @ $2.11 per each square foot =$ 1,129,382 -78- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Grand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page6of15 Credit for existing trips: 328,258 sf warehouse x 0.54 trip/1000 SF x $1,671 = - 296 201 Traffic Impact Fee $ 833,181 5. SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY STUDY AND IMPROVEMENT FEE The City of South San Francisco has identified the need to investigate the condition and capacity of the sewer system within the East of 101 area, downstream of the proposed office/R&D development. The existing sewer collection system was originally designed many years ago to accommodate warehouse and industrial use and is now proposed to accommodate uses, such as offices and biotech facilities, with a much greater sewage flow. These additional flows, plus groundwater infiltration into the existing sewers, due to ground settlement and the age of the system, have resulted in pumping and collection capacity constraints. A study and flow model is proposed to analyze the problem and recommend solutions and improvements. The applicant shall pay the East of 1.01 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee, as adopted by the City Council at their meeting of October 23, 2002. The adopted fee is $3.19 per gallon of discharge per day. The applicant shall meet with the Director of Public Works to determine the projected discharge from the project. The Director of Public Works will determine the amount of capacity required in accordance with the criteria established in the Resolution adopted by the City Council on October 22, 2002. The Carollo Study, which forms the basis for the system upgrades, calculated Office/R&D uses to require a capacity of 400 gallons per day per 1000 square feet of development. Based upon this calculation, the potential fee would be, if paid this year: 0.4 g/sf (400 gpd/1000 sq. ft.) x $3.19 per gallon x 535,252 sq. ft. _ $682,982. Credit for existing building office portion given if more than 25% of facility, no credit given for warehouse. The sewer contribution shall be due and payable prior to receiving a building permit for each phase of the development. Total estimated fees: Oyster Point Over Pass Fee $ 1,008,712 East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee $ 833,181 East of 101 Sewer Improvement Fee $ 682,982 Total $ 2,524,875 -79- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Grand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page 7 of 15 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CONDITIONS 1. STANDARD CONDITIONS The developer shall comply with all of the applicable conditions of approval detailed in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Tentative Parcel Maps", contained in our "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet, dated January 1998. This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division. 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS a. Appropriate reciprocal easements between the subdivision parcels, together with property D.C.C. & R.'s, as needed to provide for access and the permanent repair and maintenance of utilities, shall be provided in a form and content acceptable to the City Engineer and the City Attorney and recorded in the County Records concurrently with the Parcel Map. b. All new improvements to be constnzcted within the public street right-of--way, or City owned easements, shall be approved by the Engineering Division and installed to City standards. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division for all public improvement work, prior to receiving a Building Permit for the renovation project. The cost of all work and repairs shall be borne by the applicant. c. The subdivider shall pay the Engineering Division's actual costs to retain a civil engineer or land surveyor to plan check and sign the parcel map as the City's Technical Reviewer. [Engineering Division contact: Dennis Chuck, Senior Civil Engineer (650) 829-6652] C. Police Department requirements shall be as follow: 1. Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailedlrevised building plans. -80- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Grand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page 8 of 15 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 locks 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 m;n;mum thickness of 1-3/4 inches and shall be secured by a deadbolt locks 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 onpanic-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 onpanic-equipped doors. 1 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/turnpiece. A double-cylinder deadbolt lock or asingle-cylinder deadbolt lock without a turnpiece maybe 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 stating "This door to remain unlocked during business hours", employing letters not less than one inch high on a contrasting background. The locking device must be of type that will be readily distinguishable as locked, and its use may be revoked by the Building Official for due cause. z5/16" security laminate, U4" polycarbonate, or approved security film. treatment, m;n;mum. -81- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Crrand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page 9 of 15 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 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 lacks, cylinder activated from the active leaf and satisfying the requirements, may be used instead of flush bolts. 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 U2" round or one byone-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 U8" 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. -82- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Grand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page 10 of 15 c) Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non- removablepins when using pin-type hinges. 3) All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" x 12" on the roof or exterior walls of any building shall be secured by covering the same with either of the following: a) Iron bars of at least U2" round or one byone-fourth inch flat steel material, spaced no more than five inches apart and securely fastened. or: b) A steel grill of at least U8" 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. a) Parking Lot lighting: Exterior parking lot lights shall behigh-pressure sodium or other High Intensity Discharge mast lighting for illumination and color rendition, at least 10 feet in height, and provide a minimum of three foot candles of light to the area, to mitigate trip and fall potential, and allow the identification of a person from a distance of 25 feet. 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. Larger numbers are strongly encouraged. -83- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Grand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page 11 of 15 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. 3) The roofs of the buildings shall also have building addresses affixed to them to aid with helicopter navigation. The numerals shall be no Less than four feet in height and of a color contrasting with the roof surface. 4) Monument signage for ready identification of building locations within the campus is required at the entrances to the campus. f. Alarms 1) The business shall be equipped with at least a central station silent. intrusion 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: 1) Handicapped parking spaces shall be clearly marked and properly sign posted. 2) Striping of parking spaces and use of wheel stops is required. Traffic circulation signage is recommended. h. Parking Structure Requirements 1) Exterior Construction: The building should incorporate an open design to maximize natural surveillance. Screens or bar fencing should be utilized on the ground floor of the structure to inhibit unauthorized access. 2} Lighting: Parking areas shall have a minimum of five foot candles, and driveways and staircases shall have a in;mum of 10 foot candles. 3) Elevator: If an elevator is to be used, it shall have clear windows and doors to maximize natural surveillance. 4) Wall Color: The interior walls of the parking structure shall be a light gray or white color, to maximize light reflection. 5} Emergency Phones: A phone system shall be installed to allow citizens to contact -84- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Grand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page 12 of 15 on-site emergency personnel. 6) Staircases: Staircases should utilize an open design that precludes the possibility of undesirables secreting themselves beneath the stairs. i. Uniformed Security Personnel This site shall require at least two unarmed, uniformed and licensed security officers. The Police Department's Community Relations Unit must approve the security company. If a large event is scheduled, such as an open house or grand opening, the applicant will contact the Police Department to determine additional security needs. NOTE: For additional details, contact the Community Relations Sergeant at (650) 877- 8922. j. 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 of TL-15. (Police Department contact person: Sgt. E. Alan Normandy, 877-8927) D. Fire Prevention Division requirements shall be as follow: 1. Install fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit for overhead and underground. 2. Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section 1003.3. 3. Fire sprinkler shutoff valves and awater-flow device shall be provided for each floor. 4. Provide class III combination standpipe-sprinkler system conforming to NFPA 13/SSFD requirements. 5. Elevator shunt-trips shall not be provided. -85- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Grrand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page 13 of 15 6. Provide 20 foot wide clear emergency vehicle access road. Indicate as fire lane with no parking allowed. All roads shall meet minimum turning radius for fire apparatus. 7. Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load of 68,000 pounds. 8. Road gradient shall not exceed maximum allowed by engineering department. 9. Provide fire flow in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix III-A. 10. Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be determined. 11. ~ All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code section 15.24.100. 12. Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors, electricaUmechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined. 13. Provide looped water system for development. 14. Provide pathway access for fire personnel to rear of proposed parking structure. 15. Provide access to a multi-use facility or room that is to be located on the ground floor of one of the buildings in the development. The following minimum requirements shall apply: ~ Storage closet (double door) approx. 3'x 5' ~ Phone jack, shelves and 2 electrical outlets 16. Developer to provide for emergency radio communications study to determine internal emergency radio communication need based on individual building types in development. If study finds internal radio communications are deficient, developer will provide for mitigation. Internal communications wiring, signal booster, antennae and any other related equipment to provide for internal communications deficiency costs would be incurred by developer. 17. Other requirements maybe imposed based on project evolution. (Contact: Bryan Niswonger, Fire Marshal: 650 829-6645) -86- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Grand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page 14 of 15 E. Water Quality Control Department requirements shall be as follow: The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater and/or Pretreatment programs: 1. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewer lines must be submitted. 2. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo. 3. Stormwater pollution prevention 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, include the following: a. Vegetated/grass swale along perimeter b. Catch basin runoff directed to infiltration area c. Notched curb to direct runoff from parking area into swale d. Covered maintenance yard/service areas 4. The applicant must submit a signed maintenance schedule for the stormwater pollution prevention devices installed. 5. Applicant must complete the NPDES Permit Impervious Surface Data Collection Worksheet prior to issuance of a permit. 6. Roof condensate must be routed to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit. 7. Trash handling area must be covered, enclosed, and must drain to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a pernut. 8. Loading dock areas should be designed with an overhang and any drain must be connected to the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit. 9. Install separate water meters for the building and landscaping. 10. Install a separate process line for sample monitoring before mixing with domestic waste in the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit. -87- Proposed Conditions Of Approval 249 East Crrand POS-0019 June 15, 2006 Page 15 of 15 1 1. Fire sprinkler system testldrainage valve must be plumbed into the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a pernut. 12. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a permit. 13. Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and location of the entrance/outlet of tire wash. 14. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted. 15. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted. 16. Applicant must pay sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated flow, BOD and TS S. {Contact: Cassie Prudhel, Environmental Compliance Coordinator (650) 829-3840) -88- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ARE-SAN FRANCISCO N0.12, LLC, FOR AFOUR-BUILDING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMPLEX ON A 15.75-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WHEREAS, on June 15, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit UPOS-0005 to construct afour-building office/R and D complex on a 15.75-acre site located at 249 East Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested approval of a Development Agreement which would clarify and obligate several project features and mitigation measures including public art, rails-to- trails improvements, and mitigation fees for traffic impacts; and WHEREAS, the four 3- to 5-story buildings totaling approximately 534,500 square feet, with 5,500 square feet of ancillary retail space and afour-level parking garage constitutes the present proposed development and is the project ("Project") subject to the terms of the Development Agreement ("Agreement"); and, WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared which evaluates the significant and potentially significant impacts of the development, the growth inducing impacts of the development, the cumulative impacts of the development, and alternatives to the proposed project; and, WHEREAS, for those impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report as significant and unavoidable, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared, indicating that the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant unavoidable effects; and, WHEREAS, an earlier Statement of Overriding Considerations approved by the City Council for the update to the City's General Plan would also apply to the subject property; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code section 19.60.050, the Director of Economic and Community Development reviewed the application for the Agreement and found the proposed Agreement to be in the proper form, determined that the application was complete, and referred the application and Agreement to the Planning Commission for a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, following properly noticed public hearings held on December 15, 2005 and May 4, 2006, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on June 15, 2006, on the proposed Agreement for the 249 East Grand Avenue Agreement and recommended that the City Council approve the Agreement; and, 841654_1 _89_ WHEREAS, on July 12, 2006, pursuant to Municipal Code section 19.060.110 the City Council conducted a property noticed public hearing on the proposed Agreement for the project. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Findings A. The proposed Development Agreement for the Project is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan, as amended and adopted. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of these documents. The Project provides for four 3- to 5-story buildings totaling approximately 534,500 square feet, with 5,500 square feet of ancillary retail space and a four-level parking garage as part of an office and research and development complex in the Planned Industrial (P-1) Zoning District. The proposed project complies with all zoning, subdivision and building regulations and with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. B. The City Council has independently reviewed the proposed Development Agreement, the certified and adopted Housing Element, the General Plan, Chapters 20.78 and 20.84 of the Zoning Ordinance, Title 15 of the Municipal Code, and applicable state and federal law and has determined that the proposed Development Agreement for the Project complies with ail applicable zoning, subdivision, and building regulations and with the General Plan. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of these documents, oral and written evidence submitted at the public hearings on the Project, including advice and recommendations from City staff. C. The proposed Development Agreement for the Project states its specific duration. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that Section 2 of the Agreement states that the Agreement shall expire ten years from the effective date of the Agreement, which shall be concurrent with the adoption of the instant ordinance. D. The proposed Development Agreement incorporates the permitted uses, density and intensify of use for the property subject thereto as reflected in the approved Conditional Use Permit UPOS-0005 by reference. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that Section 3 of the Agreement set forth the development standards and the documents constituting the Project. 841654_1 -90- E. The proposed Development Agreement states the maximum permitted height and size of proposed buildings on the property subject thereto. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that Section 3 of the Agreement sets forth the documents which state the maximum permitted height and size of buildings. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the proposed Development Agreement with ARE-SAN FRANCISCO N0. 12, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Severability. In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Publication and Effective Date. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This ordinance shall become effective thirty days from and after its adoption. 841654_1 -91- Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the day of , 2006. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of , 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this day of , 2006. Mayor 841654_1 -92- DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 249 East Grand Avenue Office/Research and Development Project EXHIBIT A This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE OFFICE/RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ("PROJECT") is dated 2006 ("Agreement"), between ARE-SAN FRANCISCO NO. 12, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Owner"), and the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("City"). Owner and City are collectively referred to herein as "Parties." RECITALS A. WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 authorize the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property or on behalf of those persons having same; and, B. WHEREAS, ARE-San Francisco No. 12, LLC, the Owner, has a legal interest in the real property subject to this Agreement; and, C. WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, the City has adopted rules and regulations, embodied in Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, establishing procedures and requirements for adoption and execution of development agreements; and, D. WHEREAS, this Agreement concerns property consisting of a 15.75-acre site located at 249 East Grand Avenue, as shown and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("Property"); and, E. WHEREAS, the Owner['s parent company] has submitted a development proposal to the City, commonly known as the 249 East Grand Office/Research and Development Project, consisting of construction of four 3- to 5-story office/research and development buildings, totaling approximately 534,500 square feet, with 5,500 square feet of ancillary retail space and a four-level parking garage, as depicted on the 249 East Grand Plan Set, dated prepared by [bowler-Gruman Architects], including application for a Use Permit dated attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference ("Plan Set"), to be located on the Property ("Project"); and, F. WHEREAS, Owner has requested that the City enter into this Agreement to set forth the rights and obligations of the parties relating to the development of the Project; and, G. WHEREAS, all proceedings necessary for the valid adoption and execution hereof have taken place in accordance with Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5, the Page 1 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -93- California Environmental Quality Act and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and, H. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning Commission have found that this Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan as adopted on October 13, 1999 and as amended from time to time; and, I. WHEREAS, on , 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. approving and adopting this Agreement and the Ordinance thereafter took effect on 2006. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows: Effective Date Pursuant to Section 19.60.140 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, notwithstanding the fact that the City Council adopts an ordinance approving this Agreement, the Agreement shall be effective and shall only create obligations for the Parties from and after the date that the ordinance approving this Agreement takes effect ("Effective Date"). 2. Duration This Agreement shall expire ten (10) years from the Effective Date of this Agreement, but in no event later than December 31, 2017. In the event that litigation to which the City is a party against the Owner, or any of its officers, agents, employees, contractors, representatives or consultants, should delay implementation or construction of the Project on the Property, the expiration date of this Agreement shall be extended for a period equal to the length of time from the time the summons and complaint is served on the defendant{s) until the judgment entered by the court is fmal and not subject to appeal; provided, however, that the total amount of time for which the expiration date shall be extended as a result of such litigation shall not exceed five (5) years. Project Description; Development Standards For Project The Project shall consist of four Office/Research and Development buildings totaling approximately 534,500 square feet, 5,500 square feet of ancillary retail space, afour-level parking garage, and related improvements as provided in the Plan Set and as approved by the City Council. Page 2 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -94- (a) The permitted uses, the density and intensity of uses, the maximum heights, locations and total area of the proposed buildings, the development schedule, the provisions for vehicular access and parking, any reservation or dedication of land, any public improvements, facilities and services, and all environmental impact mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions for the Project shall be exclusively those provided in the Plan Set, Use Permit, Development Plan, Environmental Impact Report, this Agreement (as approved by the City Council) and the applicable ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date (including, but not limited to, the applicable provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code in effect as of the Effective Date), except as modified in this Agreement. (b) Subject to Owner's fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement, upon the Effective Date of this Agreement, the City hereby grants to Owner a vested right to develop and construct on the Property all the improvements for the Project authorized by, and in accordance with the terms of, this Agreement, the Plan Set (as approved by the City Council) and the applicable ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date. (c) Upon such grant of right, no future amendments to the City General Plan, the City Zoning Code, the City Municipal Code, or other City ordinances, policies or regulations in effect as of the Effective Date shall apply to the Project, except such future modifications that are not in conflict with and do not prevent the development proposed in the Plan Set and as approved by the City Council; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or preclude the City from adopting any land use regulations or amendments expressly permitted herein or otherwise required by State or Federal Law. (d) The Use Permit granted by City shall not require an extension during the term of this Agreement provided Owner is not in material breach of the terms of this Agreement or the Conditions of Approval for said Use Permit. 4. Permits For Project Owner shall submit a Development Plan for development of the Project within sixty (60) days of applying for a grading permit for any phase of the Project. The Development Plan shall address, at a minimum, the landscaping and common improvements required for each phase of the Project. In connection with said Development Plan, Owner shall provide to the City an Irrevocable Letter of Credit substantially in the form attached as Exhibit C, reasonably approved by the City Attorney, in an amount equal to One Hundred Twenty Five Percent (125%) of the estimated reasonable costs to construct the landscaping and common improvements identified in the approved Development Plan for the phase to be covered by the grading permit. Said Letter of Credit shall be submitted within sixty (60) days of receiving a grading permit for any phase of the Project. The City may draw under the Letter of Credit as provided below to complete the landscaping and common improvements and to reimburse the City for costs related thereto. The Letter of Credit shall be reduced as the landscaping and common improvements are completed by Page 3 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -95- Owner and accepted by City in an amount equal to the completed improvements and landscaping's proportionate share of the original estimated reasonable costs to construct the landscaping and common improvements identified in the approved Development PIan for the phase to be covered by the grading permit. If Owner fails to complete the landscaping and common improvements for a phase of the Project prior to Owner's application for a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in the next phase of the Project or Owner fails to complete the landscaping and common improvements for the final phase of the Project prior to Owner's application for a Certificate of Occupancy for the final building to be constructed as part of the Project, City may give Owner written notice of such failure and City shall be entitled to withdraw funds from the Letter of Credit and complete said landscaping and common improvements if Owner does not so complete the same within 90 days after receiving City's notice of such failure. City shall also be entitled to draw funds under the Letter of Credit in the event Owner obtains a grading permit for any phase of the Project and (1) Owner fails to request a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy for any building within that phase by December 31, 2016; or (2) Owner fails to complete the landscaping ,and common improvements for that phase by December 31, 2016. For each phase, the City shall issue building permits and Certificates of Occupancy only after the City has reviewed and approved Owner's applications therefor. City staff review of applications for permits or other certificates or approvals shall be limited to determining whether the following conditions are met: (a} The application is complete; and, (b) Owner has complied with the conditions of the City Council's approval of the Project, all applicable Uniform Codes, the South San Francisco Municipal Code, CEQA requirements, including any required mitigation measures, governing issuance of such permits or certificates and Federal and State Laws; and, (c) Owner has obtained Design Review approval for the Project, including required approval of Landscaping and Common Improvements; and, (d) All applicable processing, administrative and legal fees have been paid subject to the provisions of this Agreement; and, (e) For Certificates of Occupancy only, Owner has completed, and City has approved, the landscaping and common improvements for earlier phases of the Project. Vesting of Approvals Upon the City's approval of the Design Review, Parcel Map, Planned Unit Development, Transportation Demand Management Plan, Use Permit and this Agreement, such approvals shall vest in Owner and its successors and assigns for the term of this Agreement, provided that the successors and assigns comply with the terms and Page 4 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -96- conditions of all of the foregoing, including, but not limited to, submission of insurance certificates and bonds for the grading of the Property and construction of improvements. 6. Cooperation Between Parties in Implementation of This Agreement It is the Parties' express intent to cooperate with one another and diligently work to implement all land use and building approvals for development of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Accordingly, the Owner and City shall proceed in a reasonable and timely manner, in compliance with the deadlines mandated by applicable agreements, statutes or ordinances, to complete all steps necessary for implementation of this Agreement and development of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The City shall proceed in an expeditious manner to complete all actions required for the development of the Project, including but not limited to the following: (a) Scheduling all required public hearings by the City Council and City Planning Commission; and (b) Processing and checking all maps, plans, permits, building plans and specifications and other plans relating to development of the Property filed by Owner or its nominee, successor or assign as necessary for development of the Property, and inspecting and providing acceptance of or comments on work by Owner that requires acceptance or approval by the City. Owner, in a timely manner, shall provide City with all documents, applications, plans and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations hereunder and to cause its planners, engineers and all other consultants to submit in a timely manner all necessary materials and documents. 7: .Acquisition of Other Property; Eminent Domain In order to facilitate and insure development of the Project in accordance with the Plan Set and the City Council's approval, the City may assist Owner, at Owner's request and at Owner's sole cost and expense, in acquiring any easements or properties necessary for the satisfaction and completion of any off=site components of the Project required by the City Council to be constructed or obtained by Owner in the Council's approval of the Project and the Plan Set, in the event Owner is unable to acquire such easements or properties or is unable to secure the necessary agreements with the applicable property owners for such easements or properties. Owner expressly acknowledges that the City is under no obligation to use its power of Eminent Domain. 8. Maintenance Obligations on Property All of the Property subject to this Agreement shall be maintained by Owner or its successors in perpetuity in accordance with City requirements to prevent accumulation of litter and trash, to keep weeds abated, and to provide erosion control, and other Page 5 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -97- requirements set forth in the South San Francisco Municipal Code, subject to City approval. (a} If Owner subdivides the property or otherwise transfers ownership of a parcel or building in the Project to any person or entity such that the Property is no longer under single ownership, Owner shall first establish an Owner's Association and submit Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") to the City for review and approval by the City Attorney. Said CC&Rs shall satisfy the requirements of Municipal Code section 19.36.040. (b) Any provisions of said CC&Rs governing the Project relating to the maintenance obligations under this section shall be enforceable by the City. 9. Fees No fee requirements (except those identified herein) imposed by the City on or after the Effective Date of this Agreement and no changes to existing fee requirements (except those currently subject to annual increases as specified in the adopting or implementing Resolutions and Ordinances) that occur on or after the Effective Date of this Agreement, shall apply to the Project. Owner shall not be responsible for any fees imposed by the City in connection with the development and construction of the Project, except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, the Use Permit, the Planned Unit Development Permit, and those in existence as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. (a) Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing, administrative, legal and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. 10. New Taxes Any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply to the Property provided that: (1} the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. 11. Assessments Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from common benefit assessments levied against it and similarly situated properties by the City pursuant to and in accordance with any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services which benefit the Property. 12. Additional Conditions Owner shall comply with all of the following requirements: Page 6 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -98- (a) Traffic Impact Fees. Owner shall pay the following Traffic Impact Fees: 1. Oyster Point Overpass Fees -Oyster Point Overpass fees shall be determined based on the application of the formula in effect as of the time such Oyster Point Overpass Fees become due and payable. The City and developer agree that the approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of ancillary retail space will be treated as "General Office Building" for purposes of calculating the Oyster Point Overpass fees. 2. East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee -East of 101 Traffic Impact fees shall be determined based on the application of the formula in effect as of the time such East of 1 O1 Traffic Impact Fees become due and payable. The City and developer agree that the approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of ancillary retail space will be treated as "O~ce/R&D" for purposes of calculating the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee. (b) Rails to Trails Improvements. Should the rail corridor abutting the north boundary of the Property, and identified in the General Plan as a future bike path, become available for public use prior to July 31, 2011, the City may elect, at the City's option to be exercised in the City's reasonable discretion, to have Owner either install the improvements described in subsection 12(b)l.i. below for the portion of the corridor that directly abuts the Property or provide the cost estimates and funds described in subsection 12(b)2. below. The City shall give Owner written notice of its election. i. If the City so elects, Owner shall install improvements at its sole cost and expense for the portion of the corridor that directly abuts the Property. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, paving, lighting, and landscaping of a design and scope consistent with standard portions of the City's then existing Rails to Trails corridor of the Bay Trail. ii. Pursuant to Owner's obligation to install said improvements, Owner shall submit plans, including a cost estimate, for the improvements, to the City for review and approval. Owner shall complete construction of said improvements by the later of (A) the date that is two (2) yearn after the City gives Owner written notice that the City has elected to have Owner construct said improvements, and (B) December 31, 2013. 2. If the Ciry does not elect to have Owner construct the improvements described in subsection 12(b)l .i. above or the rail corridor abutting the north boundary of the Property does not become available for public use Page 7 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -99- prior to July 31, 2011, then, prior to expiration of the Development Agreement: i. Owner shall (1) provide City with a cost estimate, subject to City review and approval, of the costs that would be required for the improvements described in subsection 12(b)1. above; and (2) provide to the City the funds described in the cost estimate, to be used by the City solely to upgrade substandard portions of the City's then existing Bay Trail. ii. Owner shall provide said cost estimate and funds prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the final building to be constructed as part of the Project, but no later than December 31, 2013. 3. If at any time the City decides to form an assessment district with the objective of acquiring and completing a rails to trails conversion for the rail corridor abutting the north boundary of the Property, Owner agrees not to oppose the formation of such a district. (c) Public Art Contribution. Owner shall install and provide artwork for public display in the Project. Said artwork shall cost in the aggregate no less than Five Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($540,000), and shall be installed on the Project site on or before the earlier of (i) the date on which Owner receives a Certificate of Occupancy for the final building to be constructed as part of the Project, and (ii) December 31, 2014. The artwork to be installed by Owner shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the City of South San Francisco prior to installation. Artwork installed pursuant to this section shall be maintained by Owner or, in the event Owner's interest in the property is conveyed or subdivided, by Owner's successors, or, if applicable, by the Owner's Association for the Project. If an association of owners is created, said maintenance obligations and a budget related thereto shall be included in the CC&Rs for the Project. If Owner fails to complete installation of the required artwork on or before December 31, 2014, Owner shall be required to pay an in- lieu fee for such artwork in the amount of Five Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($540,000), less the documented cost of any public artwork actually installed by Owner in the Project provided the art work installed by Owner was approved by the City prior to installation. In the event the art in-lieu fee is paid, the costs/value of the artwork to be installed shall be adjusted annually on January 1St beginning in 2007 in an amount equal to the lesser of (x) the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Costs Index for the San Francisco Bay Area, and (y) three percent (3%). The in-lieu fee shall be paid on or before January 31, 201 S. Page 8 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -100- (d) Transportation Demand Management. Owner shall prepare an annual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) report, and submit same to City, to document the effectiveness of the TDM plan in achieving the goal of 32% alternative mode usage by employees within the Project. The TDM report will be prepared by an independent consultant, retained by City with the approval of Owner (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) and paid for by Owner, which consultant will work in concert with Owner's TDM coordinator. The TDM report will include a determination of historical employee commute methods, which information shall be obtained by survey of all employees working in the buildings on the Property. All nonresponses will be counted as a drive alone trip. 1. TDM Reports: The initial TDM report for each building on the Property will be submitted two (2) years after the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy with respect to the building, and this requirement will apply to all buildings on the Property except the parking facilities. The second and all later reports with respect to each building shall be included in an annual comprehensive TDM report submitted to City covering all of the buildings on the Property which are submitting their second or later TDM reports. i. Report Requirements: The goal of the TDM program is to encourage alternative mode usage, as defined in Chapter 20.120 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The initial TDM report shall either: (1) state that the applicable property has achieved 32% alternative mode usage, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (2) state that the applicable property has not achieved the 32% alternative mode usage, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached, and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to attain the TDM goal of 32% alternative mode usage. ii. Penalty for Non-Com lip ance: If, after the initial TDM report, subsequent annual reports indicate that, in spite of the changes in the TDM plan, the 32% alternative mode usage is still not being achieved, or if Owner fails to submit such a TDM report at the times described above, City may assess Owner a penalty in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) per year for each percentage point below the minimum 32% alternative mode usage goal. a. In determining whether a financial penalty is appropriate, City may consider whether Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals. b. If City determines that Owner has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals but a penalty is still imposed, and such penalty is Page 9 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -101- imposed within the first three (3) years of the TDM plan (commencing with the first year in which a penalty could be imposed), such penalty sums, in the City's sole discretion, may be used by Owner toward the implementation of the TDM plan instead of being paid to City. If the penalty is used to implement the TDM Plan, an Implementation Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to expending any penalty funds. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amount of any penalty shall bear the same relationship to the maximum penalty as the completed construction to which the penalty applies bears to the maximum amount of square feet of Office, Commercial, Retail and Research and Development use permitted to be constructed on the Property. For example, if there is 200,000 square feet of completed construction on the Property included within the TDM report with respect to which the penalty is imposed, the penalty would be determined by multiplying Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) times a fraction, the numerator of which is 200,000 square feet and the denominator of which is the maximum amount of square feet of construction permitted on the Property, subtracting the square footage of the parking facilities; this amount would then be multiplied by the number of percentage points. below the 32% alternative mode usage goal. d. The provisions of this section are incorporated as Conditions of Approval for the Project and shall be included in the approved TDM for the Project. 13. Indemni Owner agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by City subject to the reasonable approval of Owner} and hold harmless City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, -and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by the Owner, or any actions or inactions of Owner's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Owner shall have no indemnification obligation with respect to gross negligence or willful misconduct of City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any public improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). 14. Interests of Other Owners Page 10 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -102- Owner has no knowledge of any reason why Owner, and any other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, will not be bound by this Agreement. 15. Assignment (a) Right to Assign. Owner may at any time or from time to time transfer its right, title or interest in or to all or any portion of the Property. In accordance with Government Code Section 65868.5, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to Owner. As a condition precedent to any such transfer, Owner shall require the transferee to acknowledge in writing that transferee has been informed, understands and agrees that the burdens and benefits under this Agreement relating to such transferred property shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the transferee. (b) Notice of Assignment or Transfer. No transfer, sale or assignment of Owner's rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without the prior written notice to City and approval by the City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The City Manager shall consider and decide the matter within 10 days after Owner's notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications and other information are provided to the City Manager. (c) Exception for Notice. Notwithstanding Section 15(b), Owner may at any time, upon notice to City but without the necessity of any approval by the City, transfer the Property or any part thereof and all or any part of Owner's rights, interests and obligations hereunder to: (i) any subsidiary, affiliate, parent or other entity which controls, is controlled by or is under common control with Owner, (ii) any member or partner of Owner or any subsidiary, parent or affiliate of any such member or partner, or (iii) ariy successor or successors to Owner by merger, consolidation, non-bankruptcy reorganization or government action. As used in this paragraph, "control" shall mean the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of management or policies, whether through the ownership of voting securities, partnership interest, contracts (other than those that transfer Owner's interest in the property to a third party not specifically identified in this subsection (c)) or otherwise. (d) Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of Owner's rights, interests and obligations hereunder pursuant to Section 15(a), Section 15(b) or Section 15(c) of this Agreement, Owner shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment or the effective date of such transfer, sale or assignment, whichever occurs later; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser or assignee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes any right, interest or obligation of Owner under this Agreement, Owner shall be released with respect to such Page 11 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -103- rights, interests and assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval. (e) Owner's Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obli ations Notwithstanding Sections 15(a) and 15(c), Owner may withhold from a sale, transfer or assignment of this Agreement certain rights, interests and/or obligations which Owner shall retain, provided that Owner specifies such rights, interests and/or obligations in a written document to be appended to or maintained with this Agreement and recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder prior to or concurrently with the sale, transfer or assignment of the Property. Owner's purchaser, transferee or assignee shall then have no interest or obligations for such retained rights, interests and obligations and this Agreement shall remain applicable to Owner with respect to such retained rights, interests and/or obligations. (fl Time for Notice. Within ten (10) days of the date escrow closes on any such transfer, Owner shall notify the City in writing of the name and address of the transferee. Said notice shall include a statement as to the obligations, including any mitigation measures, fees, improvements or other conditions of approval, assumed by the transferee. Any transfer which does not comply with the notice requirements of this section and Section 15(b) shall not release the Owner from its obligations to the City under this Agreement until such time as the City is provided notice in accordance with Section 15(b). 16. Insurance (a) Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance During the term of this Agreement, Owner shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with aper-occurrence combined single limit of not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00} and a deductible of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per claim. The policy so maintained by Owner shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross-liability endorsement. (b) Workers Compensation Insurance During the term of this Agreement Owner shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed by Owner for work at the Project site. Owner shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Owner agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Owner's failure to maintain any such required insurance. (c) Evidence of Insurance. Prior to City Council approval of this Agreement, Owner shall furnish City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in subsections (a) and (b) and evidence that the carver will provide the City at least ten (10) days Page 12 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -104- prior written notice of any cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy if the reduction results in coverage less than that required by this Agreement. 1. In the event of a reduction (below the limits required in this Agreement) or cancellation in coverage, or change in insurance carriers or policies, Owner shall, prior to such reduction, cancellation or change, provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice to City, regardless of any notification by the applicable insurer. If the City discovers that the policies have been cancelled or reduced below the limits required in this Agreement and no notice has been provided by either insurer or Owner, said failure shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 2. In the event of a reduction (below the limits required by this Agreement) or cancellation in coverage, Owner shall have five (5) days in which to provide evidence of the required coverage during which time no persons shall enter the Property to construct improvements thereon, including construction activities related to the landscaping and common improvements. Additionally, no persons not employed by existing tenants shall enter the Property to perform such works until such time as the City receives evidence of substitute coverage. 3. If Owner fails to obtain substitute coverage within five (5) days, City may obtain, but is not required to obtain, substitute coverage and charge Owner the cost of such coverage plus an administrative fee equal to ten percent (10%) of the premium for said coverage. (d) The insurance shall include the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives as additional insureds on the policy. 17. Covenants Run With The Land The terms of this Agreement are legislative in nature, and apply to the Property as regulatory ordinances. During the term of this Agreement, all of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees and all other persons or entities acquiring the Property, any lot, parcel or any portion thereof, and any interest therein, whether by sale, operation of law or other manner, and they shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors. 18. Conflict with State or Federal Law In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified (in accordance with Section 19 set forth Page 13 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -105- below) or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Owner shall have the right to challenge, at its sole cost, in a court of competent jurisdiction, the law or regulation preventing compliance with the terms of this Agreement and, if the challenge in a court of competent jurisdiction is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. 19. Procedure for Modification Due to Conflict with State or Federal Laws In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be approved by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 20. Periodic Review During the term of this Agreement, the City shall conduct "annual" and/or "special" reviews of Owner's good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. City may recover reasonable costs incurred in conducting said review, including staff time expended and attorney's fees. 21. Amendment or Cancellation of A Bement This Agreement may be further amended or terminated only in writing and in the manner set forth in Government Code Sections 65865.1, 65867.5, 65868, 65868.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 22. Agreement is Entire Agreement This Agreement and all exhibits attached hereto or incorporated herein contain the sole and entire Agreement between the parties concerning the Property. The parties acknowledge and agree that neither of them has made any representation with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement or any representations inducing the execution and delivery hereof, except representations set forth herein, and each party acknowledges that it has relied on its own judgment in entering this Agreement. The parties further acknowledge that all statements or representations that heretofore may have been made by either of them to the other are void and of no effect, and that neither of them has relied thereon in its dealings with the other. 23. Events of Default Owner shall be in default under this Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events: Page 14 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -106- (a) If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Owner to the City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; or, (b) A finding and determination by the City made following an annual or special review under the procedure provided for in Government Code Section 65865.1 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code that, upon the basis of substantial evidence, Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; or, (c) Owner fails to fulfill any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement and such failure continues beyond any applicable cure period provided in this Agreement. This provision shall not be interpreted to create a cure period for any event of default where such cure period is not specifically provided for in this Agreement. 24. Procedure upon Default (a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default, City may terminate or modify this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65865.1 and of Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. (b) The City shall not be deemed to have waived any claim of defect in Owner's performance if, on annual or special review, the City does not propose to terminate this Agreement. (c) No waiver or failure by the City or Owner to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any provision of this Agreement or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. (d) Any actions for breach of this Agreement shall be decided in accordance with California law. The remedy for breach of this Agreement shall be limited to specific performance. (e) The City shall give Owner written notice of any default under this Agreement, and Owner shall have thirty (30) days after the date of the notice to cure the default or to reasonably commence the procedures or actions needed to cure the default; provided, however, that if such default is not capable of being cured within such thirty (30) day period, Owner shall have such additional time to cure as is reasonably necessary. 25. Attorneys Fees and Costs If legal action by either Party is brought because of breach of this Agreement or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing Party is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. (a) Action by Third Party. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of Page 15 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -107- this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action. Owner shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by City in defense of any such action or other proceeding. 2b. Seve_rability If any material term or condition of this Agreement is for any reason held by a fmal judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, and if the same constitutes a material change in the consideration for this Agreement, then either Party may elect in writing to invalidate this entire Agreement, and thereafter this entire Agreement shall be deemed null and void and of no further force or effect following such election. 27. No Third Parties Benefited No person other than the City, Owner, or their respective successors is intended to or shall have any right or claim under this Agreement, this Agreement being for the sole benefit and protection of the parties hereto and their respective successars. Similarly, no amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall require the consent or acknowledgment of any person not a Party or successor to this Agreement. 28. Binding Effect of Agreement The provisions of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties originally named herein and their respective successors and assigns. 29. Relationship of Parties It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Owner and that the Owner is not an agent of City. The parties do not intend to create a partnership, joint venture or any other joint business relationship by this Agreement. The City and Owner hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Owner joint venturers or partners. Neither Owner nor any of Owner's agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be agents of City in connection with the performance of Owner's obligations under this Agreement. 3 0. B The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 31. Mortea~ee Protection• Certain Rights of Cure (a) Mortaa~ee Protection This Agreement shall be superior and senior to all liens placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date on which this Page 16 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -108- Agreement or a memorandum of this Agreement is recorded, including the lien of any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against all persons and entities, including all deed of trust beneficiaries or mortgagees ("Mortgagees"), who acquire title to the Property or any portion thereof by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise. (b) Mortgagee Not Obli ag ted No foreclosing Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to construct or complete the construction of any improvements required by this Agreement, or to pay for or guarantee construction or completion thereof. City, upon receipt of a written request therefor from a foreclosing Mortgagee, shall permit the Mortgagee to succeed to the rights and obligations of Owner under this Agreement, provided that all defaults by Owner hereunder that are reasonably susceptible of being cured are cured by the Mortgagee as soon as is reasonably possible. The foreclosing Mortgagee thereafter shall comply with all of the provisions of this Agreement. (c) Notice of Default to Mort a ee If City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Owner hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, City shall deliver to the Mortgagee concurrently with service thereof to Owner, all notices given to Owner describing all claims by the City that Owner has defaulted hereunder. If City determines that Owner is in noncompliance with this Agreement, City also shall serve notice of noncompliance on the Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereof on Owner. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Owner to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the condition of default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City's notice. 32. Estoppel Certificate Either party from time to time may deliver written notice to the other party requesting written certification that, to the knowledge of the certifying party, (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and constitutes a binding obligation of the parties; (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or, if it has been amended or modified, specifying the nature of the amendments or modifications; and (iii) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, describing therein the nature and monetary amount, if any, of the default. A party receiving a request hereunder shall endeavor to execute and return the certificate within ten (10) days after receipt thereof, and shall in all events execute and return the certificate within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof. However, a failure to return a certificate within ten (10) days shall not be deemed a default of the party's obligations under this Agreement and no cause of action shall arise based on the failure of a party to execute such certificate within ten (10) days. The City Manager shall have the right to execute the certificates requested by Owner hereunder provided the certificate Page 17 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -109- is requested within six (6) months of the annual or special review. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by permitted transferees and Mortgagees. At the request of Owner, the certificates provided by City establishing the status of this Agreement with respect to any lot or parcel shall be in recordable form, and Owner shall have the right to record the certificate for the affected portion of the Property at its cost. 33. Force Majeure Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, either Party shall be excused for the period of any delay in the performance of any of its obligations hereunder, except the payment of money, when prevented or delayed from so doing by certain causes beyond its control, including, and limited to, major weather differences from the normal weather conditions for the South San Francisco area, war, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, explosions, floods, earthquakes, invasions by non-United States armed forces, failure of transportation due to no fault of the Parties, unavailability of equipment, supplies, materials or labor when such unavailability occurs despite the applicable Party's good faith efforts to obtain same (good faith includes the present and actual ability to pay market rates for said equipment, materials, supplies and labor), strikes of employees other than Owner's, freight embargoes, sabotage, riots, acts of terrorism and acts of the government. The Party claiming such extension of time to perform shall send written notice of the claimed extension to the other Party within thirty (30) days from the commencement of the cause entitling the Party to the extension. 34. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms {a) The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. (b) Time is and shall be of the essence in this Agreement. (c) Where a Party consists of more than one person, each such person shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of such Party's obligation hereunder. (d} The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of this Agreement and do not in any way limit or amplify the provisions thereof. (e) This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California in effect on the date thereof. 35. Exhibits Exhibit A -Map and Legal Description of Property Exhibit B -Use Permit, including Plan Set and Conditions of Project Approval Exhibit C -Form Irrevocable Letter of Trust Page 18 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA -110- 3uly 12, 2006 36. Notices All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person (to include delivery by courier) or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or by overnight delivery service. Notices to the City shall be addressed as follow: City Clerk P.O. Box 711, 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Notices to Owner shall be addressed as follows: ARE-San Francisco No. 12, LLC c/o Alexandria Real Estate Equities 385 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 299 Pasadena, CA 91101 Fax: (626) 578-7318 Attn: Corporate Secretary A party may change its address for notice by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Page 19 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -111- IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the parties on the day and year first above written. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO By: Barry M. Nagel, City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney OWNER ARE-SAN FRANCISCO NO. 12, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Alexandria Real Estate Equities, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Its Managing Member By: ARE-QRS CORP., a Maryland corporation, Its General Partner By: _ Name: Title: 833875_] Page 20 of 20 249 East Grand Avenue DA July 12, 2006 -112- EXHIBIT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION All that certain real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, more particularly described as follows: PARCEL ONE: LOT 27, BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF "CABOT CABOT AND FORBES INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 1-B", FILED MAY 25, 1966, IN BOOK 64 OF MAPS, PAGES 49-51, SAN MATED COUNTY RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS, WITHOUT RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, CONVEYED TO THE CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY IN THE QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION RECORDED MARCH 23, 1965, IN BOOK 4917, PAGE 314, OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL TWO: AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES PURPOSES, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, IN, ON, UNDER, OVER AND ALONG A STRIP OF LAND, 15 FEET IN WIDTH, LYING ADJACENT TO AND SOUTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY FROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED.NORTHWESTERLY AND -WESTERLY LINE THEREOF. BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL, NORTH 33° 24' 33" EAST, 540.00 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG LAST SAID LINE, NORTH 12° 40' 08" WEST, 131.46 FEET TO A POINT ON THE GENERAL SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID CABOT ROAD, SAID EASEMENT BEING CONTIGUOUS AT ITS NORTHERLY EXTREMITY WITH LAST SAID LINE AND AT ITS SOUTHERLY EXTREMITY WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2, AS SAID LOT AND BLOCK ARE SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "CABOT CABOT & FORBES INDUSTRIAL PARK, UNIT NO. 1, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", FILED FOR RECORD IN VOLUME 61 OF MAPS, AT PAGES 45 THROUGH 49, SAN MATED COUNTY RECORDS. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 015-050-440, 015-050-450 -113- EXHIBIT B USE PERMIT PLAN SET -114- EXHIBIT C FORM IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT -115- [MUST BE SUBMITTED ON BANK'S LETTERHEAD] IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT # City of South San Francisco Attention: Barry M. Nagel, City Manager City Manager's Office 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 DATE: 2006 EXPIRATION: Perpetual (see conditions for termination described below) By order of our. clients, ARE-San Francisco No. 12, LLC{"ARE"}, we hereby issue in your favor this Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit for any sum or sums not exceeding ($ )which is available against your drafts} at sight on [Insert name and address of banking institution issuing letter], when accompanied by a statement signed by a purportedly authorized representative of the Office of the City Manager, City of South San Francisco, CA certifying, the following: l . ARE is in default of any one of the provisions established by that certain "Development Agreement For 249 East Grand Avenue Office/Research And Development Project" ("Development Agreement") entered into between the City of South San Francisco and ARE {collectively, "the Parties") and dated the _ day of , 2006, and has failed satisfactorily to perform the terms, covenants and conditions contained therein. 2. Proceeds of any draft drawn on this Letter of Credit will be used solely for the purposes and interest described the Development Agreement entered into between Parties. All drafts must be presented at the counters of the [insert bank name and address], and must include the statement "Drawn on the, Letter of Credit Number ." Partial and multiple drawings are permitted. -116- Office of the City Manager, City of South San Francisco Letter of Credit # Page 2 This Letter of Credit shall remain in full force and effect in perpetuity without expiration until the completion, including review and approval by the City, of all requirements listed in that certain "Development Agreement For 249 East Grand Avenue Office/Research And Development Project" incorporated herein by reference. We hereby undertake that all drafts drawn hereunder will be duly honored by us if drawn and presented in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit is subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 Revision, International Chamber of Commerce, Publication Number 500.) In addition, the undersigned hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or additions to the terms of the Development Agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any way affect its obligations on this Letter of Credit, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Development Agreement, the work or to the specifications. If suit is brought to enforce this Letter of Credit, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive in addition to the face amount of this Letter of Credit, its costs and expenses and fees, including attorney fees, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The Letter of Credit inures to and binds the successor and assigns of the parties. Sincerely, Executed by [insert bank intuition] this _ day of , 2006 Bank Name Signature of Authorized Agent Printed Name of Authorized Agent -117- z Q d 0 a H z ~r ~, ;~ b=.0 ~U ~i ~ v >. v 00 s a $ ~ a m 7 C1 W I ' 1 u m Ci o c ~ x r~' u°. m II (I I u'f -11g- o°°~x~~~~~ ~'lannin Commission y g ,f. n J c'~LIFOR~1Ao Staff Report DATE: December 15, 2005 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 249 East Grand Office/R&D Project -Use Permit, Design Review and Preliminary TDM Plan to construct a phased development consisting of four office/R&D buildings totaling approximately 534,500 SF, 5,500 SF of ancillary commercial space, and related landscaping improvements on a 15.75 acre site; Tentative Pazcel Map to resubdivide a 15.75 acre lot into 5 parcels with reciprocal parking and access easements throughout, and a Planned Unit Development to allow creation of lots which do not abut a dedicated public street; and, request for a Development Agreement. Location: 249 East Grand Avenue Applicant: Alexandria Case Nos.: POS-0019: DROS-0043, EIROS-0001, PMOS-0002, PUDOS-0001, TDMOS-0001 & UPOS-0005 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take testimony, and continue the matter to January 19, 2006. BACKGROUND A study session was held on November 3, 2005, which allowed the applicant to provide a general overview of the project and to discuss environmental issues. This hearing is intended to continue the project discussion and provide input to staff and the applicant. DISCUSSION: Project Description The applicant proposes to redevelop the former Georgia Pacific site, located at 249 East Grand Avenue, into acampus-style research & development complex. The project consists of four 3 -5- four story office/R&D buildings totaling approximately 534,500 square feet, 5,500 square feet of ancillary retail space, and a 4 level parking garage. -119- Staff Report RE: 249 E.Grand Ave Office/R&D POS-0019 Date: December 15, 2005 Page 2 Master Development Plan The project is proposed as a unified campus with development potentially phased over several years. T'he Planned Unit Development and Use Permit applications for the project outline the provisions of the plan of development, including site and building layout, design guidelines and phasing plan. Final designs of individual buildings are to comply with the design guidelines and be approved through Design Review applications, subject to final approval by the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting approval of design for one office/R&D building, the parking structure, and the overall landscape plan at this initial phase. The remaining buildings would be processed as separate Design Review applications, subject to Planning Commission . review and approval. Building/Site Design The site is arranged as a business campus of four related buildings, shared open space and parking linked by landscaped pedestrian walkways. The central landscape spine serves as a unifying element for the buildings which border the parkway and the pedestrian paths that lead to it. Two main entries are provided on each building, one oriented to the parking area and one to the pedestrian spine. In addition, smaller open space areas branch off the main landscape spine to provide more protected private areas. - Building Design -The buildings are to be constructed primarily of GFRC (glass fiber reinforced concrete) and a curtainwall system, with metal panels accents and glass canopies at the main entrances. Penthouses and other mechanical screening are provided to fully screen mechanical equipment. - Parking Structure Design -The garage is to be constructed primarily of concrete, with glass detailing and painting to tie in with the overall campus design. An approximately 2,000 square foot fitness center is provided at the center of the structure as a project amenity. - Retail -The site includes approximately 3,500 square feet of ancillary retail space located at the main project entry and attached to Building 2 - Design Review Board -The Design Review Board discussed the project at its June and August 2005 meetings and while they had some initial concerns at the June meeting, the Board was very complimentary of both the building architecture and site design. The applicant revised the plans for the August meeting and the Board had no further concerns. -120- c, Staff Report RE: 249 E.Grand Ave Office/R&D POS-0019 Date: December 15, 2005 Page 3 Zoning Consistency The project site is located in the P-I, Planned Industrial Zone District which allows research and development uses as a permitted use. However, because the use would generate in excess of 100 Average Daily Vehicle Trips (ADT), and because the buildings exceed 60 feet in height, a use permit is required. As indicated in the following table, the project, as designed, meets or exceeds all of the general development standards of the P-I Zone District, with the exception of parking. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PI Plaru~ed Industrial Proposed Project Setbacks - Front 20 feet minimum- 20 ft. - Rear None 15+ ft. - Side 0 ft. 6 ft. min. Height 60 feet, additional height allowed 3- story building- 66 ft. to top subject to obtaining a use permit of roof screen 4-story building- 82 ft. to top of roof screen 5-story building - 98 ft. to top of roof screen Parking See discussion below Landscaping 10% minimum 26.4% FAR .50 Max (up to 1.0 with increased .79 TDM provisions) Parking and TDM The proposal provides for 2.83 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for all uses on the pazcel, which is less than the standard rate provided in the Off-Street Parking Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 20.74). The standard parking requirement for Research and -121- Staff Report RE: 249 E.Grand Ave Office/R&D POS-0019 Date: December 15, 2005 Page 4 Development uses is 4/1000 sq. ft. for the first 50,040 sq. ft., and 3/1000 for space in excess of 50,000 sq, ft., and 3.3 spaces/1000 sf for office space. However, this standard also specifically allows for a reduction in those requirements subject to a use permit. In addition, the TDM Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to reduce pazking standards so long as the amount of pazking generated by the standards is supported by the overall TDM Plan for the project. Similarly, the PUD Ordinance provides that the City may accept revised parking standards as long as evidence is provided that the number of parking spaces is adequate for the proposed uses because of the offered alternative solutions for providing or managing parking. The proposed supply of 1,529 spaces represents approximately 93% of the "standard" parking rate of 1,644 spaces, which is outlined below. Use Parkin Ratio Pro'ect Re uired Parkin Office/R & D R&D - 4/1000 sq. ft. 534,500 sf 1,454 - for the first 50,000 sq. 1,782spaces ._ ft., and 3/1000 for (1,618 average) space in excess of 50,000 sq. ft.' Office - 3.3/1,000 sq. ft. Retail 5/1000 sf 3,500 sf 18 s aces Fitness Center 4/1000 sf .2,000 sf 8 s aces TOTAL 1,644 s aces Pro osed Su 1 1,529 s aces Deficit -115 s aces 7% Research and Development Parkin Rates -The applicant has requested the reduced parking standard for an o~ce/R&D project based on the aggressive TDM requirements required of the project, the fact that similar reduced standards have been accepted and/or successfully applied within several large campus developments in the city, and based on studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). - TDM -The TDM Ordinance requires all projects that generate in excess of 100 daily vehicle trips develop and continually maintain a TDM plan which includes specified measures. In addition, for projects requesting an FAR bonus the TDM plan requires additional measures and more stringent reporting requirements. Consequently, since the project request is for an 'The Zoning Ordinance specifically allows for a reduction in those standards subject to approvalof a use permit. -122- Staff Report RE: 249 E.Grand Ave Office/R&D POS-0019 Date: December 15, 2005 Page 5 FAR of .79, the TDM Ordinance requires the applicant prepare and administer a TDM Plan designed to achieve 32% alternative mode use. According to the Draft Supplemental EIR to the General Plan that was recently certified by City Council, it is conservatively estimated that a 35% altemative mode usage requirement would eliminate 24.5% of single occupancy vehicle trips. Using the same ratios, a 32% alternative mode usage could be expected to eliminate 22% of single occupancy vehicle trips. - Similar Projects -The City has allowed reduced parking standards in several large office/R&D campuses as indicated below: o Gateway Specific Plan Area - In 1998, the Redevelopment Agency approved a reduced parking ratio of 2.83 spaces/1000 sq. ft. for Lots 1 and 9 in the Gateway Area, generally the area on the west side of Gateway Boulevard, north of Corporate Drive. This area includes a mix of office and R&D uses; no parking problems have been noted within these developments. o Bay West Cove - In 2001, the Redevelopment Agency adopted reduced parking standards for the Bay West Cove area, allowing for a ratio of 2.83 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for both office and R&D projects. No parking issues have been noted at this project. o Genentech Overlay Zone -Parking requirements within the Genentech campus provide 2.5 spaces/1000 sq. ft. for office buildings and 1.5 spaces/1000 sq. ft. for R&D buildings. - ITE -The Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation" manual indicates that there are approximately 12% fewer employees per square foot in R&D buildings than in office buildings (2.93/1,000 sf vs. 3.32/1,000 sf, respectively.) Staff supports the reduced parking rate for this project, and could support even further reductions, based on these various factors and specifically because they support the overall efforts of the TDM plan as well as the City's General Plan, as put forth in the following recently adopted policies: "4.3-I-11 Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by: Allowing parking reduction for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods 4.3-I-12 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce minimum parking requirements for projects proximate to transit stations and for projects implementing a TDM program." -123- Staff Report RE: 249 E.Grand Ave Office/R&D POS-0019 Date: December 15, 2005 Page 6 Furthermore, as has been stated by the City's TDM consultant, "The ability and willingness to rideshare is directly linked to parking availability. By not providing an overabundant supply of parking spaces at full buildout, the City is laying the groundwork for successful promotion of alternative transportation. Preferential parking spaces placed near the building entrances are an excellent incentive and sends a clear visual message to employees and the community that alternative transportation is important." Preliminary TDM Plan In accordance with the requirements of the TDM Ordinance, the applicant has prepared the attached preliminary TDM plan designed to achieve a minimum 32% alternative mode use, consistent with the request to allow an FAR of 0.79. The preliminary TDM plan provides for the requisite mode shift goal, and includes all mandatory elements including participation in shuttle programs, carpool & vanpool ridematching and preferential parking, guaranteed ride home program, secure bicycle parking, shower and locker facilities, an on-site program coordinator, promotional programs, participation in the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance), etc., as well as several additional measures including paid parking, transit pass subsidies, participation in the Downtown Dasher program, and reduced parking. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed project is consistent with the General-Plan which designates the property Business and Technology. Office/R&D use is specifically identified as an appropriate use under this designation. Additionally, the category provides for a floor area ratio (FAR) of .50, with permissible increases to a maximum FAR of 1.0 based on implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM} program as outlined in the City's TDM Ordinance. The proposed FAR of .79 requires that the applicant prepare, implement and maintain a TDM Plan designed to achieve a 32% shift to alternative modes of travel other than single occupant vehicles. Guiding Policy 3.5-G-3 also specifically supports the project- to promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and research and development uses in the East of 101 Area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated from October 7 -November 22, 2005. The City's consultant is presently preparing a Final EIR Response to Comments Document to address all comments provided on the draft EIR, which will subsequently be forwarded to the Commission for its review. -124- Staff Report RE: 249 E.Grand Ave Office/R&D POS-0019 Date: December 15, 2005 Page 7 The Environmental Impact Report reviewed and analyzed the following potential environmental impacts: • Land Use and Planning, including the maximum square footage of development allowed by the General Plan; • Transportation and Circulation, including trips generated in peak hours, impacts to freeway segments, declines in Level of Service at nearby intersections, and restrictions on parking to reduce congestion; • Air Quality, including construction dust; • Earth, including ground shaking, soil stability, landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction and expansive soils; • Hydrology and Water Quality, including water quality degradation; • Hazardous materials; • Public service impacts; • . Biological resources; Utilities, including water availability, and impacts to aging wastewater collection facilities and cumulative demand for wastewater treatment capacity; Project alternatives; and Cumulative impacts Significant Impacts The DEIR identifies 27 significant or potentially significant impacts. With the exception of four impacts, three related to traffic and one related to cumulative air quality, mitigation measures are identified to reduce all other impacts to a less than significant level. Of the identified significant traffic impacts, two relate specifically to the intersection of Oyster Point/Gateway/tJS 101 flyover which would degrade the PM peak hour level of service from LOS E to LOS F in both the near -125- Staff Report RE: 249 E.Grand Ave Office/R&D POS-0019 Date: December 15, 2005 Page 8 term and the long term due to this and other approved development within the city. No feasible physical improvements have been identified to fully mitigate this impact. The third identified significant impact relates to cumulative traffic impacts on US 101 due to this and other approved development. Several letters were received during the comment period. The environmental consultant is presently formulating responses to all comments which will be provided to the Planning Commission meeting when available. CONCLUSION: This public hearing is intended as a formal introduction to the project and overall discussion of design, zoning compliance and general plan consistency. Several issues remain outstanding at this point, including the draft Development Agreement and completion of the final EIR. Therefore it is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and continue the matter to January 19, 2006. Attached are documents related to the case. Susy K Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS: Project Description DRB Minutes: 6/21/05 & 8/I6/OS Preliminary TDM Plan Plans -126- °~~~~~~'~~ Plannin Commission o g .. y ° Sta f f Re o rt c'~LIFOR~t~ .J.J P DATE: May 4, 2006 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 249 East Grand Office/R&D Project -Use Permit, Design Review and Preliminary TDM Plan to construct a phased development consisting of four office/R&D buildings totaling approximately 534,500 SF, 5,500 SF of ancillary commercial space, and related landscaping improvements on a 15.75 acre site; Tentative Parcel Map to resubdivide a 15.75 acre lot into 5 parcels with reciprocal parking and access easements throughout, and a Planned Unit Development to allow creation of lots which do not abut a dedicated public street; Type C Sign Permit for a comprehensive sign program; and, request for a Development Agreement. Location: 249 East Grand Avenue Applicant: Alexandria Case Nos.: POS-0019: DROS-0043, EIROS-0001, SIGNS06-0008, PMOS-0002, PUDOS-0001, TDMOS-0001, UPOS-0005 & DA05-0004 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take testimony, and continue the public hearing to June 1, 2006. BACKGROUND A study session was held last November to introduce the proposed project and allow an opportunity for public comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report. A public hearing was subsequently held in December to formally review the project in detail. At that hearing the Planning Commission noted several concerns, and provided direction to the applicant to refine/revise the proposal. The draft Environmental Impact Report was initially circulated from October 7 -November 22, 2005. However, an issue arose with regard to comments provided by CalTrans on the draft EIR which resulted in the need to revise and recirculate the traffic section of the document. The comment period on the recirculation draft EIR runs until May 12, 2006. Consequently, it is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct this public hearing (still open from December), take additional testimony and continue the matter to June 1, 2006, when the Final EIR Response to Comments document and draft Development Agreement are anticipated to be available. -127- Staff Report RE: 249 E.Grand Ave Office/R&D POS-0019 Date: May 4, 2006 Page 2 DISCUSSION: (The attached staff report prepared for the December public hearing outlines the overall project description, zoning and general plan consistency, and environmental issues.) During the initial public hearing the Planning Commission noted concern with the articulation of the buildings, the design of the parking structure and overall site landscaping (see attached minutes). In particular, concerns were voiced regarding the location and configuration of the parking structure, especially its integration with the remaining campus and its impact on adjacent properties. Further, it was commented that the buildings looked flat and needed additional work to reduce the boxy look, and also that additional landscaping should be incorporated into the project. The applicant has been working over the intervening months to refine the project to address the issues raised by the Commission and also to develop a comprehensive sign program. Type C Sign Program This proposed sign program addresses a variety of sign types within the site, including internally illuminated project entry monument signs at the entry driveways on East Grand Avenue, tenant wall signs -two per building, individual building monument signs, standardized building addressing and directional signs. While these signs vary in terms of size and shapes, the signs complement one another, as well as the buildings within the project, in terms of materials, colors, illumination, and lettering types. The Design Review Boazd found the proposed sign program to be well-designed, providing a clear hierarchy of signs, and recommended approval. Recirculated DEIR -Traffic & Circulation Sections The draft Environmental Impact Report was initially circulated from October 7 -November 22, 2005. A comment was received by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requesting that additional information be provided to ensure that off=ramp traffic will not queue back onto the freeway mainline during peak traffic periods. To provide Caltrans the most accurate queuing evaluation, a different software package was used by the Traffic Engineer to evaluate the subject intersections than had been used to evaluate all other intersections in the study. As a result of this effort, while no freeway queuing problems were indicated there was a new significant impact identified at the intersection of Oyster Pt./Gateway/LTS 101 Flyover during the AM peak in 2020. Because of this previously unidentified new significant impact, in accordance CEQA, the traffic and Circulation section of the draft EIR was revised and recirculated for an additiona145-day review period, due to close on May 12, 2006. (Copy attached) -128- Staff Report RE: 249 E.Grand Ave Office/R&D POS-0019 Date: May 4, 2006 Page 3 Once the comment period is closed the City's consultant will prepare a Final EIR Response to Comments document to address all comments provided on the draft EIR, which will subsequently be forwarded to the Commission for its review. CONCLUSION: No formal action is requested at this time. The Plarming Commission is requested to conduct the public hearing, take testimony and continue the matter to June 1, 2006, when the Final EIR Response to Comments document, draft Development Agreement, and proposed Conditions of Approval are anticipated to be available. Attached are documents related to the case. Susy K Acting Chief Planner ATTACHMENTS: December 15, 2005 PC Staff Report & Minutes DRB Minutes: 04/18/06 Sign package (Commission only) Recirculation Draft EIR (Commission only) Plans -129- o°°~x~~~~~ Plannin Commission g v c'~lIFOR~~on Sta Re o rt .ff .P DATE: June 15, 2006 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: 249 East Grand Office/R&D Project -Use Permit, Design Review and Preliminary TDM Plan to construct a phased development consisting of four office/R&D buildings totaling approximately 534,500 SF, 5,500 SF of ancillary commercial space, and related landscaping improvements on a 15.75 acre site; Tentative Parcel Map to resubdivide a 15.75 acre lot into 5 parcels with reciprocal parking and access easements throughout, and a Planned Unit Development to allow creation of lots which do not abut a dedicated public street; Type C Sign Permit for a comprehensive sign program; and, request for a Development Agreement. Location: 249 East Grand Avenue Applicant: Alexandria Case Nos.: POS-0019: DROS-0043, EIROS-0001, SIGNS06-0008, PMOS-0002, PUDOS-0001, TDMOS-0001, UP45-0005 & DA05-0004 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and take the following action: 1) Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council certify EiR05-0001, including findings and a statement of overriding considerations for traffic and air quality impacts; and 2) Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council: 1} approve UPOS-0005, DR05- 0043, SIGNS06-0008, PMOS-0002, PUDOS-0001 and TDMOS-0001 to approve the Use Permit, Design, Comprehensive Sign Permit, Parcel Map, Planned Unit Development permit and draft TDM Plan for the 249 East Grand Avenue OfficelR&D Project, including conditions of approval; and 2) adopt and Ordinance to approve Development Agreement DA05-0001. BACKGROUND A study session was held last November to introduce the proposed project and allow an opportunity for public comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report. A public hearing was subsequently held in December to formally review the project in detail. At that hearing the Planning Commission noted several concerns, and provided direction to the applicant to -130- Staff Report RE: 249 E.Grand Ave Office/R&D POS-0019 Date: June 15, 2006 Page 2 refine/revise the proposal. The applicant revised the plans and presented a thorough update at the May 4, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission was generally very pleased with the overall design and raised only a few concerns regazding screening and landscape details. The item was continued to this meeting to present the final project components including the Tentative Parcel Map and Planned Unit Development Applications, the Development Agreement, and the Final EIR. DISCUSSION: (The attached staff report prepared for the December pubtic hearing outlines the overall project description, zoning and general plan consistency, and environmental issues.) Parcel Map and Planned Unit Development Application The applicant proposes to subdivide the parcel into five lots ranging in size from 1.94 -5.33 acres. Approval of a PUD is required to allow creation of parcels which do not abut a dedicated public street. As indicated on the attached plans, while four of the five pazcels do abut a public street, one (Pazce14) does not. The tentative parcel map provides cross parking, access and utility easements throughout the site so that the project will continue to function as a single development, and will ensure that all lots have direct access to a dedicated public street. Parcels will have reciprocal parking and access agreements to ensure continued compliance with parking requirements, and will continue to be treated as a single planned development for Fioor Area ratio purposes. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The draft Environmental Impact Report was initially circulated from October 7 -November 22, 2005. However, an issue azose with regard to comments provided by Caltrans on the draft EIR which resulted in the need to revise and recirculate the traffic section of the document. The comment period on the partial revision draft EIR ran from March 28 -May 12, 2006. A Final EIR Response to Comments document has been prepared and distributed addressing all comments received on both the draft and revised documents, and is attached for the Commission's review. Significant Impacts The DEIR identifies 27 significant or potentially significant impacts. With the exception of three impacts, all related to traffic, mitigation measures are identified to reduce all other impacts to a less than significant level. Of the identified significant traffic impacts, two relate specifically to the intersection of Oyster Point/Gateway/US 101 flyover which would degrade the PM peak hour level of service from LOS E to LOS F in both the near term and the long term due to this and other -131- Staff Report RE: 249 E.Grand Ave Office/R&D POS-0019 Date: June 15, 2006 Page 3 approved development within the city. No feasible physical improvements have been identified to fully mitigate this impact. The third identified significant impact relates to cumulative traffic impacts on US 101 due to this and other approved development. 1. (DEIR Impact 13-3) The Project would contribute to impacts at the intersection of Oyster Point/Gateway/U5101 SB Flyover for Year 2008 Base Case Conditions and Year 2020 Conditions. 2008 -The project would generate more than a 2% increase in traffic during the PM peak hour {5.8%} at a Iocation with Base Case LOS E operation. 2020 -The project would result in more than a 2% increase in traffic during the AM peak hour (5.3%) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation, and more than a 2% increase during the PM peak hour (a 3.6% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation. 2. {DEIR Impact 13-2) The Project would contribute traffic to two freeway segments with total traffic exceeding segment capacity. The Project would contribute more than one percent of traffic to two segments on U.S. 101 that are projected to operate at LOS F during the AM Peak (Southbound, north of the Oyster Pt. interchange; and, Northbound, south of the East Grand off-ramp). In addition, Project traffic would result in one segment changing from LOS E to LOS F in the PM peak (Northbound, north of the Oyster Pt. interchange). The Project cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which balances the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable transportation impacts. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the following benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable transportation impacts: 1. Implementation of General Plan Goals and Policies. The Project implements the City's vision to redevelop former industrial property into higher and more economically sustainable uses. 2. Employment Benefits: The Project would be a source of office/R&D/biotechnology industries in South San Francisco, generating an estimated 1,500 jobs. Campus Development: The Project site plans include generous open space areas, and pedestrian plazas and paths linking the buildings and the parking structure. 4. Economic Benefits: The Project would increase property and other tax revenues to the City. -132- Staff Report RE: 249 E.Grand Ave Office/R&D POS-0019 Date: June 15, 2006 Page 4 5. Transportation Demand Management. Although the Project will create unavoidable traffic and air quality impacts, the FEIR includes innovative TDM measures to reduce vehiculaz trips and air pollution, including a broad range of incentives for employees to ride-share, vanpool, ride BART, Caltrain, shuttles, and other transit, ride bicycles, or work from home. The Program would be aggressively managed on an ongoing basis by "transportation coordinators" to facilitate wide participation. An eazlier Statement of Overriding conditions that was made by the City Council in would also apply to the subject project as follows: 1. The City of South San Francisco approved an update to its General Plan and Environmental Impact Report in October 1999. The City Council made a statement of overriding considerations in its approval of the General Plan update, because the measures identified to mitigate for traffic congestion along US l Oland for cumulative air quality impacts would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. 2. The 249 East Grand Office/R&D Project would impact some of the same freeway segments that were identified in the General Plan EIR and whose traffic effects could only be partially mitigated. 3. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations that was made for approval of the General Plan would also apply to decision-making on the 249 East Grand Office/R&D Project by the City. Development Agreement The City and the developer have negotiated the attached Development Agreement to clarify and obligate several project features and mitigation measures including public art and TDM reporting and monitoring requirements. Rails to Trails -The northerly edge of the project site abuts a former rail corridor that is identified in the General Plan as a future bike path (see attached Fig. 4-3}, but the property is presently privately owned and not available for immediate conversion to public use. The applicant has agreed to improve the approximately 1,000 ft. long segment of this former rail corridor should it become available for public use during the term of the Development Agreement. If it should not be available the applicant would instead be obligated to provide an equivalent amount of funding to the City to improve substandard portions of the Bay trail. Public Art -The Agreement sets out minimum requirements for value of public art on the site ($540,000) as well as for timing of installation. -133- Planning Commission Meeting of December 15, 2005 solution for the lack of parking. Chairperson Teglia suggested adding a condition that the developer secure some assurance from BART that the residents will be able to use their parking. Jennifer Renk, Seifel, Leviit and Weiss Law Offices, noted that BART has shown a willingness to discuss with the applicant and the Homeowners Association the possibility of entering into an agreement if there is a problem. She asked that the Commission not condition the project based on an agreement that they do not know if the parking will be an issue. Chairperson Teglia felt that the sale of the BART property benefited BART and felt that there needs to be some assurance to allow the guest parking in the structure. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Commission can add a condition to the project but was unsure of how the City would enforce such a condition. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl suggested that the Commission recommend this to the City Council for review. Chairperson Teglia clarified that he is not suggesting a third party condition. He noted that it is of interest between BART and Park Station Lofts and if it cannot be secured then BART would not get their sale. He stated that in order to get this approval it should be triggered upon getting the agreement. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Commission has made it clear that they want to staff to find a mechanism to accomplish this. Commissioner Romero noted that he would not like to condition the applicant. He was concerned with the lack of parking. He pointed out that BART has not been cooperative with the City but could commit to the City and cooperate with the parking if it is necessary. Consensus of the Commission recommending that the deve/over exalore use of BART varkino for the Park Station Lofts vroiect and review of the alantinA stria on BART Drive Motion Proutv /Second Sim adopting Resolution 2647-2005 recommending that the City Council approve P03-0092: AHA03-0001, GPA03-0001, ND03-0001, PM03-0003, RZ03-0001, SA03-0001, U P03-0016 & ZA03-0003. Ayes: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Zemke and Chairperson Teglia. Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Approved by unanimous roll call vote. Recess called at 9:10 p.m. Recalled to order at 9:18 p.m. 9. 249 East Grand officelR&D Project Georgia Pacific Corporation/Owner James H. Richardson/Applicant 249 East Grand Ave. P05-0019: DA05-0004, DR05-0043, EIR05-0001, PM05-0002, PUD05-0001, TDM05-0001 & UP05-0005 Use Permit and Preliminary TDM Plan to construct a phased development consisting of four officelR&D buildings totaling approximately 534,500 SF, 5,500 SF of ancillary commercial space, and related landscaping improvements on a 15.75 acre site at 249 East Grand Avenue in the Planned industrial (PI) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.32, 20.81, 20.84, 20.85, 20.120 and 19.60 Tentative Parcel Map to resubdivide a 15.75 acre lot into 5 parcels with reciprocal parking and access easements throughout, and a Planned Unit Development to allow creation of lots which do not abut a dedicated public street. Development Agreement (DA05-0004) Pubiic Hearing opened. Principal Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. s:V~t%vt,utrs~~%v~,altzed M%tn.utes~20oS12-zs-ost~.pc rnLwutes.doc _ 13 4 - page 4 o f 6 Planning Commission Meeting of December 15, 2005 Rob Kain, Randall bowler, Niall Malcolmson and Rich Shark presented the project. They had a model available for the Commission to look at. They went into detail on the parking structure, landscaping, elevations and the materials that will be used. The Commission stepped down to look at the project model. After a discussion on the landscaping, elevations, grade changes and wind coverage the Commission returned to the dais. Commissioner Prouty noted that the building looks flat and would like to see more articulation to reduce the boxy look. Commissioner Romero and Commissioner Sim were concerned with the parking structure being spread out not integrated into the rest of the campus. Commissioner Romero felt that more landscaping could be included into the project. Mr. Malcolmson noted that the DRB felt that a lower parking structure would minimize view impact for the adjacent industrial buildings. At the DRB`s recommendation, Alexandria removed one and a half floors from the parking garage and increased the surface parking. The Commission continued the Pub/ic Hearing to lanuarv Y9 2006. 10. Terrabay Phase III Terraces Myers Development -Applicant /Owner San Bruno Mountain P04-0117: DAA04-0001, EIR04-0002, GPA04-0001, PP04-0001, SPA04-0001, ZA04-0004 (Public Hearing Continued from December 1, 2005) Project Description: Construction of a mixed-use development on 21 acres of land at the corner of Sister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard in South San Francisco. The proposal includes 351 residential units in high-rise (180 units), townhome and loft configuration, a 295,000 sq. ft. office / or 300 room hotel / or an optiona1180 unit condominium and 357,500 sq. ft. retail. The 25.61 Preservation Parcel is north of the project site and was conveyed to San Mateo County on August 11, 2004. The Preservation Parcel is included in San Bruno Mountain County Park and is designated as permanent open space. The Preservation Parcel is not a part of the project. Consultant Planner Knapp presented the staff report. Jack Myers, Myers Development presented the project. Kamala Silva-Wolfe noted that her questions were not address adequately in the Final EIR. She noted that the traffic and noise are still going to disrupt the neighborhoods in addition to the freeway noise that already exists. She pointed out that the neighborhoods surrounding the project are going to become shortcuts and will increase the traffic along those residential streets. Chris Mohr, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, endorsed the Mandalay Terraces project. He felt that this was a quality development. He noted that the project has increased and encouraged the Commission to continue in working on the design. Chairperson Teglia noted that Mr. Mohr suggested in a letter mailed to the City that the City try to secure additional funding to further increase the level of subsidy and that there be some sensitivity to the mountain. He asked if there were some suggestions that Mr. Mohr could give to the Commission. Mr. Mohr noted that those were suggestions from an architect in their endorsement committee and did not know of other suggestions behind the thought. Public Hearing closed. Chairperson Teglia noted that there is a 20% inclusionary housing requirement in Phase III and an existing 32 s:V~nLwutes~~LwalCzed rnCwutes~zoos~2-ss-os izpc r~~wutes.doc - 13 5 - page s o{ 6 Planning Commission Meeting of May 4, 2006 Georgia Pacific Corporation/Owner James H. Richardson/Applicant 249 East Grand Ave. P05-0019: DR05-0043, EIR05-0001, PM05-0002, PUD05-0001, SIGNS06-0008, TDM05-0001 & UP05-0005 Use Permit, Design Review and Preliminary TDM Plan to construct a phased development consisting of four office/R&D buildings totaling approximately 534,500 SF, 5,500 SF of ancillary commercial space, and related landscaping improvements on a 15.75 acre site; Tentative Parcel Map to resubdivide a 15.75 acre lot into 5 parcels with reciprocal parking and access easements throughout, and a Planned Unit Development to allow creation of lots which do not abut a dedicated public street; Type C Sign Permit for a comprehensive sign program; and, request for a Development Agreement Public Hearing opened. Acting Chief Planner Kalkin presented the Staff Report. Rob Kain, Alexandria Real Estate, updated the Commission on the East Jamie Court Bay Trail and noted that they have begun the Bay Trail design and look forward to having it constructed by the end of the year Dowler Gruman Architects and Susman & Khol Landscape Architects gave a PowerPoint presentation showing the elevations, landscape plan and the parking structure. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Giusti asked what the type of retail would be in the development. Mr. Kain noted that they have not identified the retail but would have something similar to a coffee shop in the front and a fitness center in the back. Commissioner Sim noted that Buildings two and three look like they are coming onto the sidewalk or if there is a landscape buffer. The Landscape Architect noted that there is a landscaping buffer of 3 feet and a raised planter and that building three would have vertical landscaping. Cammissioner Sim asked the architect to include an example of the vertical landscaping when they return to the Commission. Commissioner Sim pointed out that the freight drop off in building two should not look like a loading dock. He suggested that the architect include some surface treatment. Commissioner Teglia suggested that the tree line be staggered rather than have 4 in one plane and another 4 on another plane. He suggested a triangulated staggered effect. He also suggested that Cabot be allowed to be a truck access. Commissioner Prouty questioned if the trees were full grown in the plans. The Landscape Architect noted that the smallest tree is a 15 gallon tree that can adapt to the location better than a large tree. He noted that there will be a substantial tree presence on the site. Consensus of the Commission to confinue the item to June 7. 2006. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Cityview Marbella 280, LLP/Owner Watt Communities/Applicant Gellert Boulevard P05-0115; DR06-0041 Confirmation of the Acting Chief Planners approval of the color samples and roof materials for South City Lights (formerly Marbella) at 2280 Gellert Blvd in the Multi-Family Residential (R-3-L) Zone District. 5:\Ml.wutGS\~iv~.RlizCd Miv~utGS\2006\OS O4-06 RPC MiwutPS.dOC - 1 3 6 - pG19C 2 of 4 MINUTES June Z5, 2006 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION TAPE 1 CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:37-,p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Honan and Chairperson Zemke ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Susy Kalkin, Acting Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II City Attorney: Peter Spoerl, Assistant City Attorney Engineering Division: Ray Razavi, City Engineer Police Department: Sergeant Alan Normandy, Planning Liaison CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR None 1. AGS Linens expansion Elisa Sandoval/Owner Efisa Sandoval/Applicant 915 Linden Ave. P04-0103: U P04-0029 Use Permit to allow an existing linen supply service to expand into three adjacent tenant spaces at 915 Linden Avenue in the C-1 Retail Commercial Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.22 and 20.81. Motion Prouty /Second Honan to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 2. 249 East Grand Georgia Pacific Corporation/Owner James H. Richardson/Applicant 249 East Grand Ave. P05-0019: DR05-0043, EIR05-0001, PM05-0002, PUD05-0001, SIGNS06-0008, TDM05-0001 & U P05-0005 (Continued from June 7, 2006) Draft Environmental Impact Report assessing environmental impacts, Use Permit, Design Review and Preliminary TDM Plan to construct a phased development consisting of four office/R&D buildings totaling approximately 534,500 SF, 5,500 SF of ancillary commercial space, and related landscaping improvements on a 15.75 acre site; Tentative Parcel Map to resubdivide a 15.75 acre lot into 5 parcels with reciprocal -137- Planning Commission Meeting of June 15, 2006 ~ ;~ parking and access easements throughout, and a Planned Unit Development to allow creation of lots which do not abut a dedicated public street; Type C Sign Permit for a comprehensive sign program; and, request for a Development Agreement. Public Hearing opened. Acting Chief Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. Rob Kain, Alexandria Real Estate, noted that they have refined their plans to address the Commission's comments from the previous meeting. Nial Malcolmson, Dowler Gruman Architects, presented a brief video simulation of the project and gave a PowerPoint presentation responding to the Commission's comments: Meandering sidewa/k w double row of trees. The applicant demonstrated how they were abele to move the meandering sidewalk along the street frontage and provide trees on each side of the sidewalk as requested by the Commission. Improved screening of loading areas The applicant presented revised plans showing an increased landscape setback adjacent to the loading area. Commissioner Teg-ia asked if the gates on the equipment enclosures would be manual or electric. Mr. Malcolmson noted that they would be manual gates. Commissioner Teglia noted his concern that the doors would be left open and would prefer if they were set up to close after each use automatically. Commissioner Sim asked if the surface pavement on the ramp to the equipment enclosures could have some special treatment to stealth the area. Mr. Malcolmson noted that this can be included. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Teglia asked that the final City Council packet include revised drawings. He also suggested that the public art include a fountain or some type of water feature near the drop off area /project entry. Mr. Malcolmson noted that they have two reflecting pools adjacent to the glass stairs by buildings 1 & 3. Commissioner Romero noted no concerns with the project but, questioned the environmental concerns addressed in the EIR. He noted that the City has approved a large number of projects and was concerned that these projects seem to be overwhelming the sewer treatment plant. He questioned whethter the sewer treatment plant could handle all this additional demand. Senior Civil Engineer Chuck noted that the Engineering Division is studying the East of 101 area to see what the future flows will be. He noted that the Wet Weather Program is underway to help alleviate the spills in the West of 101 Area. He stated that the East of 101 Area Wet Weather Program has been completed and pointed out that the fine that many individuals heard of recently was not caused by the City. He related to the Commission that a contractor had some problems with a pump station which has since been corrected. Vice Chairperson Honan was concerned with traffic issues although she commented there are benefits with more employment and the public art. She noted that with the increase in traffic problems in the East of 101 area the City is not benefiting completely from these projects. She clarified that she does not oppose the project but does recognize that this is a problem that is not easily mitigated. Acting Chief Planner Kalkin noted that each project poses more traffic concerns but that in adopting the 1999 General Plan these impacts were identified and the Planning Commission and City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations acknowledging these impacts would likely result from future development. She pointed out that the City has imposed aggressive TDM requirements on the project as well as other projects which must be adhered to as an on-going condition of approval. Commissioner Teglia noted that more and more projects are having to implement TDM plans and that is one of the issues that may need to be revisited. He suggested looking at the General Plan, pressuring SamTrans to coordinate public transportation to the East of 101 Aarea. S:\Miwutes\06-1,x-06 R'PC M~wutes.doc -138- Par~e2of ~F Planning Commission Meeting of June 15, 2006 = y _:,~~~. Commissioner Prouty asked if the TDM requirements run with the project. Acting Chief Planner Kalkin replied that the TDM requirements do run for the life of the project. Commissioner Prouty asked if the developer was paying for their use of the sewer system and noted his concern that the residents would have to pick up the costs. Senior Civil Engineer Chuck noted that there is an impact fee that the developer is responsible for paying. Commissioner Romero asked what department in the City is responsible for the oversight of the TDM Programs. Acting Chief Planner Kalkin noted that the Planning Division has this task and the Commission has seen the first review. She noted that although there have been many TDM plans approved many of the buildings are not yet occupied. She pointed out that there is an annual report once a building has been occupied for two years and then there is a more extensive triennial report. Commissioner Romero asked how the small businesses are meeting the TDM programs or if there is not enough interest from these businesses. Acting Chief Planner Kalkin stated that the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance performs extensive outreach surveys in the entire East of 101 area. She suggested providing copies of these reports to the Commission and having them make a formal presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Romero asked if the follow up of the TDM program is the responsibility of the planner who worked on the project. She noted that some Planners are no longer with the City so it is the responsibility of the Planning Division as a whole. Commissioner Romero suggested keeping a list of all the TDM Plans and the requirements "for each project, when it would tentatively be reviewed and who is responsible for the reporting. Commissioner Prouty pointed out that there need to be funds to have a dedicated person for TDM programs only. Acting Chief Planner Kalkin noted that the annual reports are surveys that are conducted by the developers and their representatives, but the City will hire a consultant to perform the triennial report, at the developer`s expense. Motion Teglia /Second Prouty to adopt Resolution 2654-2006 recommending the City Council certify EIR05- 0001, including findings and a statement of overriding considerations for traffic and air quality impacts. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Motion Teglia /Second Prouty to adopt Resolution 2655-2006 recommending the City Council approve UP05- 0005, DA05-0001, DR05-0043, SIGNS06-0008, PM05-0002, PUD05-0001 and TDM05-0001. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 3. Home Depot/appiicant Levitz SL San Francisco/owner 900 Dubuque Ave. P05-0035: PUD05-0003, UP05-0010, TDMO-0003, SIGNS05-0044, EIR05-0003 & DR05-0020 (Confinued from June 7, 2006) Draft Environmental Impact Report assessing environmental impacts, Planned Unit Development allowing a reduced front setback; Use Permit allowing outside storage and display, Design Review allowing construction of a 101,579 square foot Home Depot store, a 24,215 square foot Garden Center, open at- grade parking and a 2 level parking structure and generating in excess of 100 daily vehicle trips; Type C Sign Program comprised of building facade signs and retention of an existing pole sign with a total area exceeding 300 square feet; Transportation Demand Management Plan reducing traffic effects, situated at 900 Dubuque Avenue in the Planned Commercial (P-C-L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24, 20.81 & 20.85 S:Wtiv~.utes~06-25-06 RPC MLwutes.doc -139- pagesaf ~- RESOLUTION N0.2654-2006 PLANN][NG COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IlVIPACT REPORT INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE OFFICE R&D PROJECT. WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Alexandria Real Estate Equities to approve a 540,000 square foot Office/Research and Development Campus including above grade parking garage and ancillary retail and fitness center ("Project") at 249 East Grand Avenue, in the P-I Planned Industrial Zone District; and WHEREAS, the City determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required to evaluate the impacts of the proposed prof ect; and WHEREAS, The Final E1R (FEII2) for the Project consists of the Focused EIR, the Partial Revision of the Draft Focused EIR, and response to comments made on the Focused EIR and Partial Revision of the Draft Focused EIR, and the Mitigation and Monitoring Program; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR and Partial Revision of the Draft EIR were prepared and each circulated for 45-day public/agency review period from October 6, 2005 through November 21, 2005 and March 28, 2006 to May 12, 2006, respectively; and WHEREAS, notices of the availability of the Draft Focused EIR and Partial Revision of the Draft Focused EIR were published in the San Mateo Times, mailed to property owners within a 300- foot radius of the site, noticed to local agencies and cities, and circulated through the State Clearinghouse; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed meeting during the review period on November 3, 2005 to take public testimony on the Draft Focused EIR; and WHEREAS, the Dra$ Environmental Impact Report reviewed and analyzed the following potential environmental impacts: • Aesthetics including the visual character of the proposed prof ect, including lighting; • Air Quality, including construction dust; • Biological resources; -140- • Geology and Soils, including ground shaking, soil stability, landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction and expansive soils; • Hazardous materials; • Hydrology and Water Quality, including water quality degradation; • Land Use and Planning, including the maximum square footage of development allowed by the General Plan; • Noise; • Public service impacts; • Transportation and Circulation, including trips generated in peak hours, impacts to freeway segments, declines in Level of Service at nearby intersections, and restrictions on parking to reduce congestion; • - Utilities, including water availability, and impacts to aging wastewater collection facilities and cumulative demand for wastewater treatment capacity; • Project alternatives; and • Cumulative impacts WHEREAS, a Final EIR was prepared, including responses to comments received on the Draft EIR and Partial Revision of the Draft EIR, and sent to agencies and individuals from whom comments on the Draft EIR were received; and WHEREAS, the Plarming Commission has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the DEIR, Partial Revision of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR at a duly noticed public hearing held on June 15, 2006, and recommends their certification as objective and accurate documents that reflect the independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and mitigation of the Project's environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Proj ect to reduce identified impacts to a level of less than significant for all but three impacts; and WHEREAS, the proposed mitigation measures for three transportation impacts cannot reduce the impacts to acceptable levels; and -141- WHEREAS, the City Council must adopt the required findings of Section,15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines for the Project's significant environmental effects, which effects cannot be reduced to an acceptable level, with regard to transportation impacts; and WHEREAS, the Proj ect cannot be approved unless a Statement of Ovemding Considerations is adopted which balances the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable transportation impacts, and an earlier Statement of Overriding Considerations was made by the City and applies to the Project as follows: 1. The City of South San Francisco approved an update to its General Plan and Environmental Impact Report in October, 1999. The City Council made a statement of overriding considerations in its approval of the General Plan update, because the measures identified to mitigate for traffic congestion along US 101 and regional air pollution would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. 2. The 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project would impact some of the same freeway segments that were identified in the General Plan EIR and whose traffic effects could only be partially mitigated. 3. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that was made for approval of the General Plan would also apply to decision-making on the 249 East Grand Proj ect by the City. 4. Additionally, the Project offers specific benefits as stated in the Statement of Ovemding Considerations adopted for the Project, as found in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations incorporated herein. WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on November 3, 2005, December 15, 2005, May 4, 2006 and June 15, 2006 to consider the Environmental Impact Report and the proposed Project, including the Use Permit, Design Review application, Type C Sign Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, Planned Unit Development Application, Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Program, Design Review minutes and Development Agreement and finds that: 1. The EIR was independently reviewed and analyzed by the City and reflects the independent judgement of the City as lead agency; and 2. The documents, including, but not limited to, the 1999 General Plan, the 1999 Certified Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Draft Focused EIR for the Project, Partial Revision of the Draft Focused EIR, Final EIR, Response to Comments, Findings and Analysis for Impacts identified in the EIR, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit S, letter from Stephen Richardson of Alexandria -142- dated June 14, 2006, staff reports and testimony received at public hearings on the environmental documents and other materials constitute the record ofproceedings on the EIR and the Planning Commission's review thereof. Said documents are located at the Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco. 3. Certain specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the three Project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR, with the exception of the proposed Project, in that: A. The "No Project" Alternative, required for analysis under the California Environmental Act, involves maintaining the site in its existing condition and denying the City of the following opportunities: to improve and make use of an under-utilized site, to provide Long-term employment, to receive additional tax revenues, and to enjoy site amenities which are proposed to be financed by the Project. B. The ".50 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Alternative", would allow the same mix of office and R&D facilities as in the proposed Project, but in reduced quantity according to incentive-based FAR bonuses and standards in the General Plan. The reduction in Proj ect square footage would help to reduce traffic congestion, water demand and wastewater treatment capacity, but not in a substantial way, for any of the categories of significant impact discussed in the EIR. C. The ".39 Floor Area Ratio/Tree Preservation Alternative" would provide half the office and R&D facilities as the proposed Project, which would reduce traffic and parking lower than the Project and would retain 14 existing trees considered protected under the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. However, the Alternative is determined to be infeasible as it does not fulfill prof ect obj ective number 4, to "Build a project which is viable in the East of 101 Area based upon market conditions and projected service requirements for the Area." . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the South San Francisco City Council certify EIR-OS-0001, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediatelyupon its passage and adoption. -143- * * * * * ~ I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 15~ day of June , 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Honan and Chairperson Zemke NOES: Nnne ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: N~nP .~,? ATTEST: r~ ~~ Sus~y Acting Secretary to the Planning Commission -144- RESOLUTION N0.2655-2006 PLANNING COMIVIISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIF012NIA A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIlVG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECONIlVIENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE UP05-0005, DROS-0043, SIGNS06-0008, PM05-0002, PUDOS-0001 AND TDM05-0001 TO TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF AN 15.75 ACRE SITE FOR AN OFFICE/RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE IN THE P-I PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA05-0001 RELATED THERETO WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on November 3, 2005, December 15, 2005, May 4, 2006 and June 15, 2006; and WHEREAS, as required by the "Use Permit Procedure" (SSFMC Chapter 20.81), the "Planned Unit Development Procedure" (SSFMC Chapter 20.84), and the "Minor Subdivision Procedures" (SSFMC Chapter 19.48), the Planning Commission makes the findings contained herein in support of the request to approve a Use Permit, Design, Type C Sign Permit, Parcel Map, Planned Unit Development permit and draft TDM Plan for a Research and Technology Project consisting of 534,500 square feet of research (laboratory) and office space arranged as a campus with shared open space connected by landscaped pedestrian wa]kways, public art, 5,500 square feet of ancillary retail, restaurant and fitness space, and parking garage on a 15.75 acre site located at 249 East Grand Avenue, and which includes requested exceptions for the number of parking spaces; and, WHEREAS, these findings are based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: Use Permit Application and plans, including site plans, floor plans, building and garage elevations and landscape plans dated May 4, 2006, prepared by Dowler-Gnunan Architects; "Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Program", dated September 1, 2005, prepared by The Hoyt Company; Master Sign Program submitted by Alexandria Real Estate Equities; Tentative Map dated January 2006 prepared by Kier & Wright; 249 East Grand Avenue Environmental Impact Report (Draft Focused EIR, Partial Revision of the Draft Focused EIR and Final EIR Response to Comments); minutes of the Design Review Board meetings of June & August 2005, and April 2006; Planning Commission staff reports dated November 3, 2005, December 15, 2005, May 4, 2006 and June 15, 2006; and testimony received at the November 3, 2005, December 15, 2005, May 4, 2006 and June I5, 2006 Planning Commission meetings. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: 1. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The General Plan specifically contemplates the proposed type of -145- project and the suitability of the site for development was analyzed thoroughly in the environmental document prepared for the project. 2. The project is consistent with the General Plan which designates the property for a mix of Business and Technology Park. Office/R&.D use is considered an appropriate use under this designation. Additionally, the category provides for a floor area ratio (FAR) of .50, with permissible increases to a maximum FAR of 1.0 based on implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program as outlined in the City's TDM Ordinance. The proposed FAR of .79 requires that the applicant prepare, implement and maintain a TDM Plan designed to achieve a 32% shift to alternative modes of travel other than single occupant vehicles. Guiding Policy 3.5-G-3 -Promote campus-style biotechnology, high- technology, and research and development uses specifically supports development of the proposed project. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan which the General Plan identifies as the guide for detailed implementation of General Plan policies. Policy LU-16 supports development of campus settings and is consistent with the Design Policies of the East of 101 Area Plan. 4. With the exception of parking, the proposed project meets or exceeds the minimum standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance which designates the site P-I Planned Industrial. The exception for the number of parking spaces is warranted based on the following: a. The project is of a superior quality which offsets any potential adverse impacts of the requested parking space reduction. The Design Review Board and the Planning Commission find the proposal of very high quality in terms of architecture, building materials, site design and provision of landscaped pedestrian walkways and public art. b. The parking exception will serve to support and promote the TDM program required of the project. c. The project provides 91 % of the required parking spaces and is required, through the TDM program, to achieve an alternative mode use of 32%. the site is not anticipated to result in a shortfall of on-site parking or create the need for overflow parking off-site. The parking ratio is supported by studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers which identify an average need of 2.79 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space, and which support a lower ratio for research and development use based on its lower employment densities. d. The parking standards proposed will be adequate for the proposed uses because of the offered alternative solutions for providing and managing parking. The project is required to implement a Transportation Demand -146- Management Program on an on-going basis over the life of the project with a required alternative mode shift of 32%. The aggressive TDM requirements required of the prof ect, the fact that similar reduced standards have been accepted and/or successfully applied within several large campus developments in the city, including the Gateway Specific Plan District, Bay West Cove Specific Plan District, Britannia East Grand and the Genentech Campus, and the studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) all support a reduced parking standard. e. The reduced parking rate reinforces the overall efforts of the City's General Plan and the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance which encourage reduced parking standards as an effective tool in encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles. f. The number of parking spaces provided by the reduced standard will serve all existing, proposed and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would the standard number of parking spaces required by Chapter 20.74. As described above, there is ample evidence to support the proposed parking reduction, and there is added concern that an overabundance of parking could have a deleterious effect on the goals and objectives of the City's TDM efforts since such would serve as a disincentive to use of alternative modes of transportation. 5. Transportation Demand Management a. The proposed TDM measures are feasible and appropriate for the project, considering the proposed use or mix of uses and the project's location, size and hours of operation. Sufficient measures have been included in the plan to achieve a prof ected 32% alternative mode usage, as required. b. The performance guarantees provided in the plan will ensure that the target 32% alternative mode use will be achieved and maintained. Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan, which must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit, shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys and triennual reports. Additionally, the applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program costs associated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM program. 6. Tentative Parcel Map and Planned Unit Development a. The proposed tentative parcel map is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the PI Planned Industrial Zone District. The proposed parcels exceed the -147- minimum lot size and dimension requirements the district. Parking requirements and Floor Area ratio allocations will be satisfied through cross easements, allowing the requirements to be met in the aggregate rather than on each individual parcel. b. The tentative parcel map complies with the requirements of SSFMC Title 19 (Subdivision Ordinance) and with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. c. The design and improvements of the tentative parcel map are not in conflict with any existing public easements. d. The requested exception to allow lots which do not abut a dedicated public street is warranted since the map will include cross access easements to provide each lot direct access to a public street consistent with the intent of the requirement. e. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of land use proposed. 7. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project which will reduce all but three identified impacts to a less than significant level. The City Council must adopt the required findings of Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines for three of the Project's significant environmental effects, which effects cannot be reduced to an acceptable level, with regard to transportation impacts. 8. The proposal will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. 9. Subject to minor modifications, included as conditions of approval, the proposal complies with the City's Design Guidelines. 10. The Owner and City have negotiated a Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et.seq. The Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit B, sets forth the duration, property, project criteria and other required information identified in Government Code section 65865.2. Additionally, the Agreement requires the Owner to provide public art and trail improvements. Based on the findings in support of the Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds that the Development Agreement, vesting a project for a campus style development of three Research and Development buildings, is consistent with the General Plan and consistent with the applicable zoning regulations. -148- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the South San Francisco City Council approve a Use Permit, Design Review, Type C Sign Permit, Parcel Map, Planned Unit Development permit and draft TDM Plan for the 249 East Grand Avenue Project subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit A port and adopt an Ordinance approving Development Agreement DA05-0001 as provided in Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * ~ * * ~ I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 15~' day of June , 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Honan and Chairperson Zemke NOES: N(1nP, ABSTAIN: None ABSENT:~~nP r•' ATTEST: Susy Acting Secretary to the Planning Commission PC Reso UP & DA Feb 17 -149- 249 East Grand • Sign ~1'rogram -150- ALEXANDRIA TECHNOLOGY-CENTER 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE CONCEPT and OVERVIEW 1) Introduction Signage is an important element for the identity of this project. Our purpose, with the Master Sign Program, is to set forth guidelines to ensure a consistency in format and quality that reinforces the collective image of the project as an upscale and professional biotechnology center. Our intention is to enhance the overall appearance of the Center by creating a signature sign style that carries across all the various signage types in the Center. Additionally, our purpose is to support each business in reaching its full potential by providing it with adequate exposure to its customers and vendors, to the financial community, and to the visiting public in order to benefit all parties concerned, and contribute to the benefit of the community as a whole. 2. Purpose The Alexandria Technology - 249 East Grand Avenue Signage Program has been established for the purpose of assuring a functional, coordinated graphics program that will provide project and Tenant identification and traffic control, while encouraging creativity, compatibility, and enhancement of the Project and the City of South San Francisco. The Alexandria Technology - 249 East Grand Avenue Signage Program has been prepared in accordance with the City of South San Francisco's `Zoning Ordinance Sign Standards'. 3. Design Intent The guidelines for this program are designed to assure consistency in signage for the mutual benefit of current and future tenants, as well as to coordinate the type, placement and physical dimensions of signs, placed within Alexandria Technology Center - 249 East Grand Avenue to provide an artful, homogenous statement for the Project. In order to maintain consistency of quality and design characteristics, all signs must be requested in writing through the Landlord. In cases not covered by the Alexandria Technology - 249 East Grand Avenue Signage Program, the prevailing criteria will follow the City of South San Francisco's `Zoning Ordinance Sign Standards'. -151- 4. AuArovals and Permits Each Tenant and/or user will be directed to contact the current Asset Manager for the Alexandria Technology - 249 East Grand Avenue at Alexandria Real Estate Equities' regional office. Conformance to the signage program will be strictly enforced. All signs are subject to the sign guidelines for the property's zoning district. Any non-conforming or unapproved signage installed by a Tenant and/or user must be brought into conformance at respective party's own expense. These criteria do not imply that governmental approval will automatically be granted. The party desiring signage has sole responsibility for obtaining any and all required approvals from Landlord and governmental agencies, and must obtain appropriate permits through the City of South San Francisco's Planning Department. 5. General Requirements a) Each Tenant and/or user shall submit or cause to be submitted to Landlord for approval, before fabrication, at least three (3) color copies of dimensioned, detailed design drawings indicating the location, size, copy layout, colors, materials, finishes, illumination, and method of fabrication and attachment. b) All sign applications require a signature from the property owner prior to review and approval from the City of South San Francisco. c) All permits for signs and their installation required by the City of South San Francisco, shall be obtained by Tenant or Tenant's representative, at Tenant's sole expense, prior to installation. d) All signs shall be constructed, installed and maintained at Tenant's sole expense. e) Tenant shall be responsible for fulfillment of all governmental requirements and specifications, including those of the City of South San Francisco and the Uniform Electrical Code. f) The size and amount of free-standing and wall-mounted signage shall be consistent with the appropriate Zoning District. g) All signs shall be reviewed for conformance with these criteria and overall design quality. Approval or disapproval of sign submittals based on aesthetics or design shall remain the right of Landlord or Landlord's representative, and the City of South San Francisco. -152- 6. General Construction Suecifications (a) All signs must meet or exceed all current applicable codes (i.e. Electrical, Mechanical, Structural, etc.). (b) Signage must meet all requirements of the State of California and the City of South San Francisco. (c) All exterior signs shall be secured by stainless steel, nickel, or cadmium plated fasteners. (d) All exposed fasteners to be painted to match the background surface. (e) All wireways, transformers, electrical boxes, switches, wiring, conduit and access doors shall be concealed. (f) All exterior signs exposed to the weather shall be flush mounted, unless otherwise specified and approved by Landlord. (g) No raceways allowed, unless absolutely necessary and prior approval has been granted by the Landlord or Landlord's representative. (h) All illuminated Tenant signs attached to building wall or fascia shall be connected to a junction box & final hook-up, with connections to be made by Tenant's or Landlord's signage contractor. All Tenants shall have their signs connected to their own respective electrical panel, unless otherwise approved in writing by Landlord. (i) All penetrations of the building structure made by Tenant's signage contractor required for sign installation, shall be neatly sealed and watertight. (j) All identification labels shall be concealed, except where required by code. An Underwriters' label is required on all electrical signage. (k) Signage contractor shall repair any damage caused by his work. Damage to structure that is not repaired by the signage contractor shall become the Tenant's responsibility to correct at its own expense. (1) Tenant shall be fully responsible for the work of its signage contractor, and shall indemnify, defend and hold the Landlord, Landlord's representative, and all parties harmless from damages or liabilities on account thereof. (m) Sign surfaces that are intended to be flat shall be without oiI canning, or other visual deformities. -153- (n) All exposed welded seams and joints shall be finished smooth. (o) The general location of wall signs shall be centered vertically and horizontally on fascias, unless otherwise specified and approved by Landlord. 7. Administration (a) Hours in which signage will be illuminated, shall be determined and controlled at the Landlord's sole discretion. (b) Landlord reserves the right to hire an independent electrical engineer (at Tenant's sole expense) to inspect the installation of all signs and to require that any discrepancies and/or code violations be corrected at Tenant's expense. (c) Tenant's sign company shall carry workman's compensation and public liability insurance against all damage suffered or done to any and all persons and/or property while engaged in the construction or erection of signs in the amount per occurrence set by Landlord at that time. (d) At the expiration, or sooner termination of Tenant's lease term, Tenant shall be required to remove its signs, cap-off the electrical, patch the fascia, and paint the entire fascia area to match the surrounding areas, if required by Landlord, at Tenant's expense, within seven (7) days of Landlord's notification of same. (e) Sign contractors shall be advised (by Tenant) that no substitutes will be accepted whatsoever unless so indicated in specification and approved in writing by Landlord and Tenant. Any deviation from these specifications may result in the rejection of the sign by Tenant and/or Landlord. (f) In the event any conflict in the interpretation of these guidelines cannot be satisfactorily resolved, the Landlord's decision shall be final and binding upon the Tenant. 8. Prohibited Signs (a) Abandoned signs; (b) Signs advertising or publicizing an activity, service or product, except for community interest signs permitted by the City of South San Francisco, which must be preapproved by Landlord in writing; (c) Animated, moving, flashing, blinking, reflecting, revolving, or any other similarly moving or simulated moving sign; -154- (d) Balloons, gas-filled balloons, flags, banners (except as permitted by Code}, and pennants; (e) Signs on benches, bicycle racks, picnic tables, light poles, trash receptacles, foot bridges, decks or other site appurtenances; (f) Off-site signs, except as permitted Code; (g) Signs mounted on the roof or above the lower eave line of a mansard or similar roof; (h) Signs on public property or in a public right-of--way, except for publicly installed traffic and street identification signs, approved special event signs or other signs expressly permitted by this Code; (i) Signs painted on or affixed to fences or roofs; {j) Signs that simulate in color or design a traffic sign or signal, or which make use of words, symbols or characters in a manner which could interfere with, mislead or confuse pedestrian or vehicular traffic; (k) Temporary signs, .including but not limited to, "A" frame signs and sandwich boards, any sign attached to utility or street name poles and any product or temporary sign mounted or painted on a vehicle parked or located so as to function as an identification or directional sign(s) identifying a business or product; and (1) Windblown devices, including but not limited to windmills, kites, display flags, streamers, balloons, blimps, or similar devices designed to attract attention to a property or business by moving in the wind. 9. Temnorary Sims (a) Temporary signs shall be permitted within the Alexandria Technology Center - 249 East Grand Avenue at the sole discretion of the Landlord and the City of South San Francisco and require prior written approval. -155- Sign Tune °CA" - Proiect Entrv Monuments These two monuments will set the standard for the project signage program by establishing the design motif and personality of the Center. It will reflect substance, grace, prosperity and good taste. One (1) each will be located at the east and west entry to the Center off of Grand Avenue. This will allow traffic to identify the project and make appropriate arrangements to enter the parking lot safely. Sign Face: Brushed Aluminum Grip-Gard 9ALU33754 (NP104), with a gloss finish. Sign Base: Bronzed Metallic Aluminum Base Cladding Form in ColorMap 314F1, Grip-Gard CMap-2595, with a gloss finish. Copy: Helvetica Condensed Bold. Films: Opaque color - 3M ScotchCal Vinyl. Lamps: T-12 H.O. Daylight White Flourescent Bulb(s) spaced for even lighting. For more specific information, please see enclosed engineered drawings. -157- j i ..~ ' '1 vv, 1~ x~r _ it ~ ~ .:. r ;. r ... .' ~}r~rv _ s r`'- .. ~ ty ~~~ _ _ ~~ x, .~ y - - _ ~r~,51 ~~ e ~~ `"~ ` ` ~ ~ 915 i ~ .~M1 ~ ~` ~ ~- ~~ _ ! _-, '' / ~~ j ~~ ~ ~ f ~~ ~~ 5 _'~ ~ ~ 3 f~ ~ L ~- ~.. ~.~ .. - .. d ~ ~ r„~ ~ f 4: n ~ ,d~~~ T I ~ W ~ Y. ,, ! r~ ~' Qz °~ 'v' ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ( ~ Q ;r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .e..;~ 1.; - '"mss-~ ~, t ~'Tv ~ ?'" 't ~ ~s ;. jt' S.i i y ~ ~ t ~R,~1 r ~h G a~ .... .~ L ~_~ '/. ~- I~ ,e ~ Mri O a 4 //((rr '~1~~ ~V j~ .) ._ 1 ~ _ =. a'rr ~i r~ e -~ 1 r r; ~~:~: -159 s /5 G c ' Y al 0 ~ m m rv~ ~ K = ~7 ~~o o"mw ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~W N '~ o ~,~~ ~o~o o~tl~o•~a~oQ ~~L~o~~ue~~d ~Q N~~~ LLa~~.U WLL~w jm~QmpLLrNu Wm ~~b~ ~~~ ~~~~$~ ~~OwWJr~~~` ar ~/ J i1N_~~//0 w w~~ U arp: w,~0~ ?~~QUFStJ7wm W~Q~W~~~~W~ O~U ~~ a~sULm m~Jm ~D p0 u;~ ~0- ~~~~p,~y`q u ~p ~ao~QQ~ JN QUU~ W~~~ ~ JNILLUu~~~aW~t UP 1' ~Z~~~yT] '~~ W~~t7 >Ow ~~~~LC~ ~LLL~p~YlwxO~ ,~ U ww ~Z3~~~ud1~_~~i~ w~m'~L~~~~~~z~~'oo~~J~Nk~~~ QOLLN~N LLKOW~~Z3ZWm ~LL~ J~jL'I.m3~arr J Nr1-r yr~T Q~Qw ~NQLL~rOY,~ `~'~~r7JYWp~I[LIJ~~~ ~ JOppp IC ~Ti YLL'_Zryad7QaZ~i.~~r plL ~ a_iapU~W~ ~~ry2ZY w~~ma-u-,wca-'u ':a~LL~m~•.~UmNOxu nMV~ ~ ~ ai rtt ~ c _ m ~~ b .p Q+ '~ tl1 v ;~ - M ~ ~ n m ~ J ^' ~ a '~ w m o m ~ ~ a '~ 3 I`Im ~ N nl ml v ;~ v~ P i6 m r1 0 sl m w -16U- m ~ ~+ ui ~ ~ p w a'~~ U p p ^ J ~ m n 1 _ U 3 w a uK wp ~I~jpi a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ W ~ ~LLmN O ~ ~~ u ~ ~ ~~~m ~ ~~ ~ CY aOm N~0 ll W 17 .~ IU N z w o~mo~Z ~~~~~~ ~ d~ ,~ ~a f C ~ a ~ NUpr ~~Lr"~h` ~ WO LL ~ lL w a~JpN- d S wN _,a J~JJ.. ~ ~ tii ~ ~ ~ mm v t0 J V ~ aa~ aa U a o ~1 r.+ W C .' 4 ~ ~ 0 1 _W w 0 b B w !L 0 z W Q U O • Fy O ''"a ~~ u ee ~~ 5 ~`Q..'O o ~ z m $~ 0 e o S OA qO O O O ~ H G ~ 9 C = C d ~~ a ~•& 65 ~~~= e '° ~ ~ ~~ e . . n,~ a ~ ~5a ~_ e 2 ~5i c e ~ n 'w ~.e F~ 3333 $ __ ~ la= ?~~~ w ~~ L' 8~an '~ E e ~.~~ 5~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~." ~Z E+r ~s~€~ '~_~ F i~ ~BE~~~ ~ef'Y~ C ~s ,~ to C~ C .` nW ^W L ~~ C W ~. O a E c~ x Q ~. ~ m i m V s s ~i~° ~~ ~~ u N m ~° `a a m~ _ ~ m J N N W m 0 J V ~I w H 0 Z ~ ~ ~~ LL r Z S O W N ~ ~ J ti~ Sp ~~ ,N J~ L ~~ o~~ ~o Q~~~a~ <W~=z ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ a~ d ~~oN~~ a ~a~ ~' ~ 7rm' ~ r~ _ ~"~, LLW N LL~LL,,7~~11LL'JJ7LL ~J=LLuLL Q~~ WJ~IQ Q~ FAN W N W Z, WN -:a~:~ra_a_ ~ n M a ~ m w 0 z w Z w ~7 u ~ 0 Y R LL r O (n 0 0 a;~~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ C D ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ m° aWW~ Z ~, W o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~' c 3 y ! ~ a ww y T~ ~i {1N~.! m U C~TI OmN W LL ~~ U JI J V o~ ~~ W§ ~ m ~~ m ~ y~y~ "3 y C a d~LL~WN O n ~ ~ , ~~ ~ Q ~ 'E a a~i aa ~ a ~ ' ~ u ~. m ~ 3 m W C w _ N ~ O H ~ LL _ N F N 7 U m W W 0 N N -• _W y E"' Q U a • d ~~a° ~~o <~~ ~<: ~~~ g m ~` a 0 e 0 ~ ~ e a S 1 S .. Y 0 ~~€ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ c ~~~~ i $~~~~ ~S; s ~€a ~ e~ ~• aE e~ ~~ S~EL°o ;~~ ~~''g e ~ '~ gZ .:`~ ~~r~~ ~~~ ~s ~ES~.. wyS~~ ~'~€~~~ $e :v~~ ~{'~ DE E ~ ~ o E~~~~ ~_?~~~ 0 N ~ ~ r lu N~ a I J~'p ~ J Q s7 Ny W ~ o. Oz p' a0~ J N ~I W NUJ J W W 3 N~ w ~~ ~~m z ~z mp „ o ~ ~LLx ~ mu QJF'!9 O p~W N ZW LLQ ~ Wa~ jNII V.W Jpm ~ Z ~ u W u. m i~ ~mW P auw p Y~J m t~a w~ ~ oa2 w ? z ~. a ~u ~ N O_ ~ ~ ~ ~ `I pF',> i Npm wi x N d ~[rp}m~~~o m~o~: $ ~~n S.2 ~~W Nm~i-F~ ~ a t~ll.~~:~o N~ m~. ~ N a ~ WF~JQS p~W^.~'' ~w~g~~~0~p~p JWa o WW ~I- ~ JO ~Ja2~ ~~a~~~~~m~ ~~~+~duN~LL~~a~a ~'~ M~p °pW~~ JpN~N~N 'ryp~UU~~~wu33~~~w~w~w`~ LLI~uQ ~ol):W~V~J=W~~~2 m3~ a°§~p~a~Jo~~ aN U211~~j wJ_ H a Ow~r}3' ,paJFaNOa~WO~W W~WN J~ ,U ~Naa~~ pN7W~a NWaa a"u~d~a~4m'"uNmp °~ L.~~ J• OaS ~iWWN'uJ1~~- N'U~L'•,N~~~nQN ~l7 y~Wj~ZN',~tr~ - n 61 <Ili •C rmPiQ .C w f w N 0 ~. 0 W Z ~ ~U mW LL ~W R' F r~ ? E ~ O w W~ J a ~~ W W Wp Nn N~ Sm 0 N ~~ ~ ma N~ wp ~ ~~ a~ ~ VW ~ ~p 7~ J~ 7[ ~ i p FVV WmN a i1~0~ LL ' o ~ ~YYYY W ?qua ~ f~~~ ~ a m ~ ~~~ ~ W! F Z Z W t7 I v m a A N ~~ ~~Z~Z O ~~~ ~~~ ~m V tll om~ ~g IA~~ W u ~~WZ4 N N - ~zeR i~ ~~ zn3 i1 ~`~.~` ~` ~7 -- -- -'-~ o ----- r----~ ~ m ~ I ~ ~ r_-_-- ____y < - i I m i ~ - i .. m i ~ F._._.-.__-_ ~ t _ I ~ I~--~-- ~ F----- ~~ O s ~~ s J H W 4 N W a LL M~ W w _Q U Q a • Fy O '~ 8 M ~rE~ <~ fig`, ~ C m gC F i f 1+ a 6 S e ~ ai D i = 3 ~ ~ = 9 6 .y C ~m 6 ~ q 4 ..33a~ypp ~a~3 i C ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~g -162- ~ : ~a ~~~o~~ F c ~ w ~~~~~o ~~_'~€ ~~~~s Em ~~D 76 ~$~ e ee. SGGG ° ~ ~ ~~,°~~ E $~~ ~2 ~:§3~ _ ~ E~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~eg~~~ ~~•~°~ ~~~~~s -~--~ .'..o .~ U E-+ ~ ~ U ~ j F ~ C~7 w '~ 4? O ~ ~ O (~ ,~ ~ ~ H ~ <C E„a ~, d ~-'~ '-~ H ~ Q ~ N ~ a ~ ~ c~ W -163- V' +2n.o3 BUILDING ONE •. O /` Q +16.00 _ o i ~ I f~ MONUMENT I I +i 6.5U 51GN ~ I ~~ ~ ~ SEi E3ACK UNE ~ ............._ t ~ - .,.. - uNEfF~ ~ =~kr .. Y .ZfYTAt M ,UL,LCpD N EAST GRAND AVENUE ~ b ®®~e TRAFFIC +, TRAFFIC ~ 0 4 'l r C !` ~~~ ~ ! . ~' #; _ , .~ f . ~ r ~ r~ ~- SCALE: 140° = 1'-0" i 1t. c .~,' ... r?^_-. !~ 6 :' r .... v .. ~ r= DES~i^G N REVi EV`~ BOARD I U 1111111. f,°C1'3,. ..3 r. ~ i He ILDING. HC ~ E \ H., MONUMENT SIGN I i ......, SET SACK UNE i L~~ i~G' %o ~ + ,~ n ®~ ® TRAFFIC ~ ~' ~ ~ it M AS.fL9S N t J W EAST GRAND AVENUE J Q ~-- _.aa //rye ~ '. Y -2~S\s~,v, ° i--+ ..~1~i, .;V ~ ~ ... •s° f ' ~t'~ 7;' ~~~ i~! t - TY .. may/ ~`^~'~.~ s _ ~ f4 ti 4 /,' •fi ~ e~ ~r~ ~+r~ pry ~~ ... \ C '~ 1 / ~~ .. ~ \ ~ ^e3T~ i ~" i ' " ~ " t / r \ / \rr 1G 1 K ` ~ t ! ~ SCALE: 1 /4-0 = 1 -Q ~ ~. ° _ _ t ~~< ~ PI _ G ~ ~. sir wUrF rd5" aiT AkTT' caR:n^wze"_"~"`°`'_"~9' C"" ~_~~ .M .__ ~ . _"._'-v?',e=....-rte--.. : ~> . -. i' DE51 G N P.EVI EVV BOARD i 16 ~ .~ ; ~~ Q~111C~9 GHUf~fl~ . __.~ ...._. ~ ~,,Ti , t 4 ~~-~rl~ ~~ , ~:~:~.,~~,.~.~~ .~ ~ .rani s.A ~;~ ~~1 ~ c_i ~: Sign Tvne "B" -Exterior Fascia Tenant Si~na~e~ Each building will be occupied by one to four tenants. If the building is predominantly occupied by a single tenant, that tenant will be allowed two (2) signs located on the upper band of the fascia of that respective building (see Elevations) at specified locations. If the building has two predominant tenants, each tenant will be allowed one (1) sign located on the upper band of the fascia of that respective building. Guidelines for this signage will include the following: *Two (2) signs per building reflecting the predominant tenant(s)' name and logo. No tag lines or ancillary copy will be permitted unless Landlord approval has been obtained. *Signage will be located in the areas indicated on the attached elevations for each respective building. Sign specifications will meet City code and Landlord approval. *Reconunended signage materials include aluminum construction with acrylic polyurethane for the lighted areas. Internal illumination will be provided by single or double neon tubes (see Mounting Detail). -166- d ~ N d .~. vs Z v T m ~ C N N 3 '~ ~ M i C O ~ r O . d V N .., H O M C ~ .y O d G ~ V H > > 67 m O O tp M M [D cp 6] 6D tD M M O O ~!! X1'1 O to - H LL M tD O d Q 7 p7 d Q > U Q T~ w C V d 9 d ~+ O N N 'O r ~ OD C' ~ ~ ~ w W Y Q a ~~ Z ~' ~~ . u "' c v z ~ - -167- n• N ~ ~ d N ~ N E~ ~ c _o ~ O ~ .= C.1 ~ ~ ~ C. iv ~ 01 ~ O .~ ~ ~ C D ~ C '6 •~i i .emu C N ~ ~~ C a ~ 'E Y e- ~ V r- ~_ ~ O M ~ 2 . r ~- ~ .. ~. N C ad V C d .C ~ ad M .C ~ ~ r-+ - D C v ~. ~ C E =o ~- ~ '~ ~E 'O ~ L ~ m ~ E = O d d C c N u • N Q y O N Z V m L. N ~ N 'T 'C O O ~ C -~ n O .1O y ~ o O m N C N r •y p M ~ C .` O V N > > ~ ~ m ~ tD M M iD m CO CO ~D M M O O ~ N Ip c0 H ~ M 0 3 ~ d a > ~ Q T ~+ r C V d 9 d H D 3 N 'O d ~ ~ ~o LL` W Y Q ~ C G O a . ~ cn ~ v L.) v z ~ - !~-i -168- d ~ y Q y O y Z V m C N "'° N 3 'a° o m ~ _ n O ~O 0 'O w C ~E T IC c c c 0 m Z f~ n ~. -169- o L U ~~ U f0 C O) c~ ~-° m ~o~= ~°~.~ c= ~~ O ++ O Q U i ~ ~ _ ~+ ~_ ~ y y ~~a~ ~ I i ` ~ ~. ~ ~ I x \' I ~. 1 ~ ,~ ~ `~~\~, ~ ~_ . i ~6; ,~ a ,, ' `,r` ;. r'~ - ~; .}; ' _ C d d W L O ~ ~ Y L v y ~ m d V V T •~ Q Q .y ~ ~ ..+ ~' C ~~' d C V y C ~.. ~ ~ O a o ~ U 'O = 'D 9 m C ~ ~~ o d d c c a n`°. d i0 0 D ~ N C ~ O O .N ~ ~ > ; G1 W Cp O] cD C'i ~ O m co co cn M e+~ O O u'~ u'f t0 i0 H W M fD O 7 ~ > U 4 T T ~. C V 01 .0 d +: D N N a r y CO C vs a ~ w W Y Q ~ ~ ~ Z `~ ' n 1 _ K i/) O v U z >_ 0 0 C ~ N ~ O y d 0 O H ~ N t9 .-. p d '~ d M E Q- ° ~ c w = ~ d '_- m g y ~ `oU N O .r,,,1 ~ .5 V 7 ~ 61 .,r +~ ~ ~ C t d 'y y'C ~ O ~QO h ~ E g N c ~"C co ENC. a ~z ~ N d M C O d C ~ D ~ ~ O to y ~ d o w ~ C O y O Z ~ p~ O p ~ 'D ,y N = ~ ~ ~ ~~ m c .d ~ N v co ~ ~ ~.- Q C~ N Q C1 ~0 N Z V a~ m ~ C ~ a ~ m a O m i C -~ n D r° d .o p o ~~ H C N .~ Q M d ~y ~ C ~. ~ 7 d en 7 >' ~ ~ m m tD M M ID CO 47 ~ ~ f7 P'1 O O LL7 LL7 [D cD H LL M !O O d p ~ O a~i ~ V Q ~ v C U d O d +T O N N 'O r d ~ ~ ~ i/] ^ C d ~ o v N G / t9 .0 7 y O ~ d p O rC. -gyp "C d v O 7 ,., o N w _d O O i ;_~ d ~ .y O d ~ O ~n i V C J ~ ~ O ~ C d ~ E ~ ~ ~, ,. . 3 ~ .a ~ d ~ V L- d Gam. ~ M .C.. '_ ~ O ~ w fV6 ~ O C ~ O ~ _ ..~ ~ d a~ O ~ cc . a~ re .C v ~ cn v y Z ~ ~ O F- W C • Q 'a Z ef 1 ' ~' C ~ ~U 47 ~ O 0> d d ~ f6 d N d d -170- d O L C .~ D Y v f9 CO C t9 d J c`a d U 'p ~ O C ~ ~ N j O 7 V C O ~ ~ 'O d i ~ d U .~ ~ ~ C. ~, V S E C .~ tfj p L' ~ i!J Y d Z p . C C/7 O v U ~ _ d ~a` a _ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ { .~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~~ h, rx o ,c~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ : ~' ~~C7 l U2 ~ a ~ I o I N ~' ~~ ~~~ f ~ i > ~ ~ 7s1 ~U rn ~ ! ~ ~A I a i i p ~ CV ~ _,u'?~.. _ ._. .... w «, ti . .. ~ ~. _ ._.,. .. i.:,.. _. A ~f ~~~ ~~_~ t ~~ ~~~ ~~' F ~~°-. ~~ € ~~,~.,~ ~ ~ _~~ ~t ~~ „i J ~ ~ jiP ~ A °~ .~ , ~ w ' a ,j ~ '~ ~ W ~j - ~ W ; ~ m ~; ~ T ' ~1 N I ~ _ ~ 1' Z ~ ~ g' ~ ~' ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ i a ~ ~ Q,~ ~ ~n'~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ J~ d y,~. ~ ~z ~ - i ~ F ~ Q -~ W ~ C ' k ~ O- r"1 ~ ~ C~ :~ ~ C m~ N u. p ~ _ 4 ffi f u x 0 ~r ,x= ~ C ~{'~ ~aHa~~~l~ ~ Q 0 oz < wa U ~ ~ v rz Q ~ W ~ a q _ ~= ~ z °^' z ¢ ~~ ~ as v= E N W / / Sign Type "D" -Building Specific Monuments Please see Sign Face: Brushed Aluminum Grip-Gard 9ALU33754 (NP104), with a gloss finish Sign Base: Bronzed Metallic Aluminum Base Cladding Form in ColorMap 314F1, Grip-Gard CMap-2595, with a gloss finish Copy: Helvetica Condensed Bold 3M ScotchCal Vinyl For more specific information, please see enclosed engineered drawings. -178- sty ~~ ~: s /' ` _C~ .G~° tS _ ? 2 y ,a z ,a C co < a~'~ru~ ~aaaa z N 't O - :~ ~ r ~~ ~Q~ X ~ •_- z s s a. ca oaa~ z z ~ x ~ a ~.A ~~~ o ~' ¢ i z .. - ~. -.. ~~~ r .r ~: _~za ~~, ... .._ -179- x w H z w~ U ~~ O ~ x~ W E• ~ v N W w Q ,~ H~ .~ 0 w w Q w ' ~~ - ~ - -~- -, 'T °::.__ ~ -sir.- ay, ° -~;:«:_ ., r ~ >z-, 7 ~.,~:~ .~^^~,. . _~ r ~. I - 'r ;F`~ < l K-t ~~ ~ a ti, _ u "~ -' ~ .~ , ~: t _~ ry . , .~ _ „ v .~ .', .;, •- _, _ . ~~ . - _ _ .. t~ ~.,x 18 0 ' `~ .~~ ~w. _~~ f ~ ~. h ~•... ,~~ . .. ~ ~r _ a ~._ ~ _ -. _ .. _r . ~-_ Wit...=~ .'~ ~~w~ o ~~~~ ~ o ~, ~, ~s~~ w ~~~ tL' O G W i ~~~ ~~~. W ~FLL ¢~ ~ ~€ g 0 ~~ ~ ~~~ N S ~SEg~~ i ~i Z 6~FL ~!FC~ ~~~ 4 IR k pg~ 2 yb 5 C _~ 'O N V ~: .E c O C ~~ c w a K W n Y ..ate .a .. ~ 3 'HMI ~s ~' ~ I' ~~ ~ C N ~z ~~ ° ~ v N ~ V `_ _~ ~_.. X 7 V1 LL7 O CW C '~ OC .:~.:. . .:: .: , ..; :: -~~ _. ~ ........ e ~ m a e .6 l OhY W 5'. S I f E i m ~~ ~i~ ~+ ~ i i 1 g 1 . ry/~NO Y tl•m^ QO^f Of 1 V~VNN 22 {$ +GO~ ~ 3~ L~i G ~+ m ~ i 666666 ~ >z~LL ~ t~ .~~~ .~ r~ o ~ ~ ~~~~ ~9Ba~ ~~ 7 7 ~'~ ~~~~i • ~~a~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ c~~ie a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ e@ ~~ e~ e ~~ ~~ ~~ G 'e o_ ?! _~ I ~ m~ W c vs a~ N_ RS E °. ~~ .~ w 0 a. x w _ 'l O r1 ~, u ~' / E <- ric MONUMENT r~ SIGN BUILDING 1 ~ r+c F.F. zi'-o" f VAN ~f ~~^ ^~~ /; ~/ O O O f~ 1 o I .,b.~o i 1 i ~ ~~ L___.. ------- _ -- -_. _ __ _. __f. _ .---. _ __.__ ~_._ _ - --.___ S_ BACX Lly I ~ a ~~ 0 20 40 b0 80 SCALE: 1 j40" = 1'-0` DESIGN REVIEW BO~,RD .._.~.._.. _.........._,. .....__. _... .....__....__.._..__....._.__..____._.fw..._._-.___-._.___.._.....__.._...~ G _~' f ^^"•~~ ~.. _ /, ~ BUILCiING 2 MONUMEN7l F•~. 20'-0" SIGN r `~ ~~~~ ~..... ~ ' " _ ~`~"' ~. MONUMENT '~ ~~, ~ ~~ ¢~j ~. ~ I HC MC ~HC JAN ^ "# TRAFFIC '~-~~1• 0 I ! I ( ( I ~ n EAST GRAND AVENUE ~~ ~~ 0 2D 4a 8~ 80 ~.. _ ~_. . , ~, D E S I G N REVIEW BOAR D Q ,c - ~ ~< _.. ... ~ ._ . ~._ -, fi'-GB~lif~~. ~~ \, V '`' J U SERVIUc YkRU ~ ~ 4.OOG S~ "`~ $UILL',iN 3 X0'_0 ~. 24•_0• s! >, r~ r~ f # ~ .~ ~? MONUMENT ¢~ -¢~ SIGN <, vM Q, He y/ HC \ HC ~\G P ~ ~4~ O I '~ a~ I \ 0 20 40 60 SO SCALE: 1/40' = 1'-0' •~ •- _ ~ i' < ~ ~-• DES ! G N REVIEW B O R R D ~~ ~ , i ~ +zo.oo ~ V ~~ ~.o .~ , t+taFfirc ~.,,, j ~ ',~~.-~_ ' MONUMENT '~"~~~°4 _ ~^'"~ SIGN ~~ ~ v+~ HC ~ HC SERVICE YARD a,2so s~ BUfLD4NG 4 F.F. 24'-0 ~~~ __....~. ~``~ 9S; ~ ~~ i ~~ \ -~s.eo J ~ j~~~, _ 's A _)) P 4 ! < ~,xfl ' .... ' ( ~. ~ ' ~ r ~ SCALE: 1 f4o" = 1'-D' i.: ~ ~ ! ; ` a_ ; a~~ a' v ~ i _, ~_~ 7 ~. ~_.__.r-..~ --_.. __ r•,., ~..iav ~. ~.~.__ __... .. _....._~.__..___. ... ev. . _.-.. =r-_ ~- ...._..____..~.... __.._~..__.~._.Y._.._.~._._~.__~..__. •' ~:-~~ +~ D E S f G N REVIEW B O ,~ R D ij ~!~ ii y~`~yp.. /~ ~~l )y, (VIII [j~ (!j~'I (J ~- ~ t /~{ .~~ ~~~{ ~~~f R ~'~i~o/ ~~~ ~ '~ ~ ~ •'~~~j~ ' ~=~®~{~W ILI'}ll ll,l~~ 4~i. ~... ,..' Y. _ ~~~~~ 1 ~'S'~j ~~~S~v 3~ ~I ~ _ ~~I~I~W'3~~~~'1 ~lY~ d~ '~ ~m ~-- _ .~ - Sign Twe "E" -Directional Signage Sign Face: Brushed Aluminum Grip-Gard 9ALU33754 (NP104), with a gloss finish Copy: Helvetica Condensed Bold 3M ScotchCal Vinyl For more specific information, please see enclosed engineered drawings. -187- Lot t- Z f_:.] u U r, U W ^ r~~ C F~-~I ~1 r~ G . ~ ~." X ~ U ~ :;+ „~, 7.~- ~~ ~~ ~ r~,. : , , ~~ a o ~,w~$ c+~ -~ ~ ~ 1--- ` ~ ry. - .V~.4 ~~~ ~ ~~.~ h J f~,~,' ~. .1 5 _ .. - - f. - ,. r __ __T~ ~'L i - i '~ ~ ~ _ " - ` ~-O ~ ~ b~q m aII O ~ W @ a 9 G ~ V v 3 V ~ R ~ O E~ W w.^c A H ~ ~ ~ y L ~ 'O b ~ ti}~~=. t'g ~' ~ ~~~ ;. p p 1 O Q J d N N h 2 L7 Z c ~ " ¢ - o a W C _ Z w J 6 2 ._9. c -189- N V+NO `+• C1 aJ ^ . ~~OI p j I V1uNN 00 9 ~ 8mm 3 ~ W G 6 J Z ~ C ~ C W zz O ~ N rv s °°° i ~a=~ ~_ ~ €3g~~ ~-~~ ~~~ -~~ .e~8==( €~~g ;Eft ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~€~~ ~ $ ~~~~e~ ~° of ~5~ E F 55 ~ ~ ~~~~~ 7.~~C~ ~? }r a A -190- O C O _`a m .. a C C W w a A W C. //~} VJ. _N ctS .~ ff) C ~. Ol C .` E11 C ,~ C LL) a E c~ x W Sign Tune "F" -Shipping & Receiving Material: Brushed Aluminum Copy: Helvetica Condensed Bold 3M ScotchCal Vinyl For more specific information, please see enclosed engineered drawings. -191- a, ~ r ~ ~ 4 s~ ~ co ~~.~ _~ , ,. tt~ , ~~ l.i ~.rn ~ ~.. ~ ~ 'a ~ ,~+ w .~ w ~ O ,.7 f6 ~ .~ ~ C -• 3 (L$ W ~ u. r* ~ j; -C .U Q) U Cl ~ _. .. _~. ,:__.yw... .,. '~ ~... ~ m~ o ~r~~z` 1 Y ~ ~ ~I ~ ~~ 4 5~~ ~y Ii IjI i JI I 1 ~ ~. YF ~ ~u~ ~'£ ~ s .. ~ ~ ~~ ~`F ~~ ~ a 1 ~ ~ <"~.a ~g ~~ .. ' 2 ~ `S ~P~.~ ~~ i; ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~a ~i S ,F'SE ~ ~ {[ ~ ~ a~,Yf {~ 4~e 1 II I 1. a ~ ; s F 5 3~~~,'~.~k S~L ~S,{ W W r ~" ~ ~ z ~;: < O "z ~ ~- a ~~ ~ w~ - 19 2-~ 'tit i j II '~ i tlli I i~~ i ,~Zli-N ~ .i.!t p~ ~- .9~, 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PRELIMINARY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO and ALEXANDRIA REAL ESTATE EQUITIES, INC. Prepared by: TxE HOYT COMPANY (916) 448-2440 September 1, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS FXFC'iITTVF.SiTMMARY .................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ..................................... 1 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT GOALS ................ 1 3.0 EMPLOYEE MODE SPLIT EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 ..................... 2 Table 1 -Comparable Commute Mode Rates ........................... 3 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................. 3 Site Plan ............................................................ 4 5.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT .......................................... 5 Parking Supply ..................................................... 5 Table 2 -Parking Assessment for 249 East Grand Avenue ................. 5 Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools and Clean Fuel Vehicles .......... 5 Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking ............................. 5 Passenger Loading Zones ............................................ 6 6.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL RIDEMATCHING SERVICE ................ 6 7.0 TRANSIT' ........................................................... 7 Direct Route to Transit ............................................... 7 Shuttle Services to 249 East Grand Avenue .............................. 7 Table 3 -Shuttle Service to 249 East Grand Avenue ...................... 7 Shuttle Services Map ................................................. 8 Shuttle/Bus Stops ................................................... 9 Caltrain ............................................................ 9 BART .............................. ............................. 9 SamTrans ............................:............................. 9 Downtown Dasher Taxi Service ....................................... 10 Ferry Service ....................................................... 10 8.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES ............................. 10 Pedestrian Connections .............................................. 10 Bicycle Parking -Long-Term and Short-Term ........................... 10 Table 4 -Bicycle Parking Recommendation ............................. 11 Bicycle Connections ................................................. 11 Bicycle Resources .................................................... 11 San Mateo County Bicycle Map ....................................... 13 Shower and Clothes Lockers .......................................... 14 Table 5 -Proposed Shower and Locker Facilities ......................... 14 9.0 CAMPUS TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR ........................ 14 Designated Employer Contact ........................................ 15 Employee Transportation Flyer ....................................... 16 Promotional Programs ............................................... 16 10.0 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM ............................... 16 11.0 INFORMATION BOARD /KIOSK ...................................... 17 12.0 ON-BYTE PROJECT AMENITIES ....................................... 17 Fitness Center ...................................................... 17 Restaurant ......................................................... 17 13.0 KICK-OFF EVENT .................................................. 18 14.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION ................... 18 15.0 MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT ................................. 19 Annual Employee Commute Survey and Summary Report ............... 19 Triennial Report ..................................................... 19 16.0 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 19 EXHIBIT A -Accounting of C / CAG Off-Peak Trip Credits ATTACHMENTS: Utah-Grand Area BART Shuttle Schedule Utah-Grand Area Caltrain Shuttle Schedule Downtown Dasher -Mid-day Taxi Service Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Employee Transportation Flyer Guaranteed Ride Home Program Sample Kiosk 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Traffic congestion and air pollution are critical concerns in maintaining a healthy economy and lifestyle in the City of South San Francisco. Traffic congestion results in time lost to residents and commuters, and increased demand on City fiscal resources for roadway construction and maintenance. Mobile sources, such as automobiles, can account for 50% of the air pollution in South San Francisco. The City of South San Francisco has directed the developer of the 249 East Grand Avenue project to prepare a Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. This comprehensive Plan is designed to achieve a 32% alternative mode use that will address both traffic and air quality concerns in South San Francisco. The Plan includes ordinance-required and extra measures, annual survey monitoring and triennial reporting. The Plan has a variety of infrastructure and incentive-based measures which encourage all forms of alternative mode use such as carpool and vanpool, transit and shuttles, bicycling, walking, and telecommuting. An important feature, although not a formal TDM Plan measure, is the reduced level of parking made available for the project. The project proposes a modest parking availability with 8.4% less parking than code for the development at 2.83 / 1,000 sq. ft. City code is 3.3 / 1,000 sq. ft. The reduced parking level will help to significantly reduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use. Other measures such as shuttles, carpool spaces, showers and bicycle facilities, and future employer incentives, including the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program will provide employees with viable alternatives to driving alone. This Plan is performance based. The developer is required to achieve a 32% alternative mode use by tenant employees. The mode use will be monitored annually with the first employee commute survey to be conducted one year after occupancy. An alternative mode use report will be submitted tri-annually to the City's Economic Community Development Director after the third annual employee commute survey has been conducted. Efforts to reduce drive alone options and increase commute options can take many years to develop and mature. The current commute environment to San Mateo County and the City of South San Francisco will offer 249 East Grand Avenue commuters lower levels of roadway congestion and higher highway travel speeds according to recent regional surveys conducted by the Alliance and RIDES. Correspondingly, the transportation alternatives available to commuters may be less attractive than the ease and convenience of driving alone. Reduced congestion and transit services contribute toward SOV usage. In addition, all tenant-employers and their employees will be provided with free parking. This may further encourage drive alone usage. The Hoyt Company Page i 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The 249 East Grand Avenue project supports the City of South San Francisco's policy of focusing clustered development along major transportation corridors. This project is located near to and served by Highway 101 and I-280, a Caltrain station, and a BART Station. The comprehensive plan of trip reduction measures identified in this report is essential to realizing the trip reduction potential of the project. The combination of these critical factors will provide the synergism to maintain a 32% alternative mode use level for this project. Through monitoring efforts such as the annual survey of employees to determine transportation mode split, the 249 East Grand Avenue project will be able to better focus transportation coordination efforts and encourage tenant employees to use alternative transportation. The first modal split survey summary of results will be submitted to the City of South San Francisco after one year of occupancy. The first triennial report will be submitted once every three years on the anniversary of the certificate of occupancy. 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT GOALS The basic premise of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the maximum utilization of existing transportation resources. The City of South San Francisco, as is typical of other urban areas in the United States, has billions of dollars invested in roadway infrastructure, and hundreds of millions of dollars invested in public transit infrastructure. The goal of TDM is to more efficiently and economically take advantage of these major capital investments. The following are three basic goals that can be achieved through effective utilization of TDM measures: 1) Convert trips to an alternative mode of transportation (i.e., transit, carpools or vanpools, bicycling) 2) Provide technological solutions (i.e., compressed natural gas, electric/hybrid vehicles, or other zero emission vehicles) 3) Eliminate trips (i.e., compressed work weeks, telecommute) Until recently in the United States, the answer to relieving congestion on roads, and in parking structures, was to build more roads and parking structures (similar in concept to building another manufacturing plant to expand productivity on levels). Current economics and limited resources affect the ability to build and maintain more roads or parking structures. This reality necessitates better utilization of the existing transportation infrastructure (similar to adding a second shift at an existing plant). To this end, TDM measures support the transition to a greater use of existing alternative transportation options. The Hoyt Company Page 1 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 The measures and programs outlined in this Plan support and will meet the 32% trip reduction goal as identified by the City of South San Francisco's TDM Ordinance 1300-2001. The following 249 East Grand Avenue TDM Plan meets many requirements of the Revised C/CAG Guidelines for the Implementation of the Land Use Program approved by the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County in September 2004. Using the C /CAG Guidelines, the estimated number of off-peak trip credits needed to meet a 32% reduction for the number of employees estimated to occupy the 249 East Grand Avenue project is 432 to 496 trips. Estimated Total Em to ees 1,350 1,550 Tri Reduction Re uirement 32% 32% Total Nuuzber of Peak ri Credits Re wired 432 496 Off-peak trip credits identified in this TDM Plan for the 249 East Grand Avenue project tota1715.4. An accounting of all trip credits applicable to these TDM Plan measures is provided in Exhibit A. 3.0 EMPLOYEE MODE SPLIT EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 According to the Commute Profile 2004 Regional Report, prepared by RIDES, the San Mateo County alternative commute rate is approximately 34% with the Bay Area regional rate comprising approximately 36% alternative modes. The larger Bay Area alternative mode use rate is indicative of the cost of parking in the more urban core areas, whereas parking is free or much less expensive in many areas of San Mateo County (e.g. City of South San Francisco). The 2004 Employee Transportation Survey conducted by the Alliance identified the San Mateo County alternative commute rate at 32%. The overall commute rate for the City of South San Francisco was identified at 26.2%. In Fall 2004, an employee commute survey was conducted at a comparable employment site in South San Francisco at Britannia Oyster Point. Baseline results from this first-year survey indicated a commute mode rate of 26.6%. Table 1 shows the comparison of alternative commute mode rates for the Bay Area Region, County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco and a comparable employer site. The Hoyt Company Page 2 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 Table 1 Comparable Commute Mode Rates urvey Locations Commute Profile 2004 Regional Report -RIDES 2004 Employee Traiisporation Survey. - Alliance 2004 Baseline Transportation TDM Report -The `-'Hoyt Company San Mateo County 34.0% 32.0% Bay Area Region 36.0% City of South San Francisco 26.2% Britannia Oyster Point Campus 26.6% 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 249 East Grand Avenue project is a 15.75-acre project owned by Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. (Alexandria) in the City of South San Francisco located south of the U.S. Highway 101. South San Francisco is an area that is known as the birthplace of the biotechnology industry. The 249 East Grand Avenue project proposed by Alexandria is a Class-A office/laboratory and commercial campus containing 540,000 sq. ft. The project is planned to include approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of retail space including asit- down restaurant, ATM, and a fitness center. The proposed construction consists of four buildings between three and five stories tall and is intended to accommodate life science tenants. Please see the project site plan on page 4. The project is designed to maximize opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle and shuttle connectivity: 150 carpool parking spaces are planned with three spaces designated for vanpools. Sixteen Class I bicycle lockers and 15 bicycle racks will be provided throughout the campus for bicycle commuters at no charge to employees. Showers and lockers will also be provided for bicycle, pedestrian and other alternative commuters. Shuttle services to BART and Caltrain are located directly on East Grand Avenue in front of the project. Food service, access to banking, an exercise facility and a sundry shop will help to create a more self sufficient development in order to reduce the number of trips made daily to and from the campus. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 0.79. Parking will be provided at a ratio of 2.83 cars per 1,000 sq. ft. Approximately 1,529 vehicle parking spaces are planned for the campus, an 8.4% reduction from city code. The Hoyt Company Page 3 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 5.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT Parking Supply Total parking spaces are projected at approximately 1,529. The on-site structure parking will contain 1,038 parking spaces with surface parking at 491 spaces. The ability and willingness to rideshare is directly linked to parking availability. By not providing an overabundant supply of parking spaces at full build out, the 249 East Grand Avenue project is laying the groundwork for successful promotion of alternative transportation. Preferential parking spaces placed near the building entrances (within 100 feet of building entrances) are an excellent incentive which sends a clear visual message to employees and the community that alternative transportation is important. The City parking code for this type of project is 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. for the first 50,000 sq. ft. and 3 / 1,000 sq. ft. thereafter for the remaining 490,000 sq. ft. The 249 East Grand Avenue project is proposing a 2.83/1,000 sq. ft. parking ratio. This is an 8.4% reduction in on-site parking. Table 2 shows the reduction of parking for the project. Table 2 Parking Assessment for 249 East Grand Avenue Parlcln~,' Code:' ProjecE, ~ Parl~ing`°' Reduction Percent Reduction 1,670 1,529 (141} 8.4% However, all tenant employers will be provided with free parking for their employees that may encourage drive alone usage. Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools and Clean Fuel Vehicles Parking will be free for all carpool, vanpool and clean fuel vehicle participants. Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking One effective means of encouraging employees to rideshare and / or use aclean- fuel vehicle is to reserve the most preferred parking spaces for the exclusive use of carpools and vanpools. These preferred parking spaces will be designated with signage and pavement striping. Upon completion of this project, a minimum of 10% of surface and structure parking will be designated for carpool, vanpool, and clean fuel vehicles. The 249 East Grand Avenue project will provide 150 carpool and three vanpool parking spaces in premium, convenient locations (i.e., near parking garage elevators, close to buildings, in the shade, etc.) within 100' of building entrances. These preferential parking spaces will be specially signed and / or striped and may require employee registration and permitting. The Hoyt Company Page 5 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 Passenger Loading Zones In order to facilitate disembarking and embarking of rideshare passengers, passenger loading/unloading areas will be provided. Passenger loading zones for carpool and vanpool drop off will be located along the southern portion of Building 2. 6.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL RIDEMATCHING SERVICE Free carpool and vanpool matching services are provided by Regional Rideshare Program's Ridematch Service via www.511.org and the Alliance. On-site employer contacts will promote the on-line 511 service directly to employees on a regular basis and allow the Alliance to solicit carpool sign-up at on-site employer events such as an annual Transportation Fair, Wellness or Benefits events, etc. Tenant/employer contacts can also research employee ZIP code data from Human Resource records and offer to match up employees who live near each other. Carpooling and vanpooling will be strongly encouraged at the 249 East Grand Avenue project. The Employee Transportation Flyer will promote the free personalized matching assistance through the 511 Rideshare and Alliance programs. This carpool and vanpool ridematching service provides individuals with a computerized list of other commuters near their employment or residential ZIP code, along with the closest cross street, phone number, and hours they are available to commute to and from work. Individuals are then able to select and contact others with whom they wish to car or vanpool. They will also be given a list of existing car and vanpools in their residential area that they may be able to join if vacancies exist. The 511 system gives commuters the information they need to make better choices when planning trips. By calling in or logging on, commuters can get up- to-the-minute information about traffic conditions, public transportation options, ridesharing, and bicycling anytime, anywhere throughout the greater Bay Area Region and northern California. The 511 system offers one-stop shopping for traffic, transit, rideshare and bicycle information in the region. The nine-county system is the first 511 service to go online in California. It provides links to 511 systems in Sacramento, Oregon and Nevada and is available from any phone, provided the carrier supports 511. Most counties in the region have wireless and landline access to the service through major carriers. The Hoyt Company Page 6 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 7.0 TRANSIT Caltrain, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and SamTrans provide service to South San Francisco in close proximity to the project site. Shuttle services from the South San Francisco BART and Caltrain Stations provide the most direct link for transit riders to the project site. Direct Route to Transit A well lit pedestrian path will be provided from the four buildings, utilizing the most direct route, to the nearest shuttle stop on East Grand Avenue. Shuttle Services to 249 East Grand Avenue The proposed 249 East Grand Avenue campus is approximately three-fourths (3 / 4) of a mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and 2.83 miles from the South San Francisco BART Station. Working with the Alliance the project is proposing to utilize a comprehensive shuttle system with both peak period and lunch time service (via the Downtown Dasher). The Utah-Grand Area BART shuttle circulates between the South San Francisco BART station and the project at either 15 or 30 minute frequencies. There are currently a total of 18 BART shuttle trips to and from the project site. The project will also operate an hourly Utah-Grand Area Caltrain shuttle service between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and the project during the morning and evening peaks. Twenty-two (22) shuttle trips provide connecting service to and from the project site. Table 3 shows the number of shuttle trips provided to the project site for connectivity to the South San Francisco BART and Caltrain stations. Table 3 Shuttle Service to 249 East Grand Avenue Shuttle Service Morning Tri s Afternoon Tri s Total Tri s Utah-Grand Area Caltrain Shuttle 11 11 22 Utah-Grand Area BART Shuttle 9 9 18 Total Shuttle Tri s to 249 East Grand 20 20 40 Shuttle route maps are provided on page 8. Shuttle schedules are provided as an attachment. The Hoyt Company Page 7 f . 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 249 EAST 55F GRANDAVENUE Cattr~dr+ GnbntlAlltTrton StaSl~an ~ ::; c r `,. ~ - :` _ _ ~ • yam! 1 t6~ H.~r~dr~ `r• ~ ~' , h 4 ll R'1 E. '~fBRif w. "-fi. _ I ~ EV l '.'• d~yy 1 ~..a ~M~!! 1r 1-tYq~~n ')Iay } ~lT1L~M+ 1 SSF l.~ttlpfirrld botw~en ~ -- Swift 8 Gtirrfnr+nncr - -r, qtr _ Grand +~ ~'~ .. 4:;`' ttt3afrcrldr .yt^ ~ Ut,h 33'9 F#art~t~r ~~ ~~ 249 EAST _.±S?f-r ,JgS:rf F,iirl Eiwr~ 'GRANDAVENUE ~. ~,~~~_. Tai ~ _ Cat~rotfAllertdn SSF BART ~ 2.3Q E. G ~d ~ ~ =~ni=~ v ;~ - Statirsro - M A M T nG' .: f 'L r, ~t t I 169 Harbor `-?. ;,~ s, Kirnl~all~ 1Q"I _ E. Grand € -- ~} -i~ - ~~dLC't~7 C. At•L., ~t.v4`PIUC C t ,~~/~nf,~:y ~'li~~Fl~1 7Yifx r35F Littlefield - betWC~rt ~pnfertvnee - Switt 8 Gtr ur.u, Grand i ~,.,+ .;•:, 2.x.9 Littlefield 3~9 Hart~ar The Hoyt Company Page 8 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 Shuttle/Bus Sto s Shuttle drop off and pick up locations for both the Utah-Grand BART and Caltrain are located across the street from the project, south of East Grand at 230 East Grand Avenue. Employee will need to cross the street at a lighted crosswalk to board the shuttles. Additional shuttle stop locations are provided at just east of Littlefield Avenue and near the project garage on Cabot Road. Should future shuttle stops be needed on the north side of East Grand Avenue at the project site, Alexandria would be amenable to working with the Alliance to dedicate and / or improve ashuttle /bus stop and waiting area. Caltrain Caltrain operates a frequent fixed route commuter rail service seven days a week between San Francisco and San Jose, as well as limited service to and from Gilroy on weekdays. Caltrain operates on 15 to 30 minute frequencies during the peak periods in the morning and evening. Midday service operates approximately every hour. Service is less frequent on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Caltrain service is available approximately three-fourths (3 / 4) of a mile from the 249 East Grand Avenue project at the South San Francisco station located at 590 Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue. The Utah-Grand Area Caltrain Shuttle provides connecting service to the project site. Caltrain services were enhanced in 2004 to add express trains during peak hours. However, this new service does not provide an express stop to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and hence will not benefit employees at the 249 East Grand Avenue project. BART BART is a 92.7-mile, 43-station automated rapid transit system located along five lines of double track. Trains traveling up to 80 mph connect San Francisco to Colma and other East Bay communities -north to Richmond, east to Pittsburg /Bay Point, west to Dublin / Pleasanton, and south to Fremont. Service is scheduled every 15 minutes during peak periods. Service during Holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays are modified. BART-to-the-Airport expanded the system by 8.7 miles along the peninsula from Colma to a new intermodal station in Millbrae. Four new stations were created including the South San Francisco Station located between El Camino Real and Mission Road to the south of Hickey Boulevard. SamTrans SamTrans provides bus service throughout San Mateo County, with connections to the Colma, Daly City, and South San Francisco BART stations, San Francisco International Airport, peninsula Caltrain stations and downtown San Francisco. The Hoyt Company Page 9 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 The system connects with San Francisco Muni, AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit at San Francisco's Transbay Terminal, with the Dumbarton Express and with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority in Menlo Park and Palo Alto. There is no direct SamTrans service east of Highway 101 area. SamTrans service does connect at the South San Francisco BART Station and subsequently the Utah-Grand Shuttle Service that drops off and picks up at the 249 East Grand Avenue site. SamTrans does not provide a direct connection to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, however; Routes 130, 292, 133, and 132 are within approximately 1 /4 mile walking distance from this Station and the connecting shuttle services to the project site. Downtown Dasher Taxi Service This free taxi service provides an 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. pick-up service throughout the East Highway 101 business parks in South San Francisco. Using existing shuttle stops, taxis drops off riders at locations in the downtown retail area. The Downtown Dasher, operated by the Peninsula Yellow Cab of South San Francisco and managed by the Alliance, requires an employer provided voucher and a trip reservation before 10 a.m. This midday service is currently free to participating employers. A detailed Downtown Dasher flyer is provided as an attachment. Ferry Service Currently, no scheduled water transit service exists in the South San Francisco area. Water transit service to South San Francisco is anticipated by September 2009. 8.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES Pedestrian Connections A safe, convenient and well-lit pedestrian path will be provided from the four buildings, utilizing the most direct route, to the nearest shuttle stop on East Grand Avenue. Lighting, landscaping and building orientation will be designed to enhance pedestrian safety. Bicycle Parking -Long-Term and Short-Term Free Class I and Class II bicycle parking facilities will be provided on-site as follows: • Commercial, R&D, and office uses: one bicycle space for every 50 vehicle spaces required. • Restaurants, retail: one bicycle space for every 50 vehicle spaces required. The Hoyt Company Page 10 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 An additional 14 Class I (long-term) bicycle lockers or covered enclosed, secure area will also be included to enhance the viability for bicycle commuters. Class I bicycle lockers should be placed at each building and in the garage area. East Grand Avenue is a designated bike route but is listed as a high traffic volume route. Table 4 shows the recommended and total number of bicycle facilities for the proposed project. This is a 45% increase in bicycle parking from the recommended levels. Table 4 Bicycle Parking Recommendation Estimated Number Parkin S aces 1,529 Bi cle Parkin Ratio 1:50 Bi cle Parkin Needed 31 Bicycle Parking Recommended 31 Class I -long-term 30 Class II -short-term 15 Total Bit cle Parkin -I5 All bicycle parking and facilities shall be located in convenient, safe and well-lighted areas with maximum space for ingress and egress of bicycles. Bicycle Connections The project has good connections to regional bicycle facilities, including the San Francisco Bay Trail. The Bay Trail is a network of multi-use pathways circling San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The ultimate route is planned to be a 400 mile route through nine Bay Area counties and 42 shoreline cities. The trail provides commuters an exceptional pathway to bicycle or walk to work in the South San Francisco Area. A map of surrounding bikeways is provided on page 13. Two abandoned rail corridors on the north and east edges of the property may provide future opportunities for cyclists to commute to the campus. The city is exploring upgrading the northerly path into a landscaped multiuse trail and the rail spur that connects to the east edge of the project site to a planned north- south multiuse trail with links to the Bay Trail. Bicycle Resources Free Bike Buddy matching, bicycle maps and resources are provided via the 511 system. Bicycle commuters looking to find a riding partner can log-on to bicycling.511.org for more information. The Hoyt Company Page 11 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 The Alliance provides a free one-hour, on-site Bike and Pedestrian Safety Program for employees. This workshop teaches commuters about bicycling and walking as a safe, stress-relieving commute mode; traffic laws for bicyclists, pedestrians; bicycle maintenance tips; and offers a drawing for free bicycle- related prizes. A program flyer is provided as an attachment. Note: The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance provides a 50% match for the costs of purchasing and installing any bike parking, from basic racks to high security lockers, up to a maximum of $500 per unit. The Hoyt Company Page 12 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 Shower and Clothes Lockers Showers and clothing lockers will be installed for the use of employees walking and biking to work and others who wish to change after commuting via alternative transportation. Two (2) showers and 10 locker facilities will be installed in building one and six (6) showers and 301ockers will be made available in the fitness center adjacent to the garage. Shower and locker facilities will be provided free of charge for all employees. Table 5 shows the number of proposed shower and locker facilities planned for the project. Table 5 Proposed Shower and Locker Facilities 249 East Grand Avenue Showers Lockers Buildin 1 2 10 Fitness Center 6 30 Total Facilities 8 40 9.0 CAMPUS TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR The 249 East Grand Avenue project will provide a Campus Transportation Coordinator (CTC) who will have the primary responsibility for implementing this Plan. The CTC may be a part time, or outsourced coordinator, who manages the TDM Program with the tenants. The CTC will be responsible for providing employee commute program assistance to tenants and employees, producing on-site transportation fairs and promotional events, collaborating with the Alliance to maximize employer resources, conducting the annual survey and producing the triennial report. TDM industry data supports that having a CTC has a very positive impact on increasing alternative mode use. This position will be filled by: Name: Ms. Pamela Pryor Address: 2929 Campus Drive, Suite 400A San Mateo, CA 94404 Phone: (650) 286-3824 The CTC will provide the following services: Promote trip reduction and air quality strategies to employees at the project site. The Hoyt Company Page 14 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 • Be the main point of contact for employer contacts and employees wanting to commute using an alternative. • Conduct annual employee surveys and provide triennial reports to the City of South San Francisco, which will include commute patterns, mode splits, and TDM program success (process includes: annual surveying of employees, tabulation of data, and provision of results in report format). • Evaluate survey results for alternative transportation potential and / or changes to current program. • Catalog all existing incentives that encourage employees to utilize alternative transportation programs. • Work with local agencies such as Caltrain, SamTrans, BART, the Alliance, 511 and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and post informational materials on the transportation kiosks in employee common areas, as well as disperse alternative program information to employees via designated employer contacts, posters, flyers, banners, campus newsletter, new tenant orientation, etc. • Coordinate and manage various aspects of the Plan that require periodic updating or monitoring, such as the GRH program, carpool and vanpool registration, parking enforcement, locker assignment and enforcement. Designated Employer Contact Alexandria will include CC&Rs for the project that record the TDM Plan. In this manner, the CC&Rs will maintain the longevity of the TDM program and need for a designated employer contact for all tenants /occupants. In addition, Alexandria will draft lease language for all tenants that require the designated employer contact, compliance and implementation of the TDM program (including annual survey, triennial reporting, and registration in the Alliance Guaranteed Ride Home Program). The lease language will also identify the tenant's potential penalties for failure to achieve the 32% alternative mode use rate, failure to participate in the annual employee commute survey, or failure to submit a triennial report as identified by the City of South San Francisco. The Hoyt Company Page 15 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 Employee Transportation Flyer At the time of move-in all tenants will distribute an Employee Transportation Flyer to all employees commuting to the project site. This flyer will include (but not be limited to) information about carpool parking, transit opportunities, shuttle services, bicycle routes and GRH information. A sample flyer is provided as an attachment. Promotional Programs Pre-move-in Transportation Fairs, with a heavy emphasis on transit and shuttle resources should be considered for all future tenants. As lunch-time transportation events, these fairs will highlight transit and trip planning services and rideshare matching and other commute opportunities at the new site. The Transportation Fairs will bring together transit and transportation providers (Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, the Alliance), bicycle advocates, ridematching organizations (511), and the 249 East Grand Avenue Alternative Commute Program for a comprehensive presentation. Other events and promotions on-site at 249 East Grand Avenue may include Bike to Work Week, Caltrain Day, Rideshare Thursday's or a comprehensive transportation/commute fair. Various transit and rideshare organizations will be invited to set up a marketing booth during lunch time at a central location at the complex during the year to promote the alternative commute options available to employees. Free trail transit passes will be available for first time riders. Individual tenant /employee on-site tabling or presentation would also be recommended throughout the year. 10.0 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM All tenant /employers will be required to participate in the GRH program managed by the Alliance. Lease agreements will identify the process for employers to register for this program with the Alliance. The Alliance covers 75% of the cost for guaranteed ride home services. The employer pays the remaining 25% cost. Sample Alliance GRH program flyer is provided as an attachment. All employees who commute to work using transit, bicycle, or by carpool or vanpool, will be guaranteed a ride home in the case of a personal emergency, or when they unexpectedly have to work late thereby missing the last bus, or their normal carpool home. The GRH program has proven very successful as it removes one of the major objections employees have to giving up their private automobile, especially those with young families. The Hoyt Company Page 16 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 The GRH program provides employees with a security blanket, a feeling of reassurance that if a child becomes ill or injured during the day the employee can get to them quickly. If employees need to work late and miss their bus or carpool, or if their vanpool breaks down, they are guaranteed a ride home. Employers in California have shown an increase in ridesharing from 15% to 20% when a GRH program is available to their employees. 11.0 INFORMATION BOARD/KIOSK Four information kiosks will be located in each of the buildings in a common gathering area. The kiosks will contain transportation information, including GRH information, shuttle schedules, SamTrans, Caltrain, BART, Downtown Dasher, 511 ridematching and other related information. Information will be updated periodically by the Campus Transportation Coordinator or designated employer contact. Kiosks can be wall-mounted or standing, 4-sided rotating units. A sample kiosk is provided as an attachment. 12.0 ON-SITE PROJECT AMENITIES On-site amenities provide employees with a full service work environment. Eliminating the need for an automobile to make midday trips increases non- drive alone rates. Many times, employees perceive that they are dependent upon the drive alone mode because of the number of errands and activities that must be carried out in different locations. By reducing this dependence through the provision of services and facilities at the work site, an increase in alternative mode usage for commute-based trips should be realized. Fitness Center A 1,500 to 2,000 sq. ft. fitness center is planned near the rear of the site at the garage retail. The center, operated by a private vendor, would be available to employees and the general public. Restaurant A sandwich shop or deli is planned to be located in Building 2. This restaurant would provide breakfast and lunch fare and coffee service for employees. The Hoyt Company Page 17 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 13.0 KICK-OFF EVENT Upon 75% of the tenant occupancy of each of the buildings of the project, Alexandria will host a commute alternative kick-off event /celebration. Transportation service providers, such as BART, SamTrans, Caltrain, and the Alliance, will be invited to set-up exhibit booths /tables. To encourage employee participation in the event, Alexandria will provide food, such as popcorn, hot dogs and refreshments, and give-a-ways, such as commuter mugs, water bottles, t-shirts, etc. Alexandria will set the date for the event and advertise the event at least two weeks in advance. 14.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) are typically private, nonprofit organizations run by a voluntary Board of Directors with typically a small staff. They help businesses, developers, building owners, local government representatives, and others, work together to collectively establish policies, programs and services to address local transportation problems. The key to a successful TMA lies in the synergism of multiple groups banding together to address and accomplish more than any one employer, building operator, developer, or resident. In South San Francisco, the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance operates as a TMA organization. The Alliance provides: • Shuttle programs • Carpool & vanpool matching • Parking management programs • Trial transit passes • Emergency ride home programs • Enhanced bicycle facilities • Carpool incentives • Transit advocacy • Information on local issues • Teleworking • Training • Marketing programs • Promotional assistance • Newsletter Alexandria will encourage tenants to register for the Alliance GRH program for their employees and to use the resources and services available. Participating with the Alliance is a valuable asset for project tenants. The Alliance is a clearinghouse for information about alternative commute programs, incentives, and transportation projects affecting 249 East Grand Avenue businesses. The Hoyt Company Page 18 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 15.0 MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT Annual Employee Commute Survey and Summary Report An employee commute survey will be a critically important part of a monitoring process to determine the success or failure of TDM measures. This report, via results from an employee survey distributed and collected by the CTC and designated employer representatives, will provide quantitative data (e.g., mode split) and qualitative data (e.g., employee perception of the alternative transportation programs). All employees will be surveyed and those who do not respond will be counted as drive alone trip by default. Employer/tenants will be strongly encouraged to support and participate in the promotion and marketing of the annual employee survey. Lease language will identify this requirement for tenant cooperation. Survey data may then be used to focus TDM marketing and the efforts of the CTC. The TDM program could be re-tooled, if necessary, to maintain the project's 32% alterative commute use rate and commitment at the site. For example, employees may express a desire for transit subsidies which individual employers /tenants may wish to provide as an added employee commute benefit. A summary report based on results from the employee commute survey will be submitted to the City of South San Francisco. Triennial Report Every three years, Alexandria will submit a report stating its achievement or failure to achieve the 32% alternative mode use rate. If the rate has not been achieved, the report will explain how and why the goal was not reached and specify additional measures and activities that will be implemented in the coming year to improve the modes use rate. Additional activities and measures will be scheduled in a monthly timeline. 16.0 CONCLUSION Alexandria is committed to achieve and maintain a 32% employee alternative mode use at the proposed project. This TDM Plan, which provides the details of their commitment, is one of the most aggressive TDM Plan ever filed with the City of South San Francisco. By balancing air quality with economic growth, the 249 East Grand Avenue project will help South San Francisco thrive as a community. It is projects like these that will contribute to South San Francisco's future livelihood. The Hoyt Company Page 19 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan September 1, 2005 The 249 East Grand Avenue project supports the policies of focusing clustered development along transportation corridors (Highway 101 and I-280), and transit corridors (Caltrain and BART). In order to be part of the transportation solution, Alexandria is proposing a campus that contains the density and critical mass necessary to encourage the use of all alternative modes of transportation including bicycling, carpooling, vanpooling, and public transit. The Hoyt Company Page 20 EXHIBIT A Accounting of C / CAG Off -Peak Trip Credits EXHIBIT A Accounting of C/CAG Off-Peak Trip Credits Re aired TDM Pro ram Measures - SSF Ordinance Quantit Credit Ratio Credit Bic cle Parkin -Lon -Term (Class I) Bic cle Parkin -Short-Term (Class II) Total Bic cle Stora e 45 0.33 15 Car ool and Van ool Ridematchin Service 1 0 0 Desi nated Em to er Contact 1 5 5 Direct Route to Transit 1 0 0 Free Parkin for Car ool and Van ools 100% 0 0 Guaranteed Ride Home (assumes 4 tenants) 4 1 4 Information Boards/Kiosks 4 5 20 Passen er Loadin Zones 1 5 5 Pedestrian Connections 1 5 5 Preferential Car ool Parkin 150 2 300 Preferential Van ool Parkin 3 7 21 Promotional Pro rams 1 0 0 Showers /Clothes Lockers 8 10 80 Additional Credit for combination with bic cle lockers 1 5 5 Shuttle Pro ram (assumes 8% ridershi -108 em to ees) 108 1 108 Additional Credit for Guaranteed Ride Home ro ram 108 1 108 Trans ortation Mana ement Association Partici ation 1 5 5 Subtotal of C/CAG Peak Tri s Credited 681 Additional TDM Measures Bic cle Connections 1 5 5 Future Transit Facilities /Bus Shelter 1 0 0 On-site amenities (Exercise facili ,restaurant) 3 1 3 Additional Credit for combination of an 10 elements 1 5 5 Annual Em to ee Commute Surve 1 1.5 1.5 Cam us Trans ortation Coordinator 1 20 20 Trans ortation Fair 1 5 5 Subtotal of Additional Measures 34.5 Total C/CAG Peak Trips Credited 715.4 ATTACHMENTS O Z x Q W a' a 0 U N JV ~ Z 2 ~ N Z I- Q OC ~ mH O V O i N ~ ~ /~ 'i ~ LLQ ~ ~ cC .~~-, ~ V C O ~ W c a N .~ R O ~> ~~ L N O 3 Q. ~ •3 0 O N O ,~ .O ~ ~ t Q Y ~ R O ~ V O ,~ d ~ Y_ ~ ~ w L 3s 2~ L / O f-- ~ ~ ~ Ma^ eM u~NSeH ~ ~ ~ a '0UC'~~ c_ ~ SC ~ C y~ ~ `~ =~~ o c~ . U ~ ~O4e Ilegwi~{ o ~ • ~~ ~ - ~ anuany Pla!1a113!~ N GC W ~ ~ N J ~ ~ ~ ~°.~ Y w ~ v ~ co N > C N ~ a ~' O ~ d ~ O lC ~' M = pp • J J C L U ~ a O ~ ~teM ~ogaeH C ~ ~ ~ iq N = ~ '~ ~ ~ L O c..) ~ ~ ~ U U ~ y ~ ~l eMa~e~ pnl8 uo ~!y ~`~ 0 `~ ~ ~~ '~ UJ _ U ~ LL~ Ca;. tC a O (n Q C~ ., ;. _ ~ a ~ _ ~ _ t 4 :«~ = 4 ,, 3 a ~ ~ - m .S _ ,J ~ ` F' t V 4 C ~ G ~ ~ ~ O ~~a ~ U .a-~ ~ Y L N U ~ o U .L ~ o U o ~ E +~ v, ~ ~ ~ i - c o N cu ~ c ~- cn O Q cn . c `~ c (d _ ~ C C ~ U ~ N O ~ }' ~ U (6 V C~ ' C C O C C O LL o~ n c o L U U Q c m r~ ~ w U ~i Q Q aoi aoi ~ O tq ~ j .?< ~ O d C ~ (B O ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O N O ,~ Q c a ° cn ~+ C c~ o UUw ~ zin v ~ ~m in in~ r ~ M ~ ~ M d O O Q 00 O ~ U~ a c~ _ ~? ~ i _ O ~ ~ - ~ a ... Q~ L ~ Q ~ _ C .= ~ O 7 Z ~ O N ~ ~ a o U A ~ z W m a~°wV w~zaa ~ a o 0 0 N N m N N .` o V o0 a0 t O' GO CO A O ~ tin ~ m 2 ,~ ~ ~ ~°v mm ~~~a, a~ . ~ 2~ ~ N N N V ~ N N CO e0 N N O ~ V N M M W ~ m o 3 7 u m y cp c0 CO c0 (O c0 CO fD CO c0 j ~ ~ K Z N ~ ~ V ~ ~ to O O to ~f1 O V ~ O O Z O ~ G ~ N ~ ~ m ~ ~n u~ ~n ~ u, u~ ~n cfl co O co ~ ~ ~ Q C C 0 l0 ( ~~ 7 m ' e0 j ~ ~ c0 (O f N ~ ~ U I ~ In ~ In In ~ ~ O O • Q C . ~ K~ M ~ O O ~ ~ V (D Q~ O M a 16 L L ~~ °v `~ m O O O ' lfI L ' ~ l/7 In In j (n 7 O O l0 ~ J f7 N In U7 ) In l! { ) y U F d' c c o 0 • a r °_' ~ N V ~ CD c0 O ~ V Q r m m d d N~ + ,may ~ Q L ~ ~O ~I'I ~ ~ u) ~ O O ~ N ~ ~ t iri vi ~ 9 O m ,~ ~ V V d' V ~ C V ~ ~ LL ~ ~ O 47 f~ W Z N m m ~ O ~ N a ~ M W O ~ V Q (/~ Oa " V C a ~ ~ ,n N in ~ K x J N N N N N N N M M ~ < R ~~ o 'n ~ ~ um;~ ~ v v v v v v v v v ~ v ~ LL ~ E ui v ~ ~ W 0 0 ~~ ~~? Q O ~ M- V (D O (n M m t ~ w v~ ~ 7my O V V O V V ~ . V V V V V lJJ d' j c c v v ~ t ~ ~ > o ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~e a= c)my a W M M M M M M M M M W d' j y ~~ J J O H F F, N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tOC) O O ~ r < ~ t"> ~c7m~ N N N N N N N N M M ~ ri ~ ~ m a ~ r C T C ~ H Q o 0 3 o N a m (~ ~ (~ ~ 3 0 3 r ~ c ~ ~ N y .` f~ a m ~ ~ W W >, fn ai ~ ~ ~ a~ L C O Q ~ m " ~ ° ~ °tS ~ Q c Q ~° o~ s o N H .. ~ ~ ~ F o a N i a ~ J 2 U d c ~ r r ~ c O ~ ~' LL 2 a Y 3 C N O ~ + . .n L t6 Q ~ NOj > ~ > (6 N ~ (6 > "' C N M (/1 .`. L O ~ .R+ ~ N ~ U (/~fAm ~ NQ YQ 2nC~ UQ J ~ N M (/JU ~~LL~ p ~ d ~ p~ a r °_' ~~ (O a1 N N O M M N V M M CO ~ O M M M ~ m O) a0 7 (9 m j~ 01 ~ ~ O1 01 a1 Q1 O) a1 Q7 j ~.~j N . a r d c~ Q~ a O a1 ~ ~ O O O N V O O l0 I~ a1 O O O ~ ao tti ~ c7 m y~ 00 a0 O~ O~ a1 Oi m O m O ~ - c cv m rn N a ~- - N V V V V V V _ ~ t17 ~ m m _ H H aD N H ~ O m~ O M O O M O O O O O ~ • C C O O p t s~ N o ~ v v m O a~ =' az ` ` t0 ~ V ~ ~ (O ~ ~ ~ O) ~ N V N N N Q ~ r ~' ~ ~ ~ U y m J U. m y h a0 oD o~ W c+0 a~ 00 00 c+0 ~ V) O O N H c c V ~ o ~o . Z r- r c0 O O N V c0 1~ O~ m ~ ~ Q a a [7 N Q fi C~d~ e} ~ ~ O O O O O O O ~ m~~ ~ ~ LL ~~mw r ~ a. n r O O M W O W O ~ o m m W N m m Q } M _ V L L p j ~ ~z t OJ N _ ~ M M M M M M Q ~ i R ~ ~ r~ CO = A ~ tg m r ~ n 4 . N r r ~ ~ ~ ~ r r r j ~ Q ~ ~"' c C LL o O ~ W ~~ N ~ ~ T N UI ~~~ ~ Q V ~ c0 ~- ~ N N N m » m w _ ~ ~ ~ r~ . ~ ~ ~ r r~ ~ ~ L m~ `° io F ~ W C ~ ~ Q > ~ d ~ ~ a W ~~~ N ~ V ~ ~ V ~ V ~ ~ ~ Q ~ > c0 co O ~ J u ~ H tD Q (D CO CO c0 (O (D CO CD cD ~ ~ J Q J C R ~ ~ u YY ~ N M V ~ O O O) O Q .~ ~.-~ ~ ~~ e~ ~ ~ , O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~fJ N 7 (~ f0 N 1n N GO (O (O CO CO ~ ~ (O ~ F ~ -o L N ~ ~ U ~ ~ C 3 N ~ O C d ~ m Q N ~ N C O 3~ ~ i J '6 m = . d C O w `O W N W N T~ N N ~ w O a~ r a a O+ ~N o N c n O oQ otSQ W ~ a~iQ Q ~ -o d ~ r N _ m e a ~ ~ O C O ~~ :. t V U = N~ N C ~ Y O ~ 3 C ~ N J S v ~ N t ~ L O lL (n ~ O O t9 ~ N ~ ~ N~ f0 > "' C d1 d1 ~ p Ii n. ~ N f7 M (n LL (~ U ~ N C`) Y U 2 .a C7 U Q J~ N M ~~~ ~-"t M~~~ .t.~ _~ IT .. ~~ O N N 7 Q w a 0 z t~ a a~ s t~ ^~ O ._ V O ~ ~ V O '~ N ~~ ~~ ~~ -a a~ ~i Q I ~ ~ ~ i.+ C V ~ ~ W ~ m c L` ~ 00 ~. ~~ ~L C C •O ~~ d ca t ~ L ~ ~d ~ ~ O ` Y N V ._ _ . O _~ +_~ ~ ~ N_ N 3=°-' cv +r 3 O t~l1 ~ ~ ~ i Mai eM u~~seH ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~~' 3 ~ ~ o = cnC~ ~ ~ IlegwiN V ~ Joq~~ ~ t L ca ~ anuanb' pla!~aRi!~ ~ +° C9 Gca ~ L =! ~ W ~ ~ ~ N ~ Yui ~~ `o N ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ lC 2 Sa9~o J J M y • ~ ~ y as ~ d a ~ ~eM ~ogaeH °' c ~° = a~ w c `~ ~ w ~ N U U ~ c . ~ enna~e~ pn18 uo aiy ~ ~ IL w ~ ~ c V UN w r o f ~~ W ` ~~~_ < 4 j ~ ~ i 5 _ rG ~ -. 1~~~, U L W Q .~ m U o ~ o m Emcu~n c C ~ ~ ~ ~O OQ U - ~ C ~ ~, to L.L ~ ` ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ m ~ ~~~~ oV m U Q U ~~ Q U ~ O uS ~ ~ ~ C ca N ~ to ~ ~:x ~ o~~~Q c~ o ~~~ p Q c u> >, C C U N ~ x `~ •- ca O o co a1 cv ~ UUw ~ZCl~cnl-macnQ O • • • • • • • • • • ~ M O ~ M o o ~? Q ti +r ~ U c~ ~ a -. L ~ r ~ ~ 0 v c N -a ~' ~ L ``~ 0 / = d ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ O ~ O t t a a ~ ~ z W o U ..~V..w m a~ z~w~~ C ~~-] wFZa~ O lC a. 0 0 N N a~°i N N a .~ c V a0 a0 8~ mo ~ ~ b o ~ m ~ ~w ~ ~n cn ~ a i~ •.,s a :: ~ ~ d co ~ r t rn o c ~ v a u~ ~ v v v ~ u, o ~ m o m o ~ P H ~ y U N ~ ~ 7 (O CO h v ~O ~O ~ Cp ~O CO ~O Cp 1p N I~ N r a O 9 ~~ ~ ~~ r M M O N V M ~O ~ (D I~ 01 V V ~ f~ ~d Z O p r 0 m O 1- U m .-`.. ~ j r` M O ~ V ~ O V ~ O ~ U'f ~ O Ily ~ N M N M j•- U UN ~ F 9~~ 7 N M ~ I~ M O ~ N .- N r N N N Q ~ N N M ~ ~ M ~ ~ V !- U b q R r. j r` N ~ l0 ~ ~ ~O ~ l0 O l0 V to N N O j^ U ~ ~ U ~ M V u~ r~ U Z ~ Z o ~ • .cc~ ~ R' ca ~ M M rn o M a V V v e V Q ~ ~ ~ o ° o U a P 7 (~ V y r e} V' V V V V V V V LL V LL N M N~ j Z a Q ~ t c` Z ~ W O r ~ ~ O O ~ N M N N V U'f f~ N N N N ~ M 0 m M ~ d' 1- U ~'+ ~~ +, ~ j (~ V y Q V V C V 'V V V V V ~ v N N~ j rn r 9 ~ -" ~ ~~ m = Y N ~ ~ v co ~ u~ r~ rn ~n ~n o M o 0 0 ~ ~ ~ d w ao °; ~ ~ ~ U~ , , ~~ v y d ih ri ri ri ri i~i v v v Q v p ~ v ~ Z ~ w J 9~ v ~ O ~ O N rY ~ O O F t0 H ins m M r m A «~~. ~ ~ d O ~ ~ O O O O O O ~ r J in N ~ N U j ~j V N = ~ CV N N M M M M M ~ = M Q ~ M ~ M ? N to U d ' C ~ 7 ' ~ N _ C N ~ d d O C c0 > O N N C > N 3 Q C N c 1~ LL ~ ~ > . Q 3 NN U O O ~ R " 'O ~ W W N (6 N ojS w O w ~ (ll a C ~ C U O L W J N LL C p ~ O N US ~ U'' ¢ -O a2S N Q c f. O Q y C E O E O ~ O ~ O ~~ h F n y = N c0 ~ oj$ O w J = U N .r Y Z L Z L 0 E> W ' N N M m O O 10 n F F /~ S fn O d U N ( 0 N> ~ N Q 3 Y Q 2 (n % f0 . U J (n N M (n U t R (n U ~ O f- Z H (n ~ N ` n '~ N Q R P Q Q ~ ~ h ~ a N ~ N m rn S , ~ oa~y °' ~ rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m p ~ v ~ i° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @ x p ~ A o o ° ~ ~ ao N ~ O O V N ~ m 4) W m d) W m m ~ Z N V Z a~- ~ R ~ ~ V' V 7 In to ~ Ln lO N to ~ ~ A Q N m O ~u~;~ R m m m m w ro m m ao ° ~ ~ a ~ m o ~ LL~ r W ~ r' N ('') LL~ ~ Q N ~ 0 ~ V u y OO W a0 CO W W N W N a0 7 ~_ N U Z ~ °D c U Z a i d y A C ~ v j ` N of m v v ~ N ~n ~ ch ~ ~ ~n (O t` ~n ~n m ~n I"' U ~ Q N ^ Q V . q N 1~ U W f~ 1~ f~ I~ I~ I~ I~ f~ I~ ~ LL LL r N ` ~ ~ N 7~ ~ r (` r r r ~ n ~ r U f Uy R w ~ o ~ ~ W ~ ~ O v (~ (n ~ n @ ~ ~ v Q m N °~ v c ~ N v~ u~ (`~ N ~n ~n (O ~ In ~n ~ ~n F ~ r~ W N ~ F ~ > ~ ry N ~p U ; (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O - ~ a ~ ~ o ~ ~ w D a .Y ~ ~ 9 ~ N N N N N ~ (7 M M U N Q ~ 9 ~ U N f0 J (O CO (O c0 cD (O (O (O (O ~ J ~ ~ F ~ J v ~ O ~ ~ ' °c'e ~ ~ , ~ C7 in ~ ~ v`~i ~ ~ v°~i °o ~ FF U Q U ~ O l[j ~ = N ~ f7 h 3~ = N = N t[J In N ll') In ~ (O ~ N C v n r O T m ~ ~ C ° T ~ U ~~ gw`,-o ~ (' j^ dN T ~ v~ N N o wm ~ O> wai m~aci Kf > ~ > Q ~° -° O °~ `o N ~ °? C E o~ E oLL CLU Cyln LL ~ C Aq)~ t'+ ~ ~ c_tA L Y ~ coQ = ~ C -Q ~Q D C Y ~~ as ~ c O~ °~ ~ m J 2 ° U r c~E ~~E 0 Y°: ~!' l Erin rn om Em °~m ~ ~a~ 3 ~> ~ rn rn t`'~ ~c U N ` m 0~ m 0 I~ Z". HU` L A O t0 Y F-'HJ fqU O O H U0'IL (p N ~ N~ N YC7 S nC) l0 UQ JJ N N ('') UU C i ~o U d Q a L M ~0 w d w 0 m t/f ,Q a d h ~ c 1~ ~ N .C N y R >. V ~ ~ ~ A c .~ U d Q a c~ t w LL d ~ _ °s C H L (Q 3 ~ o ~ C N m y N 0 ~ .a d V~ 3 N M r.~ _~ } I_..~ '.;~ u~ 0 O N f` N ~.~ _~ I" / r~ ~ C C O `~ a r °' N N ~O ao O O O N N d ~ I 11~~~1-` ~ [ 1 s your job located in an East of Highway 101 business park to South San Francisco? Do you utilize public transportation or have limited options for travel to Downtown South San Francisco during the lunch hour? Why not try the "Downtown Dasher' taxi service? This FREE service picks you up between the hours of 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. from your workplace, and drops you off at one of two drop-off locations in the downtown area of South San Francisco. All that is required to take advantage of this service is a "Downtown Dasher' taxi voucher and a trip reservation. Contact Karen Sumner, Territory Manager with the ALLIANCE at 650-588-8170 or Karen@commute.org to get your vouchers. Once you receive the voucher, call 650-588-2131 by 10 a.m. the morning of the trip to make a reservation. A return reser- vation is made as well. Once the taxi arrives, the driver collects the appropriate portion of the voucher and you're off. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. It's that simple. Visit Downtown South San Francisco and enjoy numerous restaurants and shops. Receive discounts from these downtown merchants. Just show them your Downtown Dasher Voucher and mention this ad. Downtown Dasher is a joint program of the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance, the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. PENINSULA TRAFFtc CONGESTION RELIEF The r ram is supported in part with grants from ALLIANCE P o9 the Transportation Fund for Clean Air, the City/ 1150 Bayhill Dr., Suire 107 County Association of Governments of San Mateo San Bruno, CA 94066 County, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority and the Sovth San Francisco Economic Redevelopment Department LEGEND BACCHANAL RESTAURANT Q CECELIA'S RESTAURANT & PIZZERIA GALLI'S SANITARY BAKERY HOT SHOTS GOURMET COFFEE AND TEA MAKIN' WAVES SALON 0 MORNING BREW COFFEE CO. WESTERN STATES BANK TAXI DROP-OFFS GRAND AVE. & LINDEN AVE. www.GOmmute.Org 733 AIRPORT AVE. MERCHANT ADDRESS DISCOUNT Bacchanal Restaurant 265 Grand Ave. Hors d'euvres and beverages at Happy Hour Prices Cecelia's Restaurant & Pizzeria 113 Grand Ave. 10% off one purchased meal Galli's Sanitary Bakery 324 Grand Ave. 10% off any purchase Hot Shots Gourmet Coffee and Tea 219 Grand Ave. 50% off all drinks (up to a $5 value) Makin' Waves Salon 341 Baden Ave. 10% off retail purchase Mornin Brew Coffee Co. 9 713 Linden Ave., Ste. A Buy one specialty coffee at regular price, and get one of a ual/lesser value FREE Western States Bank 225 Grand Ave. Free Checking - No Monthly Service Charge Attention Bicycle Commuters Get A Free One Hour Bike And Pedestrian Safety Workshop At Your Jobsite This Fun, Energizing Workshop Includes: • Tips on including Bicycling as a safe, stress relieving commute mode • Coverage of Traffic Laws for Bicyclists, Pedestrians, and Motorists around Bicyclists and Pedestrians • Basic Bicycle Maintenance Tips • Free bicycle related Door Prizes Ask Your Employer To Give Us A Call, And The ALLIANCE Will Do The Rest!!! If you would like more information on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program, please call The ALLIANCE at 650-588-8170, visit our website at www.commute.org , or e-mail us at ALLIANCE a(~,commute.ora Rev 2 PENINSULA TRAFTIC CONGESTION RELIEF AT.T,TANC;F 1150 Bayhill Drive San Bruno, CA 94066 P: 650-588-8174 Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • E. Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay F: 650-588-8171 Millbrae • Pacifica • Redwood City • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • S. San Francisco Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program • Transit services to South San Francisco areas are provided by SamTrans, Caltrain and BART. Visit www.caltrain.com, www.samtrans.com and www.bart.gov for updated schedule and service information. The Utah-Grand Area BART shuttle offers 18 daily trips from South San Francisco BART Station to 249 East Grand Avenue. The Utah-Grand Area Caltrain shuttle offers 22 trips per day from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. SamTrans routes 130, 132, 133, 35 and 36 connect with the Utah-Grand Area BART shuttles at the South San Francisco Station. ~ ~ _ 511 is the regional ridesharing service that will help you to find a vanpool or carpool partner. Please call 511 or log on to www.511.org for ridematching services and other alternative transportation options. _ ~ - ~ The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance provides commute incentives such as FREE gas for carpoolers, FREE trial transit tickets (Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, and others), vanpool rebates, and bike locker subsidies. For more information, log on to www.commute.org or call (650) 588-8170. Regional bicycle route maps are available to bicycle commuters and recreational bicycle users. To view a map, log on to www.511.org. Bicycles are allowed on SamTrans buses and Caltrain. Lockers are available at stations and at the 249 East Grand Avenue site. Employees who work at 249 East Grand Avenue and primarily use alternative transportation (transit, vanpool, carpool, bicycle, or walk) for their monthly commute can obtain a FREE Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH). In the event of an emergency or illness, the GRH program provides a free taxi or rental car for your return trip home (requires employer registration). See your company representative for more information. 8/30/05 Caltr~in Map ~randaco ra;'`r, `" ~ Celtreln M8p San s=rtnCisco "~~ ' ~ rte' Elhafiiva Augtat 1,2006 2?nd 91 ~ ~, Train 8awla ~ ~It. ~ lJBOi s Cammuts Houn only --~ Waeksnd Bus 3hut11e g nyatxr<o ~ ~ f 'eed BFattulprara RAFT ~, ~ S 3 ~ --m- V'fA Rt 10 San Jose Arport Fysr gtrsei outh art Franaltlco ?ar F-"S.+`i1rc~. ~~ ~ an. ,,i ~ Fare Ions f3ounAary 9~t ~~ ~ , ~ ' ~ a n y Transfer Im 9an FralrCr~n Mural Melro a Mllltuae roadway twasi d onyJ d `" ~~„ ~~ Melea Banta Ctara VrA Ught taaM %f 9urkn+~tma ~;~ ~ 7ranefer Ia Amtrak and i ~rEhtayvrerd Park}~ ~ AASmont Commulur +~ Nlltadalr3' •~,balmonl E>'Ixess (ACF, I ~. p.'..~ nwi 5nn ~.iirtD9 `~` ~~" fiedwvtxJ CII `]`. i`~i tF~4~iBr'tIN1 (Na9aets! arlly) mt+r Mont Pnrk~'ry5~'I,~*Palr~ Allo r,, ~ Catlhxnlo live Srrn Autitonin San :r~-~s~ ~~ i' -` Ir @t re5io rnl X 7J . ,. Sunnyvole kp~rt ~"~~ W ~ San Jo;te Dlntla~lt 4 BART Map _~ ;; http:/lwww.bart.gov ,, ~-~ a`a"y Po~,r j~r `` ,` G°ncc~dd ~'~ `~-~ St Mis9ian St Mfssbn Cerrito del Norka ~ pleasant FMII I Cerrito Plaza North . ~:~ Walnut Creak Par~tt Intama0d Airport San prancisco Francisco International Airport (SFO- Peak Only ' Millbrae f ~` stall 9tM1on] rrd CerolerH2th St t7rrakK 5iauonl eumr rnd Airport .an Leandro Dublinl Eiay Fair ;Trene(m Stall ~i Pleasanton st Ha ro Vmllay yward South Hayward lJnlon Gtty Fremont EMERGENCY RIDE HOME PROGRAM Are you ready to improve recruitment and retention rates, reduce parking congestion, and attract employees from a wider area, while providing a subsidized, low cost benefit to your employees? Do it all with the Alliance's Emergency Ride Home Program Most employees choose to drive their own personal vehicle to work because they don't want to be stranded at work should an emergency arise. With the Emergency Ride Home program, employees are given the assurance that, in the case of an emergency, they will be provided with a free taxi ride or a 24-hour car rental. We pay 75% of the ride! The participating employer pays the remaining 25%. Historically, program costs remain very low because emergencies are infrequent. The Alliance can help you design easy administration policies that prevent program abuse. Employer cost of one Emergency Ride Home: average $12 Trusting your employer will be there for you in an emergency: Priceless PENINSULA TRAFFIC The Alliance does all the work. CONGESTION RELIEF If ou have an uestions Or are unsure if our com an ALLIANCE y y q y p y could benefit from this or other no to low cost commute programs, contact us at 650-588-8170 or via email at 1150 Bayhill Drive alliance@commute.org. Suite 107, San Bruno,CA 94066 P:650-588-8170 F:650-588-8171 r,~ i~~ Y'd±'. x 4 ~._ __ ~ F ~ ~~yu ,. <~H ~` ~: - .. ~~ ~ ~+ ~ r 4`~' `i w - - .•~! `1~.,~_-~4 is 4, ._ -,..,. ~~i J ~~~„ ~ ~t~`~ { - t ~Y-~€ ._ _ ~.... A-.1 fib.. ~e ~~~:. _.__.. I. ~,~ _ _. i 1 _ C r; - ~ 1 ~ `Y~ ~~f _ ~r Y~~oo- 1;,:•:LCd ~~Pr:Yip C ~~ ~ ... ~::~r. `i i a l 1 O C ^Z l 1 r t_ - - ~ 0 >I ~ ~ C7 ~, s rrt n _~ (°- -a C~ T - ~ C z O rJ O -{ SI -' CJO ~ -~- _.- i"~: - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V V O~ ~ to to ? W W N - -- O ~O QD OD V O~ In to .A w N N - Q d O' u R N O' N p~ of Q' o+ Q N p' v DD v~ W W W o0 07 W w [n porn tn~vr vr-{vr rn to ~ ~(1 ApAyCCCCCCC(_C=~~ O(lA~=~ QQ r- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ m O~ r 2 C m m N~~ ~ D D~~ Q C D O O _O D (7 ~ m 3~~ 3 n~ D =~ O O m rrZmZZZZZZZ-'Z(1 Z D~~ZZG1Ll~° mm~.rLlG1L1L1L1G1Ll(IGI~AO~vL10-1(1ZDGl r^ FAG1rs.AwNN--•--OD (lA Ntn~~m ivDOmmmmm~<rnTZ ~~~n ~___~ mmD rmmmrm ~-rrnZ00 C `n"'nn ~ o~ xr~a~ m~DDDDD~r:~O ~ (1 m y m Z 0 0 0 0 0~ n 0 D Z LD1 3 D O O D~vZi vZi vZi vZi vZim ~inp mv3-imp ~~~ ~ W Ao qo Qo yr O ~ r!' 1rv- D Z A Z OZ D~,v C C Z ~~ ~~ Re O mZD ~ ~ vZi vZi vZi vZi ~ ~ v. 3 ~ ~ D_ D r r Z ~ a. N N _~ O Z H ~'~"~~" ~ Vi4 S. `~ r r'~ .e~/~ .~ w M ~ tom' ~^ ~ ,.~\ a t `~ •_•`- ) 1`~ ` R F Y, ~+~ i' i ;~~ ~~ ~ ~ > • ,~~' ~ ~ ~~ ~. f '~ 3 _ ~_ .~ , , 1 . r ' ~~ 3 % ~~`ren . .A ~ <vay~gro ~~yne yry v-~uv5 T ~ ~ Swm>+n Q yE ,F ~y i ^~, `y U ~ ~b ~ ~"` $j ~ _ ~ ~ gy ' Y'' rMSM11 rWmr~Wiw~Ra A E+ R > i ~ ® b n / ~ \ \\\~ z w ed e~ Yn ~> ~ ~, s 9 ~ •~ ~ ~i a° .,„ G,"4 ~~ G v Wp r- rn X C N b Y TT i • reo ,~ ~ n r o n h `: l ~ C O C ~o -~ ~ ;._: .w ~ ~_~~ _~ ~o ~O o ~~ ~ S T n ~ z ~ o ~~ cry ~ Y°~ 1 ;. ;, r+ ~_. ti 'i i wh tau I -,~ ~? ~I..__ ~Y"'Sc ~rr+ ~_ !` ~ r '~ ~' ,~' '-~ ~ m_. ~,`` ~0 1 ~'~.:' ~ ,,, e ,--- ' ~ r , .-~ ^_, ,I D r- rn X Z C N f k ~~~ F 1 E I, • • _. P. ~ 4 n ~ O r C ...~ Z n r 7 J T ~F Jie T t 0~~, \~ 4 R 'Itt~ rr r Ci~~~S!!~~~ it.'~"Y itY6~~ ~~•' e~ C~ ~4 y ~ ~ ~i ~ ip ~~~ ¢~`r t d ~ 3~ ~~p F~' 5 ~ fl 3 9 i ~f~ ~~~ ~t~~~~~~ ~~~~ = I~ ~ `~E~ ~~ { t,~i~! 1 6;~ t' p~*,., l~c~y~+d'~r~~sst~a~:~ eQe9~rc3Y#SR+ ~~r ~~~i;~li~'i 'E~fi ~~~°~s3~~ #~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ h i ~` ~~`•7tj?;~~j }jlt~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ as ~ _ ;Z ~J ~ )pit j !f ~ ~' ~ i .3rit i I~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.: - ~ 0'~ ~ ~ y • t~ , I I : a 1 • ~ ' I~I ~ '~ ~b i I r rn x y z ~ t ~ _y~ ~ _ ~~ ~ 'fC'i~ 'I~}aJ / ~L 1 ~ ~ ~, ~ fdl~l~ff~~l. '~.L~ '4 Y 1. .. ~ } ~~ "i ~ Yrs~fii}.~~~M 1 IAI J ~r _N !3y~"!,' w +~' •V y~}r~ `Jril ~lgfl yl~hx V ~/p~,1~}d ~ ~a:;i:!I~"~~~~- t `l ,:. ~, jY~ r i y0at~iA, ,rbr ~ r:j#~s1 nY..: ~. I ~~v.~ ~~ r „ d i ~~ M1 ' t ~ ~. ~ ~ l 3~ ~. _ - ~~a ~ <`a ~Ly 4 ~~ ~ , ; ~ ' .iii ~ ,_, ~' `~ ~! it F ~ ~ ~~°; / ~=~~', ~ ~ ~ ~ . b ~~ , ,~ ~~ j - ~ Lu~i` ~~ ~ bra ~ :: `A -.: --~',.- y ~ . r~.~ '~F, ~ ~ ~ I ~' ..~ • ... _ c. ~. n i'1~ - ~ ".~ n C "'~ Z n 1 ,S~ ~vJ _~ ~Q o ~~ Z ~ o~ o r N S T n z ~ R-~C~ _~ T ~ C I C7 Z 6 O ~r ~ Cl~ i-"7.. .r„ _' .~~ d 1~ Gj ~; '~' ; ~~ T '~~ ~ ~:: ?b ~:~al ~~ . e_ ~ ~ r ~:, w,~.. ~~` ~~~~ D r rn X D Z ~1 ~ i i its ~~ h '~ ~ 0 ~ O C Z C~ r ~_~~ _~ -~o ~o T~~ o ~ S T Z ~ ~ y-y ~i .~ ~ T C O C7 ~ O ~~ ~) U1 ~ \. ~\ \ 1. ~_ ~~ ~. • I^ 4, _... -.. 10001'!° "DAD. ~ I • 4.~~~ ~ ~ ~~ i i • 1L _.~ .. --~ -J^ ~ _ ~ \ I, ~~ ~ ~~` N ~ ~ 1` i ~ ~- ~~--------- -----, ~ \\ _~ is ' I Q ` ^\~ ~, ~ ~ i , \ I i \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \\ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ \ i ~ '~ ~'~11 i ~ ~ ~ 3~ ~~~\ ~ .~ ~ ~ Z ,, ', ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ .~. ,~ '. ~ ~ ~ i ~/~ ~ ~~ N I ~ ~ j ~ r1 \, 0 ~_ T VS ~ ~ ~ ~\ ~- D ~, \' ¢ Z m>r ~ ~ p ti I qy~. I I o m - , ~• y ~ • M \\ ~ ~ ~ ~'1 A ' P_ ~, _ { 1 1 N l' ~ ;, i O ~. ~ ~ ~.. Q 1 '~~, _--=~ - - -- - --- - -- - ~ G~ ~. __ ~.~, a,_~ _~ - ,~ i ~ ~ ~ \~ Iti ~ ~ :~ ~, ~ ~ g ~' i~ b Y -.. ~, ( ~rr r- rn X ~ ~.- 1 Iz I V ~ iu _ ~ r ~ l O C Z l 1 r ~ ~~ _ _~ -~o z ~~o Z ~ ~~ o S T n ~ ?_ ~ n r-r-~ ~ = C z n~ 0 ~ b ~ ~ _ - -LIl'fLEFl ~ AVE. T~ m PZC~FA~O w $ OQCCCC Z D JC S'OO m D r0 O ~ -,aCCC~ m N pC1~mmC ~n D D r r r D PAN ~ ~ ~;0000 O D m Z Z Z Z ~ AA L1 C1 L1 C1 -i Z Ll <y ~ D p K POD (1 J~ to ~ ~ _ Z OOOZ ~ Z Z Z ~ D O L1 L1 O D . i N Z m w _ ^' Z D ~ ~ S m ~ ~ >~- ,oQNP~ oW v,xx__-_;,~Nm oSa w8o°~~ 8 ~ m ~ Zoo ZmT ^' a rT' q ~ v N ~ m ~ ~^ A O N 2 w DOO,O 1~-i AN NnnDD A+~~O ~OQOTO,T,n~ -i -i ~:1 -1 ~ m P m ~ ~~ m ~ 3 3 ~ ~ c m m Q O Z A~ P O ~ p X DD ~ O Z a? 8~nno ^ RD .w \ e~ ta''. 's. ~~: Y r m X D Z ~u m D G1 D Z 3- 0 D ~ ~ ~-o ce D ~ Z m ~~ n D Z m r- ~~°° `r • l ~~ ~ -+ 4n _~ ~. ~ =~ r O Z ~ ~ ~ G~ -UTTLEFIE AVE. r ~~ ~~ c ~O Z ~ o~ o = r'^ Z - ~' ~~ --~ C~ ~ D r ~, ~~ m 7 ~, ~ O A r0 -i ~J p ~ CJ7 s~ O m D N -i Z7 D Z O D m Z C rn ~~~ :~ ~ 1 J\ ~ ~~1'\ r \, :. m ~~ ~ < o , ~, ~c ~ _ 9)y~ a ~ -~`i ~~ J~ J ~ ` ~ ~ I € r w r ~, -_ ~ , k = °" ~ ~ fi / _. _. _.. -2~ -- ~ l l 0~ .~ - ~ '~~~. ~ \ ~ H ~I ~ '` ,a_o~ ~ ~,, ~' 1 ;~~ ~~ v ~~ N / / V / ~/ ~~~ ;~% - % ~ III _ -- i _~ _ ( \ c c ~ ~ (7 C7 p ~ T. T~ Z Z C7 W ~ +n D p n A ~ ~ r I Z D ~ D ~ O ~ ~ Z Z D -i a s g ~ g ~~~ ,~ ~~ii /~ ~ \ - _ ~ ~ '\O C4tl~ /~ i:~l ~ ~- • • n ~_ ~ ++ ~ ~ I~ r.. ^ l 1 O Z ~- n N~,i~ ~ ~ m~''~ 5 4, ~'i~ F 0'~~~2 ~ o o` C~C ~,~ 9 L F D Q g;~ n ~~ ~~ ~~~ 0 0. C 3 ~ , R R'i ,m o~ 'i ~Omr~i ~..~~~ ~~~N,~,~I,~ ~ A~ $$'..~' $$ $' $j$ I I 1 Q ,, m z c ~~ m ~ ~~r~ I I I ~ I I I? ~~ I ~ II i ~---~ '~ v ~ ~ ', ,~ =~~ ~ ~o r D ,mz ~ I ~~ I ~^ ' so I o o ~O I z D n ~ - O T U S T b, S ~ Z O _ BT"+ -IlTTLEFIEL~ ~' ~ C7 ~ AVE I m ~ e I n ~ ~ O C7 O -i ~ i CJ's ~ ~~~~I~~~~ °. S'~!S'i8'$ $4.~ ~' IP !O ~ p 117- ~ ~ i ~~ ~~ ~2{ ~Y g i~ o ~ In 'q ~' r~f ~~s~ ~ io I_ !~~~~~~° !ps ps ps ly IP ~ ~ ~ ~ ly ~ a ~ ~! 4 io o ~ -.8 o' ~ 'aoo-. ~ ~~3, N~ 4 3 i, ~ ~ ~`°- i ~~° ~ ~i ~ ~ x °'mm~go~~m ~'~~~ SIN m'3 S'iS'~~'3'~~5'$ $~~'moa,5~8 n ~~yQ"s~~ ~~p ~ S ~n$ O 3 ~ O ~.O'O p ~ F J.' ~'. ~~ ~'~ ;_ ~~o ~~n~ ~° ~s~~ ~~ ~o~ ~. ~ n g S~ m -~ ~~ N~s~~~~~ D 1 ~m s~_ Z co~ny -y-((t.,1 -may '~ ~Z O"-p ~ A~n, ~ R ~ IT M r !~ N N Z V Y ~ D Z I ; f A~i 0 c~c~~ rO~i ~K ~~ A~ Y~ I ~ ru ~5 D ~ O~ > ~ O I ~ < ~ p~ ryrnF U Z~_Z tF ~ ~ p~o ~ ! ~ ~ r~i ~ N ~' N ~ ~ A Fl~ ~~ r ~~~~~~~~ oa rn ~~ ~~~~~~~~ rn ~~~ -~ ~_~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ adz DZ ~;l~I DN m ~ ~~~ " ~ S ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ A ~o ~ 5 ~ q ~~ x to(~ UN~~~ 5F ~ y D yC ~3 ~D ~\ \` .~j ~ \ \ ':~, '' ~ ;~. ~'~ ~'` \/ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~.. ~~ r-- ~„ X D Z ~ ~~ /"T I M R ~r A 3 r~ r °- r ~_ `Z i / '"~ "~ T w c 0 z m n D 0 z is U~ ',~ '~-,~-s~ ~l Y ~~ -~' = e 1 ~k` ~- ml ~ . ,~i \ `4• 1` I ~i'_ ~...~. •~'-~ / •~ / ' , 1 ~ - ~ ,: -b. i W m m ~~i -~ r O n r/ o 4~': F W i. ii I 1 ~~ n ~ m Z $ ~ D ti ~ m 3 z I li I' ~, l ~~ _~ ~, ; 7~ ~' )' ~~ ~~ '~ _ r n 0 z r O n 0 z m m ~, ~ p _ 4 r m X D ~. Z C A ~_~~ s• z o ~o ° ~' ~ c) ° ~ _n ~, S T n ~ ~ Z (a. ~y n J_ m rn ~ ft ` A C~7 ~ ~ 2 ~ -~ ~~ U7 ~7 - p m m ~~ A `' ~ ~ - - N - O f r~ -~ D F ~s~ y s~ r _ ~ ~~ ~ 0 m ~,~' o F b E _ $ S T. , ~ A ; ~ ° m m ~o -< ~ o ~o ' iOOo ~f N ~!' ..1I r ~~~I i o m ~,n z ~ _ . ~ 1 o o ~ ~2 I I ~ ' ~ 1 rs' - m cn ~ i F N ti ~ ~ (n ~ ~ I ~ ~ I, ~ I I ~, rn U ~ z ~ Iii i~ ~ 9~~~~ a ~~~~~ n - _ - ~~ Ao 9 m _ A I o ~, ~5 S ~ ~~ ~ - '^ og~ 7 F ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ z - m D rn X A Z .- -< N N ~n 0 °~ O c z r ,~vJ ~^ Z o ~~ _ ~~ S T r i"il _~ o ~~ I ~ ° ~~ cn ~ NN. ~ ~ ~ m ; i n ~ ~ O _ Oo O 0 n ®£ N Ci Z ~~ ~ i~ ' c ~ L~7J lul ~ -P. (/~ ~~ 1 0 (\ ~~~ I X .z {~ ~~ z ~m m om~ z 1 a m c~ ^i rT1 • ~ ~ n ~ ~~- - r -~ ~ F ~ n ~_ ` ~ Z n r ~_ _~ _~o ~~o Z ~ o~ ~ r ~ S T z - =C n P. ----1 G~ irr D ~, =o m C ~~ i J W ~ ~~ ~ O Gf7 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ =o ~z 6D ~D o~ Toy p C O 6Z c~ a~ 0 'o ~ r. r -. - _~ ~ g o rn (7 0 z D D b rn (~ 0 z °•~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~~ o~ t~~ _ ~i~ ~~ 0 o~ .,,~ , ~ '. r _ n ;~ Z n ~ r ~' ,_ lvJ _^ ~o ~-, ~ ~D NORTH srn ~o ~ m __ ~ ~ ~ _ J 1 ~ n~ O p -~~ w GPJ O W r v z c~ O z rn 7D C Z T r 7D r D Z W C r Z G1 O z rn 7v T r Z O "~a / / ~. ~ ;I `' ' . ~s rr~ ~~ ,, ~ n ~ m .~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ° o _. z _ l / 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~//rr~~ ti/ 1~ c~ ~ cn n o m D = ~ m m ~ ~ o m D = ~ c~ N cn m n y O z C m n c ~ D ~ m n c ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ D D r ~7 O D r D C ~ C D r D D r - C ~ Z C G7 A n ~ O m A C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D r m D m z ~ C ~ Z (~ r ~ Z ~ D Z ~ D ,, _ , _-~- Z m A cn ~ A ~ ~ r r cn ~ nn_ ,w j ~ m m ~ J ^ D m c z ~~ o s~ o ~ n z _ m ~ o s r'-r~ z - ~O ~ C7 p m Z Z r-~--~ ~ ~ C x n o ~ o -' S cry ~ I ii i ~ O c x m r m D O Z rn y m D C Z C - -~~ ,_ _:__, W ~ - - {~ - ~ ) ~o ~~ 9 -o -~ -~ - O _~~ _ l"J _ l J D -i m D O Z - - _-o _~ - _ L% - -~ ~~ y r- m X z N D ~i s • ~~ a t • ~ -- n r rn ~ ~" ~~ ~ \ / Q Q~ O ~pI ~ C C ~/ I i ~ ~ C~ ~ 4 -i m i~ p~ N . ,r rn~ g' / \v~ ~^ ~o ~o o ~~ o r~ =rn =O z N- -r C~ rn ~ n C , x O c7 O ~~ S V ~' CJ7 ~ ~~< T n D r r N m n 0 z m Z ~ _ D r r m n ~_ O z D Z D r r N m Cl Z 1 ~ 1 1 ,~ H H II Fi O ~il~i ~. ~~ O C ~r m A y 'O n L m m .. T 7O >0 m D N 7O Z v F j vi. ~~,~' .~~~ ,. r rn X Z ~,. ,.. ~~ ~_~ ~ ^ ~O O S C z O ~~ O r- s T C Z ~. ~ n ^"+ C x ~~ O O ~ CJ~ ~ O 2 m m r C D'~ Q Z G -~('i - 'l -fl - -{. ~~_ I d' k s --~ ~-, i -J J U I i 1~~ M~ tF 1 n' N ~Nm ~ aDC~ ~, nn ,.m~ __ ~C ~C z z n m - , o n a n z ~ z 0 0 ~ nm ~ m _ , J-- .~\ ~ \,, ~~ G, o- v ,~ r z ti N N ~ av~ ~~ i~m~ z n z i 0 a yK m O m I~ Y ~-- - . f ~J i fin, i i i _ .il ,a ~; _ n N ~ n m L Z C7 z ~ o Z ~ ~ O m m Z7 N1 X(( DI Z t ~% ~^ C S ~ Z O O =p Z L O c7 o T N S T ~ ~ Z ~ ~ -'~ (~ ~ y T ~~ n 1 ~ C7 O ~~ ~~ t ~ CrJ '~ 9 Z O 2 m m r m D ~_ O Z m D m r m D O ,~ =k, r :- ~:. - --o '~i` ~: '' - --o i _1 _ - --CU s -~ ~, '' ~::~ _ ~ I ~4~':.f -- -{~ ----~ t %z =' °o~ ~ x- z ~c ~ b ~ g `/ Z ~ O s 0 y <O m n ti ~ ~, _, ~, ~~~ ~m~ 9 m x z O c m r D ~_ O Z -J Z O m r D -~ O Z _~ _~ M rr4+~ • r ~- n rn =~ n. 1 ` ~ ~ O C Z l J ~r ~_~ _~ `~~ ~~o ~; ~ ~ S T ' T -~ i b ~, ~ C~ T ~' ~ n ~ y n '~ crr ~ m m r m D a ~; ~. - -~ D cn m r m D 0 -n -~~, _-~ _~ _Q _~ ~~ ~, --d _~ _~ --o ,~,~ Z r D ,_wJ ~ ^ = s C p =0 C z ~ ~- S T ~~ Z ~. ~~ n r C7 C O -~ CJ'] ~ m D m D ~_ O Z N O m D m r m D -~ O Z -O - -t7 - --0 m 0 Ky 0 - ~ < < m V --~ ----o 'r- - --q -- - --c~ s ~~ r` O- O ;j ~- Z ~ G7 -~ z O A :0 m i ~I ' i ~,. ~~ o~ n O C m ~ Z ~ ~ c~ g o z0 1 C n ~ o m n m n 0 a 0 ~. Y r rn X Z N u ~~ ~o ~~ _ r~ Z T fi ITS ~ / , S o ~~ I o ~S cn ~ C 2 m N m r m D ~_ O Z m m r m D Z _ _ __ {{ .~~ I I ;I ~ , ~ j ~ ,; !` I'! 11 i -- ,-, ~ -~ i ~~1~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ y;~ }~~ ~~ s z e: s - -.~ r~ti I -~ - _, -O ~~- G ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~,+ 9 S 'L --~ - .. u ~__~ /~ ~, ~ ~, o ~ /~.. o~ ~• A°- z ~c zo m c A z 0 ~J o m m 0 0 m ~r { 1 I~ a I!, ~: 1' • ~, ~ n ~- - --~ .~ ~ ~_ C O 1I r ~~= J O D r ~ D ~ O .~ z z c s o Z c~ Z m C~ ~ S T A O C ~ ~~ t A m O ~j- ~~ C7 ~ '~ ~ C N _ n ~ t0 Z O O -~ -mac Cl~ 0 0 0 ~ z + r r r = ~ O ~ ~ n w n c \ xl T1 U J -' N N N ~~ ~ ~ D ~ N ~ (Oli U J - Q ~ m A i~ `~ ~ z a G F O '" Z ~ D ~? r ~ N _ W O (P O Z (P N i+ O m A m c0 V N W 0 r m m r D _~ Z L~ o \.. n \ ~, ~ ~ o D a ° ~c 9 Z o Gl o i~ D o o f ~ ~ ~ ~ -c ~ D a o _ No ~ o 1 0 D /" o < vrri /, ,> / ~r /'/ is D Z Ll ~/ i';° p W -~ \. D e ~~ I ~~ .~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z <. Gl ,. ~ \ D .'~ ~~ 7 o D m a d~ ~ r o ^ ~ a o N C _ v d Vf o ~ ~ j. ~• ~ ' a ~n ~ / ~ ~ c { 1 \o o r i ~, a /. i i ~ ~ _. _ ~ a c` D Z y ( W ~ / I ~iJ I '. D G \ ~,, ~\ o a `~ 9~0 ~`, .. ~ ', / P \ . 9 ~ / r m r D Z r m m r D a Z D o ~ ~ z D c ~ ° o D P D q~ G D 7c - Z Ll D G~1 w D r r N i ~, . -~~~ v ~. r o m r o ~ - . ~ \•~ 7C ~ ~ ~ Z L7 V ~ v~ m ~ ° o o~ u ° C < o n _ V' > D ~ ~~ r / ~ ~ ~ ~ j. yo / a D Z D D ' m N-I _~ N v v ~O T ~O ~\ 90 ~_~ _~ =moo ~~oC ~ ~~ C ~' Z T Z ~ (t._~n rn ~_ O `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CrJ ~ Yi r- m X Y /p Z~ 0 .~ A 1~, t. *. ~1 . ,. 'K,.: qa~ ~ti• ~+ :/ ~~ r s\ !~ ~ ~. - - r~ _ i~ .~.. ~~~ ~'~~ r r~ ~r k ~t ~ ~. ~',~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ICS -~ z~~ o~o Z T~ m S T c. S < Z ~. P -~+ G7 .-,-, ~C Z o i; ~ ~y cn ~ ~vJ ~^ ~o ~o z ~ ~ ~ T S T _ ~ ~~ ~O .ro~~ T ~C o ~ _,Y.,. J_ _~ G17 ~ ^ ~' ~~,~ ~ i~ r. ~ ~,~ as r i ... F -- ~ ~,. r °3 A ,~ ~~~, ,, * ~ I '" 1-1- PARTIAL REVISION C)F THE DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONt~1ENTAL IMPACT REPORT Stale t::leuringhaus~.~ Number. 2005042121 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCC7 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PREPARED BY I..AMPlitER - GRF.GURY MARCH 2O0b r-r ,~. CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PRDEIR Review and Final EIR Process ................................. ..................................................................................... l-2 1.2 CEQA Requirements .................................................................. .....................................................................................1-2 1.3 Project Description ..................................................................... .....................................................................................1-3 1.4 lssues Requiring DEIR Revision and Recirculation ............... .....................................................................................1-7 1.5 Summary of Revisions to the DEIR ......................................... .....................................................................................1-7 2. EXECUxIVE gUM~y ............................................. ............................................................ 2-1 2.1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................... ......................................................................................2-1 13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (REVISED~ .......................................................... 13-1 13.1 Introduction .............................................................................. ....................................................................................13-1 13.2 5etting ........................................................................................ ....................................................................................13-1 13.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................ ..................................................................................13-43 17. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 17-1 17.1 Report Preparers ....................................................................... ....................................................................................17-1 17.2 Bibliography .............................................................................. ....................................................................................17-1 18. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... 18-1 A: Caltrans Comment Letters .......................................................... ..................................................................................... A-1 B: Traffic Tables ................................................................................ ..................................................................................... B-1 FIGURES 1-1 Project Site Location ......................................................................................... ................................................................ i-4 1-2 Project Site Plan ................................................................................................. ................................................................1-5 l-3 Project Building Perspectives .......................................................................... .................................................................1-6 13-1 Existing Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control .................................... ..............................................................13-2 13-2 Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................. ...............................................................13-7 13-3 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................. ...............................................................13-8 13-4 Bus and Shuttle Routes .................................................................................... ............................................................. i 3-7 5 13-5 Year 2008 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control ................................ .............................................................13-22 13-6 2008 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes ...................... .............................................................13-28 ] 3-7 2008 Base Case (Without Project) Pivi Peak Hour Volumes ...................... .............................................................13-29 13-8 Year 2020 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control ................................ .............................................................13-33 13-9 Year 2020 Base Case (VG~ithout Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes ............ .............................................................13-38 13-10 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project} PLVi Peak Hour Volumes ............. .............................................................13-39 13-11 AM Peak Hour Project Increment ................................................................ .............................................................13-46 13-12 PM Peak Hour Project Increment ................................................................. .............................................................13-47 ] 3-13 2005 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes ................................... .............................................................13-48 13-14 2008 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes ................................... .............................................................13-49 13-1 S Year 2020 (VG'ith Project) AM Peak flour Volumes .................................... .............................................................13-50 13-16 Year 2020 (With Project) Pbi Peak Hour Volumes ................................... ..............................................................13-51 TABLES 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................2-2 13-1 Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................ 13-10 13-2 Intersection Level of service PM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................. 13-1 ] 13-3 95~^ Percentile Vehicle Queues: Existing and Year 2008 .......................................................................................... 13-14 13-4 Freeway Operation AM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................................ 13-19 13-5 Freeway Operation PM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................................. 13-20 13-6 Trip Generation of Approved Development within South San Francisco East of 101 Area ............................. 13-23 13-7 Home Depot/Lowe's Tcip Generation ...................................................................................................................... 13-25 13-8 Traffic Distribution ....................................................................................................................................................... 13-27 13-9 South San Francisco Proposed and Potential Development Traffic Generation East of 101, 2000-2020........ 13-36 13-10 Brisbane Potential Development Traffic Generation ............................................................................................... 13-37 13-11 95~^ Percentile Vehicle Queues: Year 2020 ................................................................................................................. 13-4] 13-] 2 Proposed Project Trip Generation w/ 9.5% Peak Hour Trip Generation Reduction due to TDM Program 13-45 13-] 3 Previous 249 East Grand Avenue Site Development Trip Generation without TDM ........................................ 13-45 13-14 Net Difference in Trip Generation Office/R&D Versus Manufacturing .............................................................. 13-45 INTRODUCTION Chapter 13, Traffic and Circulatzon of the October 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed 249 East Grand Avenue Project (Proposed Project) is being revised and recirculated per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, which requires the lead agency to recirculate an EIR if significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review, but before certification. Evaluation was requested by the Department of Transportation {Caltrans) to determine 95th percentile vehicle queuing on the approaches to three study intersections, including an off-ramp from the U.S.101 freeway. Caltrans' main concern was that off-ramp traffic does not queue back onto the freeway mainline during peak traffic periods. To provide Caltrans the most accurate queuing evaluation, a different software package was used to evaluate the three subject intersections than had been used to evaluate all other intersections in the study. Thus, updated levels of service using the new software have also been incorporated into the revised circulation section. This resulted in the identification of one new intersection impact during the AM peak hour (Impact 13-4). This partial revision to the DEIR revises and replaces Chapter 13 in the DEIR, which was circulated between October 6, 2005 and November 21, 2005 (SCH #2005042121}. Interested parties reviewing the revised chapter should limit comments to the revised portions of the DEIR. Comments should be submitted in writing during the March 28, 2006 to May 12, 2006 45-day public review period to: Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, Ca. 94083 This introduction includes the following: A discussion of the Partial Revision of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (PRDEIR) and Final EIR Process; 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 1-1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION • a description of CEQA requirements for recirculation and revision of a portion of a DEIR; • review of issues raised in comments received on the DEIR that warrant partial EIR revision and recirculation; and • a summary of revisions made to the October 2005 249 East Grand Avenue Project DEIR Chapter 13 Traffic and Circulation. 1.1 PRDEIR REVIEW AND FINAI. EIR PROCESS This PRDEIR is being circulated for public comment on the new and/or revised analysis of traffic and circulation impacts addressed in this document. Upon completion of the public review period, a Final EIR (FEIR) will be prepared that includes responses to comments received on this PRDEIR and on the DEIR, except for those comments on the DEIR that address topics discussed in this PRDEIR. As allowed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, comments received on the DEIR related to the topics addressed in this PRDEIR are part of the administrative record and have been considered when preparing this PRDEIR. However, these previously received comments will not be responded to in the Final EIR related to the topics in this PRDEIR; only comments received on this PRDEIR that address the topics included in this PRDEIR will be included and responded to in the Final EIR. The City of South San Francisco (City) will be responding in writing to comments submitted on the October 2005 DEIR related to the analysis of all other subject areas covered in the DEIR (e.g. issues other than traffic and circulation impacts) in the Final EIR for this project. 1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS Relevant portions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 for this PRDEIR are as follows: (a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when sign cant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "sign cant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that.• (1) A new sign cant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. PAGE 1-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measurer are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insign~cance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably d~erent from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. (b) Recirculation is not required where the new informalian added to the EIR merely clarifies or ampl~es ar makes insign~cant modifications in an adequate EIR. (c) If the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters orportians that have been mod~ed. (~(2) When the EIR is revised only in part and the lead agency is recirculating only the revised chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency may request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised chapters or portions. The lead agency need only respond to (i) comments received during the initial circulation period that relate to chapters or portions of the document that were not revised and recirculated, and (ii) comments received during the recirculation period that relate to the chapters orportions of the earlierElR that were revised and recirculated. The lead agency's rqquest that reviewers limit the scope of their comments shall be included either within the text of the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR (~ When recirculating a revised EIK, either in whole or in part, the lead agency shall, in the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, summarise the revisions made to the previously circulated draft EIR 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project would involve development of four Class-A office/laboratory buildings, ranging from three to five stories in height, totaling about 534,500 square feet, including 5,500 square feet of commercial space, and a Eour level parking structure providing 1,529 parking spaces. Building elevations would be a combination of punched and ribbon-window systems in conjunction with panels of glass-fiber reinforced or precast concrete. The Project would include extensive landscaping and open space areas. The site plan features a terraced landscape area between the buildings, visible from the main approach from East Grand Avenue. The Project landscape includes several different zones: the site perimeter and parking areas; the large public landscaped area between the buildings; and smaller sheltered landscaped areas between the buildings (where the buildings serve as a barrier to the prevailing winds). The site perimeter and parking landscape areas include plantings at the perimeters to screen parking as well as to present a positive image of the Project as viewed from East Grand Avenue. The surface parking areas would include tree plantings. From the street, a visitor would approach the buildings from the main entry drive that provides a view of the large public landscape area between the buildings. The Project site's location, Project Site Plan and Project Building Perspectives are shown in Figures 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 1-3 4 d 3 0 O G! '~"' v v L1. v bA .~ '~ ... rn ~ r: w ~ V i~ OA O W 'L~i CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.4 ISSUES REQUIRING DEIR REVISION, RECIRCULATION The Proposed Project was analyzed in an October 2005 DEIR that was circulated to local and state agencies and made available to the public fora 45-day public review period between October 6, 2005 and November 21, 2005. A comment letter dated December 23, 2005 was submitted by Caltrans, wherein the agency expressed concern about the proposed Project's potential vehicle queuing impacts at various intersections studied in the DEIR. The DEIR did not include a queuing analysis for the study intersections. In the course of preparing responses to comments on the DEIR and discussions with Caltrans, it became apparent that it would be necessary to conduct a queuing analysis for several study intersections. Although Caltrans initially requested an analysis of eight intersections, the agency and the City of South San Francisco later agreed that an analysis only of intersections with Caltrans off-ramps (three in total) would be sufficient. A Caltrans letter dated November 22, 2005 requested traffic operational analysis input data for the Project. This information was subsequently provided to Caltrans by the City of South San Francisco. That data request was fulfilled and is not the subject of this PRDEIR. 1.5 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO THE DEIR The PRDEIR includes an evaluation of 95`h percentile vehicle queuing at the following three study intersections: • Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp • South Airport Boulevard/U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp Inclusion of the queuing analysis into the revised traffic chapter necessitated the addition of information pertaining to the queuing analysis methodology, queuing-associated impacts and mitigation measures. Because a different software package was used to evaluate the three subject intersections than had been used to evaluate all other intersections in the Draft EIR, updated levels of service for all intersections using the new software have also been incorporated into the revised circulation section. • Additional Impact during AM peak hour at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp intersection The revised circulation section includes an additional impact during the AM peak hour at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover OFf--Ramp intersection (Impact 13-4). Level of service findings at this intersection were also adjusted based upon a City decision that widening the eastbound Oyster Point intersection approach to add one additional lane is no longer feasible. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE l-7 This page intentionally left blank. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 1-8 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The impacts of the proposed Project, proposed mitigation, and significance conclusions for the subjects analyzed in this PRDEIR are discussed in detail in the revised Chapter 13 in this document. The following table summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance identified in revised Chapter 13. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAET FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 2-1 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Impact 13-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The project would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours (515 trips during the AM peak hour and 485 trips during the PM peak hour, if allowing for the reduction in traffic from the former Georgia Pacific manufacturing use) or 756 trips during the AM peak hour and 729 trips during the PM peak hour if assuming all site trip generation is new (see Tables 13-12, 13-13 and ] 3-14). The San Mateu Ciry/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines' specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first l00 trips) projected to be generated by the development. Impact 13-2: Year 2008 U.S.101 Freeway Impacts. Tables 13-4 and 13-5 show that the addition of traffic generated by approved development in South San Francisco (year 2008 Base Case without project conditions) would cause two freeway segments to operate at LOS F (both during the AM peak hour). The project would increase volumes by more than one percent on both of these segments (AM peak hour- southbound: north of the Uyster Point interchange and northbound: south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp). In addition, project traffic would result in one segment of the freeway changing from LUS E to LOS P operation (PM peak hour- northbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange). Mitigation Measure 13-1: Transportation Demand Management Program. The projcct applicant shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each'TDM measure. Appendix Table B-5 outlines TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the 5] 5 total AM peak hour and 485 PM peak hour trips generated by the project. This impact would be reduced to a less than signi~i'cant level. Mitigation Measure 13-2: Transportation Demand Management Plan. The project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to minimize potential increases in freeway traffic. The TDM plan shall contain all Required Measures and Additional Measures required by the City of South San Francisco TDM Urdinance, Schedule 20.120.030-B, in order to achieve a minimum alternative mode use of 35 percent. The project applicant shall submit a Preliminary TDM Plan containing checklists of Required and Additional Measures, along with a site plan indicating the locations of TDM elements such as preferential pazking areas and bicycle facilities. The project applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan incorporating conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. The Project shall coordinate with the City in an annual survey of compliance with the TDM plan, with a minimum required response rate of 75 percent of employees at the project. The project shall also submit a Tri-Annual report of TDM effectiveness, and be subject to penalties for non-compliance in accordance with the City's TDM Ordinance. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Less than Significant Significant and Unavoidable PAGE 2-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Impact 13-3: Yeaz 2008 Intersection Impacts. Year 2008 Base Case conditions have assumed removal of the Georgia Pacific manufacturing activity on the project site. These activities were included in the "Existing Conditions" evaluation, as existing counts reflected the conservatively higher volume levels found in 1999/2000. Therefore, year 2008 Base Case + Project evaluation evaluates the full impact of the currently proposed project in relation to an empty site. Tables I3-] and 13-2 show that the proposed project would produce significant AM and/or PM peak hour level of service impacts at the following intersections. East GranAAvenue/Allerton Avenue More than a two percent increase in traffic (2.1% AM peak hour and 2.9% PM peak hour) at a location with a} unacceptable LOS P operation on the scup sign controlled Allerton Avenue approach, b) both AM and PM peak hour volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels, c) volume warrant criteria being exceeded for the need of a left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach and d) less than acceptable sight lines between traffic turning from Allerton Avenue and westbound drivers on East Grand Avenue. F_a.tt Grand Avenut/f 1ttlefteld Avenue More than a two percent increase in traffic during the AM peak hour (2.9% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS I' operation. .S'outh Alr~ort Boulevard/ Utah Avenue Change in AM peak hour operation from LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E. ForGet Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Change in AM peak hour all-way-stop operation from LOS C to an unacceptable LOS E. .SoutbAirport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mruhell Avenue More than a two percent increase in traffic during the PM peak hour (8.G% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS P operation. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U..S'.101 .Southbound Flyover Off-Rand More chart a two percent increase in traffic during the Ah1 peak hour (5.8°/n increase) at a location with Base Case LOS fi operation. Mitigation Measure 13-3: Intersection Modipcations. Modifications are recommended for the following intersections. East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Intersection Prohibit left rums from Allerton Avenue to East Grand Avenue until the intersection is signalized- or-Cut back the hillside on the northeast corner of the intersection to improve sight lines to/from the east to at least 400 feet. Stripe a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach. This will require removal of parking on the south side of East Grand Avenue. Provide a fair share contribution towards having the intersection signalized by the time of project occupanry-or-provide signalization when construction is complete and receive paybacks from other local developments as they are constructed. (All needed for Base Case operation.) Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS B-13.2 seconds average vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS C-25.G seconds average vehicle delay This impact would be reduced to a less than signiftcant level. East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue Intersection Widen the northbound Littlefield Avenue approach to provide two intersection approach lanes. Stripe as one exclusive right rum lane and a combined left/through/right turn lane (needed for Base Case operation). Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.4 seconds average vehicle delay This impact would be reduced to a less lhan signif::cant level. South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue Intersection Restripe one of the northbound South Airport Boulevard through lanes as a shared through/r Significant and Unavoidable 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAfT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 2-3 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance turn lane. Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS C-32.7 seconds average vehicle delay This impact would be reduced to a less than signif::cant level. Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Intersection Sign the intersection as an all-way-stop. Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS B-14.1 seconds average vehicle delay This impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. South Airpost Boulevard/Gateway Mitchell/Mitchell Avenue Intersection Add a second through lane on the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach (needed for acceptable Base Case operation). Add a second right turn lane on the southbound Gateway Boulevard approach. Resultant Operation PM Peak Hour: LOS C-28.2 seconds average vehicle delay This impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Of]- Ramp There are no physical improvements considered feasible by City of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case conditions or better. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 13-4: Year 2020 Intersection Impacts. Mitigation Measure 13-4 Significant and Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that Project traffic Unavoidable. would produce a significant impact at the following O}'ster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.IOI intersection in 2020. Southbound FI}'over Off-Ramp Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway There are no physical improvements considered PAGE 2-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance $oulevard/U.S.10] Southbound Flyover Off- feasible by City of South San Francisco staff to Ramp improve operation to Base Case conditions or better. More than a two percent increase in traffic during This impact would remain significant and the AM peak hour (a 5.3% increase) at a location unavoidable. with Base Case LOS F operation, and more than a two percent increase in traffic during the PM peak hour (a 3.6% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS P operation. Impact 13-5: Year 2008 and 2020 Project Mitigation Measure 13-5: Signal Phasing Less than Intersection Queuing Impacts. Table 13-3 Adjustment. The following adjustment is Significant shows that the proposed Project would not recommended: increase acceptable year 2008 95th percentile Base S•• Airport Bax/evard/U..S'.101 Nor~hGound Case queuing at any of the three analyzed off- l~n~r/Wonrlerca/orLnne ramps to unacceptable levels during either the AM Signal phasing adjustments recommended to mitigate or PM peak hours. In addition, the proposed Base Case AM peak hour off-ramp yueuing would project would not add any traffic to the left turn also provide acceptable Base Case + Project JSth movements on the Oyster Point Boulevard percentile off-tamp queuing and intersection level of eastbound approach during the AM peak hour which would have 95th percentile queuing just service. slightly exceeding available storage lengths. Resultant Operation: This would be a lest than sign{ {:cant impact in AM Peak .Hour: LOS D - 48.5 seconds vehicle delay, 2008. 1,665 feet of 95th percentile off-ramp vehicle storage demand (with ],675 feet of available storage) Table ] 3-10 shows that in the year 2020 the proposed Project would not add any traffic to This would reduce the impact to a level of less than those left turn movements on the Oyster Point significant, Boulevard east and westbound approaches during the AM and/or PM peak hours which would have 95th percentile yueuing exceeding available storage ]engths. While the 50th percentile queue in the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard left turn lane would be within acceptable limits with or without the project, the 50th percentile yueue in the eastbound left turn lane would still exceed available storage during the AM peak hour. However, since the proposed project would not add any traffic to this movement, it would not be a significant impact for this movement. The proposed Project would also not increase acceptable year 2020 95th percentile Base Case yueuing at any of the three analyzed off-ramps to unacceptable levels during either the AM or PM peak traffic hours. However, the project would increase AM peak hour volumes more than two percent (2.2%} at the northbound off-ramp interscction to South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane, where 95th percentile Base Case volumes would already be exceeding available storage. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 2-5 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Impact 13-6: Project Driveways. The Project will Mitigation Measure 13-6: Lane Extension. Extend Less than be served by two driveways on East Grand Avenue the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Significant and by one driveway on the Cabot Road cul-de-sac. Avenue approach to the Project's signalized entrance The Cabot Road driveway connection would by 200 feet. There are about 200 feet of landscaped connect to the cul-de-sac directly opposite the median in which to make this improvement (to the extension of Cabot Road to the east. Driveways east of the Roebling Road intersection). from three other businesses also connect to the cul-de-sac, and based upon volume levels at This would reduce the Project's impact to a level of Allerton Avenue, have low traffic volumes. Sight less tlJUn SignfftCant. lines should be acceptable to/from all driveways connecting to the Cabot Road cul-de-sac (including to/from the project driveway) allowing a "see and be seen" flow of traffic through the cul-de-sac area. The Project's easterly driveway connection to East Grand Avenue would be limited to right turns in and out only by the raised median along East Grand Avenue. It will be located about ] 40 feet west of the signalized Littlefield Avenue intersection and about 600 feet east of the signalized main project access intersection. East Grand Avenue is level and straight in the project area and sight lines are excellent at both driveway locations. The westerly driveway intersection along East Grand Avenue is now signalized and also serves the Britannia Point Grand parking lot on the south side of East Grand Avenue. A 100-foot-long left turn lane is provided in the median of East Grand Avenue on the eastbound approach to this project entrance. As shown in Tables 13-1 and 13-2, operation of this signalized intersection would be acceptable during the AM peak hours in 2008 or 2020 (at LOS C) and would be just acceptable during the PM peak hours in 2008 or 2020 (at LOS D). However, during the AM peak hour, the 95th percentile queue of inbound traffic using this left rum lane could extend about 275 feet in both 2008 and 2020 (i.e. 11 vehicles at 25 feet per vehicle). During the PM peak hour the 95th percentile queue would be five cars in 2008 and six cars in 2020. Inbound project vehicles frequently extending out of the existing 100-foot-long left turn pocket and blocking the flow of eastbound through traffic would be a significant operational and safety concern. Impact 13-7: Internal Circulation. A two-lane Mitigation Measure 13-7: The following actions are Less than loop road would circle the proposed campus of recommended: Significant PAGE 2-6 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance four buildings. ]t would connect to the two driveways providing access to East Grand Avenue • Eliminate parking stalls that will result in parking as well as to the garage in the north section of the or backing maneuvers onto the project loop road; site. and All internal surface lot driveways would • Channelize 30- to 45-degree parking aisle accommodate two-way traffic flow as would connections with the loop road to 80- or 90- parking aisles in the garage. All parking aisles degree connections. would be 25 feet wide, which would meet City code and good traffic engineering practice criteria. Parking stalls would be 90-degree throughout the site. The Cabot Road cu]-de-sac would access a different level of the parking garage than would the loop road circling the project office buildings. One area of concern with the internal circulation system layout is the eight parking aisle connections to the loop road that intersect at 45 to 60 degrees ratherthan a preferred 90 degrees. In addition, parking and backing maneuvers to/from some of the parking stalls near many of these 45- to GO- degree connections could impact traffic flow on the loop road. Impact 13-8: Site Parking. The 540,000 square Mitigation Measure 13-8: No mitigation is required. No Impact feet of office/R&D development would provide a total of 1,529 parking spaces (404 surface spaces and 1,125 garage spaces). This is 91.5% of the 1,G70 spaces chat would be required by City code. The City of South San Prancssco promotes reduction in parking from City zoning standards as away to support trip reduction goals required per the City's TDivI ordinance and supported by various policies in the General Plan (G.P. Policies 4.3-1-8, 1 ] and 12). Impact 13-9: On-Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Mitigation Measure 13-9: System Improvements. Less than Circulation. Sidewalks will be maintained along Provide a sidewalk connecting Cabot Way with the Significant the project's East Grand Avenue and Cabot Road internal campus sidewalk system, or to a garage cul-de-sac frontages. Sidewalks will also be elevator which will provide access to the internal provided along the interior of the project's internal campus sidewalk system. lop road as well as through the office campus. One sidewalk connection will be made from the office campus to the sidewalk along East Grand Avenue near the southeast comer of the site, while no sidewalk connection is proposed from the site to the Cabot Road sidewalk. Pedestrians accessing the Cabot Road sidewalk would need to use the garage drivewa}'. The East Grand Avenue pedestrian access would be provided by both stairs and a ramp and would be a potential location for a shuttle stop. The lack of a defined sidewalk connection from the project site to Cabot Road 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAET FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 2-7 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance would produce safety concerns. PAGE 2-8 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION 13 'TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 13.1 INTRODUCTION Crane Transportation Group (CTG) performed a traffic and circulation study for the proposed Project which was subsequently incorporated into the October 2005 DEIR. Caltrans submitted two comment letters related to the DEIR, one of which expressed concern about the Project's effect on various U.S. 101 off-ramp intersections in the vicinity of the Project site. Caltrans requested that a queuing analysis be performed in order to clearly determine what effect the Project would have on vehicle queuing times at these off-ramp intersections. CTG performed the queuing analysis and revised their original traffic and circulation study to include the results of the queuing analysis. CTG's revised traffic study was then incorporated into this PRDEIR traffic chapter. This chapter describes the transportation conditions in the study area in terms of existing roads and traffic operations, transit service and pedestrian and bicycle conditions. Where appropriate, excerpts from the following EIRs or initial studies/negative declarations have been included in this writeup; 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D project Draft and Final EIRs (Morehouse Associates and Dowling Associates, September 2004 and February 2005) and East Jamie Court Office R&D Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Morehouse Associates and Dowling Associates, September 2002}. 13.2 SETTING ROADWAYS The 249 East Grand project site is served directly by East Grand Avenue and the Cabot Road cul-de-sac, while regional access is provided by the U.S. 101 freeway. The two driveway connections to East Grand Avenue and the single driveway connection to Cabot Road will be connected via internal parking aisles. Access to the U.S. 101 freeway is provided by a variety of major streets with several route options available to the three interchanges that could potentially be used by project traffic. Each is briefly described below while a schematic presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and control are presented in Figure 13-1. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 13-1 a~ ~ 1 ~ i- SB 101 ramp off' ~? a~~ l~~ ~r ~ `~t1~r' A r Q~~~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ M' h 11 a I~~~ . ~ ~ i S 10i W - NB Ra~ Color D~~~~ Not To Scale /~ NORTH O E-- sfer f~ ~- .o '`O ter ~y omt •~et ~ ~~~ F,~o .-> ~m - =Project site =Stop Sign =Signal ~ =Free Right Turn o~ ~ ~ D ~~ T F a `~' ~ ~"" ~ a aJ L 1 bo ~F a m T e ~® ~~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ® FGrand m ~ rn ~ ~ rn ~ ran ' ~ rn a ~ 249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study ~~ Figure 13-1 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Existing Lane Geometries and Intersection Control V ~• 0. r ~ ~~ O~~st~r ,`' ~'in ~ ~ ~ Point ~ CHAPTER ~ 3: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Freeways U.S.101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the project area. It extends from downtown San Francisco and northern California to Los Angeles and southern California. Within the study area, U.S.101 has northbound on-ramps at Grand Avenue, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue} and at Oyster Point Boulevard; northbound off-ramps are provided at East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue) and at Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard). Southbound on-ramps are provided from Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard) and at Produce Avenue; southbound off-ramps are provided at Produce Avenue, Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue and at Bayshore Boulevard (just north of Oyster Point Boulevard). There are auxiliary lanes on northbound U.S.101 both north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound U.S.101 south of Oyster Point Boulevard. U.S.101 carries an average daily traffic {ADT} volume of 237,000 vehicles south of Produce Avenue, 226,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard and 212,000 vehicles north of Oyster Point Boulevard. Streets East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/ office areas east of the U.S.101 freeway. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway and narrows to four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way intersection. In the project vicinity it has two travel lanes in each direction separated by a raised median, with no on- street parking allowed along either the north or south sides of the street (i.e. there is no room for on-street parking on either side of East Grand Avenue in the project vicinity). The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). The roadway traverses a sharp horizontal curve just east of the Allerton Avenue intersection and ends about a half mile east of the project site. Allerton Avenue is a two-lane local street extending northeasterly from East Grand Avenue to Forbes Boulevard. It has a gradual south-ta-north uphill grade and a posted speed limit of 30 mph. On-street parking is prohibited along both sides of the street and its curb-to-curb width is 40 feet. Allerton Avenue is stop sign controlled on its approaches to East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard. A sidewalk is provided along the west side of the street. Cabot Road is a wide, two-lane roadway extending westerly from Grandview Drive to west of Allerton Avenue, where it ends in a cul-de-sac adjacent to the project site. There is no posted speed limit and on-street parking is prohibited. Sidewalks are provided around the cul-de-sac and along the north side of the street to Allerton Avenue. However, the sidewalk on the south side of the street only extends about half-way to Allerton Avenue. Airport Boulevard is a four- to six-lane, north-south arterial street that parallels the west side of the U.S.101 freeway. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 13-3 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane street connecting East Grand Avenue with South Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Harbor Wcty is a two-lane street serving existing and planned industrial/office uses south of East Grand Avenue. Harbor Way provides access to South Airport Boulevard and several U.S.101 freeway ramps via Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue. Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane collector street connecting the San Bruno Point Genentech area with East Grand Avenue. Littlefield Avenue is a 40-foot-wide, two-lane north-south street connecting East Grand Avenue with Utah Avenue. Utah Avenue is a four-lane east-west street connecting Littlefield Avenue with South Airport Boulevard. Oyster Point Boulevard is one of the primary arterial access routes serving the "East of 101 area" of South San Francisco. It has six travel lanes near its interchange with the U.S.101 freeway, four lanes east of Veterans Boulevard and two lanes near Gull Road. Volumes Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was requested by City staff at the following 17 major intersections serving the project site. • Airport Boulevard & Miller Avenue/U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp • Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue • East Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue • East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard • East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard • East Grand Avenue/249 East Grand Signalized Entrance • East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue • East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue • Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard • South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue • South Airport Boulevard/U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps • South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue • Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road • Allerton Avenue/Forbes Boulevard • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard & U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp • Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 13-4 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Existing counts were obtained for most locations from either the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Draft EIR (September 2004), the East Jamie Court Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (September 2002) or the Proposed Costco Gas Station Along South Airport Boulevard Traffic Study Qune 2004). These counts were conducted from 1999 to 2003. In addition, AM and PM peak period counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in April 2005 at the following six locations: • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off- Ramp • East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard • East Grand Avenue/249 East Grand Avenue/Britannia Point Grand Parking Lot Driveway Entrance • East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue • Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road • Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue Past counts in the East of 101 area between 1999 and 2004 have indicated a measurable drop in volumes starting in the year 2000 (due to the recession in the high tech/biotech industry), which then continued after the September 11, 2001 terrorist incidents, which significantly reduced air travel, and as a result related activities in the airport service industries in the East of 101 area. Recent EIRs and other traffic analysis in the area have utilized the older counts as a basis for near term evaluation as they are higher than counts from the past few years. The 2005 counts by Crane Transportation Group showed a significant increase in AM peak hour volumes along Oyster Point Boulevard compared to past studies, primarily due to the recent opening of the U.S.101 southbound flyover off ramp connection to the Gateway intersection and the increased ease for southbound freeway traffic to enter the East of 101 area via this new ramp. New PM peak hour volumes along Oyster Point Boulevard were a little lower than previous counts as there is little traffic entering the East of 101 area during the evening commute and the flyover off-ramp does nothing to facilitate the heavy outbound traffic #low headed westbound towards the freeway during this period. The 2005 counts along the East Grand Avenue corridor were 10 to more than 20 percent lower than past counts in the AM (possibly due to the diversion of some inbound traffic to Oyster Point Boulevard and away Erom East Grand Avenue (accessed via the Airport/Miller southbound freeway off-ramp). During the PM peak hour, the 2005 counts long East Grand Avenue were about the same as older counts. Likewise, at the Airport/Gateway/Mitchell intersection, 2005 AM peak hour counts were about 15 percent lower than older volumes, while PM volumes were similar. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRA1=T FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 13-5 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION In order to provide a conservative evaluation, the 2005 AM counts were used at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway/flyover off-ramp intersection along with required adjustments to older AM counts at the two other intersections evaluated along Oyster Point Boulevard. However, the older PM counts along Oyster Point Boulevard (with new PM volumes from the flyover off-ramp) along with the older AM and PM peak hour counts along the East Grand Avenue and Airport/South Airport corridors were still used to reflect existing conditions. Use of the older counts in these remaining corridors required that traffic activity associated with the former Georgia Pacific manufacturing operation on the 249 East Grand Avenue site be included in the existing system counts, as was some activity associated with the now mostly empty Britannia Pointe Grand parking area on the south side of East Grand Avenue opposite the 249 East Grand Avenue parcel. The older AM peak hour counts along East Grand Avenue and at the Airport intersections with Grand Avenue and the U.S.101 southbound off-ramp did, however, receive a reduction in southbound off-ramp and then eastbound flow along East Grand Avenue to reflect the impact of the recently opened southbound flyover off-ramp connecting to Oyster Point Boulevard. Figures 13-2 and 13-3 present existing AM and PM peak hour volumes at the 17 analysis intersections. INTERSECTION OPERATION Analysis Methodology Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called bevel of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also associated with an average vehicle delay tabulation (1994 Highway Capacity Manual [HCMJ operations method) at each intersection. The vehicle delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/delay relationship is provided in Appendix Table B-1. Unsignulized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are determined using a methodology outlined in the 1994 update of the Highway Capacity Manual ('I'RB Circular 209). Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average vehicle delay values are also calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled are also evaluated using the LOS and delay scales using a methodology outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and delay designations pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for stop sign controlled approaches or individual tum and through movements rather than for 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 1 3-6 } ~ 365 D_ t- 5 s- 205 i' ~ j- soo 110 ~, ~ t ` 50 110 ~ 400 D ~ 80 ~ r 115 4 r nd ~ 275 155 ~ ~ t 225 --- 30 285 215 90 ~ ~ i 875 D i 140 ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~- 320 - ,`' 235 i so ~ v'1 t r' 215 --- $,210 200 36( 130 ~ ~ 75 m ~ 15 105 10 ~ ~" 120 ,1 1 1, m ,` 35 MitC 105 ~ cn ~l t (~ 285 -- 1i470 235 330 465 ~. a i 475 i 15 105 25 ~ j l ~- 5 .. - i 25 n r- IVB Ramp Color 765 ~ a ~ t (~ 50 --- 0 75 215 5 320 ~ a 0 ~ L 45 20 45 tJ ~ m ~-- 635 1 55 ...~' 1000 --- 249 East Grand EIR Traffic ~ O r 390 Sr~~A ,` 40 1010 330 ~~ Oster ornr e~ F~ o~ ~'" m ~ (' 7330 m 210 100 ~ '~ 45 20 80 130 r 365 1 ~- ,i' 85 rn 170 ~ c,'1 t f 1620 --- ~ 70 105285 105 -i ~- 6 ~- 280 5 1 1 m r 20 ~ ~ j ~ r 150 `~ srer j- 20 orn r o S 1235 -- m Point 100 -} ~ 350 95 55 y 670 --- ' 210 30 10 365 . =Project Site Not To Scale NORTH t 8 0 ~ 0 m r 135 i ~- m ,~" 55 r 1 s ~ Dfl t f i90 ~ ~25 0 45 35 '~. ~ 30 ~ t- 20 o r l 4 ° r ~° 8 ~ 20 55 20 7 "i n 35 20 0 ~ 20 fJ ~ ~ ~-' 280 E 190 ~ 970 -~ '~ 25 :~ ~ '~ 20 45 a 0 ~. 125 45 a. f- 310 45 11 m °. r 280 ~- ~ 35 ~ j ~~ ~ ,` 20 E G n Gr 630 ~ _ `1 t ~ 165 ~ ~ t (~ 1195 ~ 0 60 70 55 900 --- 50 0 5 210 ~ ~ 120 "i ~ L 0 0 0 0 r 270 .~14 r100 ran 0 .! ~'1 t f 850 -- ~ 60 0 310 100 "i Q Figure 13-2 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes 55 335 a L 5 '. ~-- 300 ~ ,i' 360 SB f 01 ramp 140 110 240 505 a ~ 170 I 4 0 ~'- 250 i ,` 790 150 ,~' ~ I (~ 75 ~ 95 465 100 100 ~ 985 a '~ 295 90 150 ~ ~-- ~ ~ 4 ~ ,`' 635 • 130 ~ v ~ t (~ 180 --- ~ 125 225180 205 ~. 135 ~ L 20 390 15 ~ ~"' 335 ,.1 j ~ °i ,` 75 M~ h I 60 .,' cn'1 t (~ 95 --r X540 55 130 355 ~ ~ 490 t- 25 ~5i 4 ~15 ~ 25 1 W NB Ramp Color 465 ~ a ~ t ~- 40 -- '265 20 200 ~, 305 a. O 60 20 ~ L 80 fJ 4 ~ ~- 165C ~ r 40 ,' 355 -- Grand EIR Traffic O ~. 1695 mfa~ ,` 60 300 y 70 ~. ster o~nt Jgt 0 155 ~ 970 55 f-- 1095 m L 1 0 40 ~ 75 3 '~ ~ 4 ~ ~- 590 ~ O ster r- 15 o~n ~ O r 385 ~ m ~ ~ Poi5t ~ ~~ ~ ~ 440 25 = 110 'i y 170 --- 215 -i 315 1 25 . =Project Site Not To Scale ~O NORTH '~ 7 11 1 2 ~ ~-- 500 f1 ,~ 1, °' ,~ 45 3 ., awl t f 210 -- ~ 55 0 65 30 'i ~ 60 ~ 't- 30 I 40 ? ~ 10 1 ~- ~ 25 10 ~ ~ t f 10 --- 10 25 25 30 ~. a 170 20 o i 15 ~ ~- ' ~' 865 80 ~ 250 -- '~,.. 0 0 0 0 f- 755 r~ j ~- ,` 270 rand o~ ~`1 t f 280 --~ ~ 75 0 55 90 -i n Figure 13-3 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION the entire intersection. Appendix Table B-2 provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. Standards The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections and LO5 E to be the poorest acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has no standards for turn movements from private driveways. Existing Intersection Operating Conditions Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that all 17 analyzed intersections are operating at good to acceptable (LOS D or better) levels of service during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. Although the Allerton Avenue/East Grand Avenue intersection is projected to be operating at an acceptable level of service, it has two existing operational and safety problems. The lack of a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach creates occasional extended queues behind a stopped vehicle waiting fox a gap in the westbound traffic flow to make a left turn to Allerton Avenue. Drivers in the queue then begin pulling around the stopped vehicle and interrupt the flow of eastbound traffic in the curb (outside) travel lane. This is an existing safety and operational problem. Based upon Warrants for Provision of Left Turn Lanes in the Transportation Research Board Report #279 (November 1985, see Appendix Table B-3), the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach to Allerton Avenue now warrants provision of a left turn lane with existing peak hour volumes. In addition, the sight line from Allerton Avenue to/from the east along East Grand Avenue is limited to about 200 feet due to the curvature in East Grand Avenue just east of the intersection and a hillside on the northeast corner of the intersection. Although East Grand Avenue has a posted speed limit of 35 mph, some westbound vehicles were observed to travel as high as 40 to 45 mph through the curve. At 45 miles per hour, a minimum safe stopping sight distance is 360 feet. (At the posted speed limit the minimum stopping sight distance is 250 feet.)' INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION REQUIREMENTS 'T'raffic signals are used to provide an orderly flow of traffic through an intersection. Many times they are needed to offer side street traffic an opportunity to access a major road where high volumes and/or high vehicle speeds block crossing or turn movements. They do not, however, increase the capacity of an intersection (i.e., increase the overall intersection's ability to accommodate additional vehicles) and, in fact, often slightly reduce the number of total vehicles ~ f! PoG'ry on Geometric Design of Highways and .Streets, 2004, Fifth Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 13-9 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13-1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: AM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020 Intersection Exlstin WIO Pro ect + pro ect W/O Pro ect + pro'ed Airport/Milled95101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) C-23.5'1 D-36.7 D-38.1 D-51.6 D-53.2 Airport/Grand (Signal) C-28.81'1 D-08.8 D-51.7 D-38.5 D-39.7 DubuquelE. Grand (Signal) A-5.71'> A-5.7 A-5.7 A-6.3 A-6.3 Gateway/E.GrandlE.Grand Overcrossing (Signal) C-25.41'1 C-28.1 D-37.4 C-26.9 C-33.7 HarborlE.GrandlForbes (Signal) B-13.71'1 C-29.1 D-50.2 D-36.5 D-41.7 Project Driveway@ E.Grand (Signal) B-10.71'> A-6.7 B-17.2 A-0.5 B-14.2 Littlefield/E.Grand (Signal) B-17.41'1 F-87.2 F-106.4 C-28.4 C-30.1 S.Airport/U.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps (Signal) C-27.11'1 C-27.0 C-27.3 D-37.2 D-37.2 Utah/S.Airport (Signal) C-29.6j1I D-50.9 E-59.2 G24.1 C-25.2 Oyster PoinUGatewaylFlyover (Signal) C-23.31'1 E-62.4 E-78.4 F-111.4 F-148.0 Oyster PoinUEccles (Signal) A-8.11'> B-10.5 B-12.1 B-11.0 B-14.7 Oyster PoinUGull (Signal) B-14.91'1 B-15.2 B-15.2 B-15.8 B-15.8 Gateway/S.Airport/Mitchell (Signal) &16.41'1 C-20.0 C-20.2 C-34.5 D-35.6 Airport/San Mateo/Produce (Signal) C-20.91'> C-26.6 C-27.1 C-27.1 C-27.4 AllertonlE.Grand (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-15.61x1 F-57.9 F-94.5 B-14.61'1 &15.81'1 CaboUAllerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) B-10.11 A-9.9j31 B-10.5/ B-10.1 B-13.5/ B-11.9 B-10.71 B-10.5 B-13.9/ 8-13.0 ForbeslAllerton Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-16.81"I C-18.6 E-09.7 C-23.6 F-90.9 1'~ StgnaLzed level of service-vehicle delay in seconds. l~ Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to E. Grand Ave. (3) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to Forbes Ave. c4) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton/Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manuai/7nalyrir Methodology .Source: Crane Transportation Group 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 13-10 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13-2 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020 Intersecllon Existin Wf0 Pro ect + Pro ct wf0 Pro ect + Pro ect AirporUMiller/95101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) C-20.1~'i C-21.9 C-2i.9 C-23.2 C-23.2 AirportlGrand (Signal) D-36.51'I D-38.9 D-39.6 C-34.2 C-34.6 Dubuque/E. Grand (Signa!) A-4.2i'i A-6.2 A~.4 A-6.9 A-7.2 GatewaylE.GrandlEJE.Grand Overcrossing (Signal} B-19.7111 C-24.0 C-26.7 C-28.6 G29.4 HarborlE.GrandlForbes (Signal) C-22.1111 D-37.0 D-53.4 0-40.1 0-45.5 Project Driveway@ E.Grand (Signal) B-16.0111 A-8.5 0-49.4 A-7.8 0-47.8 Lit#IefieldlE.Grand (Signal) B-11.51'1 B-12.8 B-13.6 C-23.4 C-24.0 S.Airport/U.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps (Signal) C-24.0111 C-24.2 C-24.3 C-31.4 C-31.6 Utah/S.Airport (Signal) B-17.91'1 C-20.4 C-20.9 C-23.3 C-23.7 Oyster Point/GatewaylFlyover (Signal} B-17.1111 C-34.6 D-38.5 F-83.7 F-93.4 Oyster Point/Eccles (Signal) B-17.7111 C-23.7 C-26.0 C-20.6 C-22.9 Oyster PoinUGull (Signal) B-16.71'1 B-19.8 C-21.0 C-24.5 C-25.7 GatewaylS.AirportlMitchell (Signal) C-25.0111 F-81.1 F-133.0 C-28.0 C-31.4 AirportlSan Mateo/Produce (Signal} C-24.6111 D-37.8 D-52.1 D-36.1 0-42.1 AllertonlE.Grand (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-20.41~1 F-522 F-835 B-15.11'> B-19.6111 CabotlAllerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) A-9.8! B-10.1131 A-9.91 B-10.2 B-14.01 B-10.8 A-10.01 B-10.3 B-14.61 B-11.0 Forbes/Allerton Allerton Stop Sign Control) B-14.3141 B-14.4 C-19.8 C-16.6 C-24.2 ~~~ 5ignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds. to Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to E. Urand Ave. (3) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to Forbes Ave. ~°~ Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton/Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton. Year 2000 Highway Capacity tllanualflnaly.ci.r Methodology .Source: Crane Tranrpartation Group 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 13-1 1 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION that can pass through an intersection in a given period of time. Signals can also cause an increase in traffic accidents if installed at inappropriate locations. There are eight possible tests for determining whether a traffic signal should be considered for installation. These tests, called "warrants", consider criteria such as actual traffic volume, pedestrian volume, presence of school children, and accident history. Usually, two or more warrants must be met before a signal is installed. In this report, the test for Peak Hour Volumes (Warrant #3) has been applied. When Warrant 3 is met there is a strong indication that a detailed signal warrant analysis covering all possible warrants is appropriate. These rigorous analyses are described in Chapter 4 of the year 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices2, while Warrant 3 is presented in Appendix Table B-4 of this report. It is possible that an unsignalized intersection will not meet signal warrants, but will have one or more movements that experience LOS F operations. Level of service F can be indicated for a very low volume of vehicles at a stop sign. Although these stopped vehicles may experience long delays of one minute or more, there would not be an overall benefit if the higher numbers of vehicles on the major street are stopped in favor of the few vehicles on the minor street. The signal warrant considers a balance between major street and minor street delays, and may indicate that there is overall benefit if drivers for some turn movements from the minor street continue to experience long (LOS E or F) delays. Currently, the Allerton Avenue/East Grand Avenue, Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road and Allerton Avenue/Forbes Boulevard intersections all have AM and PM peak hour volumes below signal warrant criteria levels, although both AM and particularly PM peak hour volumes at Allerton Avenue/East Grand Avenue are approaching warrant criteria levels. VEHICLE QUEUING Analysis Methodology The Synchro software program has determined estimates of vehicle queuing on the critical approaches to the three Caltrans off-ramp intersections evaluated in this study: • Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp • South Airport Boulevard/U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off- Ramp x Federal Highway Administration. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAfT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 13-12 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Projections are provided for each off-ramp as well as for turn lanes and other surface street approaches that have nearby adjacent intersections. Queuing Standards The City of South San Francisco standard is that the 50th percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage, while the Caltrans standard is that the 95th percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage. Existing Queuing Conditions Results are presented in this report for the 95th percentile vehicle queue. For City surface street intersection approaches where 95th percentile queues are exceeding available storage, 50th percentile queues are listed in the text. Table 13-3 shows that the three analyzed intersections all have 95th percentile queue lengths less than available storage distances during both the AM and PM peak hours. Less than half the available storage is being used at the Miller Avenue and Wondercolor Lane off-ramps, with less than 10 percent of available storage being used at the southbound flyover off-ramp. TRANSIT Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service and regional rail service. Figure 13-4 shows bus/shuttle service east of the U.S.101 freeway in the project vicinity. Bus Service The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco. However, currently there is no SamTrans service east of the U.S.101 freeway. Bus service running just west of the freeway is as follows. Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center-Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This route operates during midday only on weekda}~s with headways of about two hours. Route 130: Daly Ciry/Colma BART-South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Colma BART station and Daly City. It operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 60-minute headways on Sundays. Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -PARTIAL REVISION PAGE 1 3-13 z O oUC U z Q Z Q O d Z M H a Q U 0 0 N W otf z ~ W w m d ~ W J V w J F= z W W a F- rrf of W W U H ~ ~" W o~ N o ~ O („~ ..J Q ~ ~ w ~ J J W J 1V g ~ z a ~ ~ a ~ O Z LL O Z ~ ~ W F- Z Z O - ~n a ~ ~_ rr O Q w a W ~ a, Z <L O_ ~ ~ W ~ 'cT N ~~ da ~? M uy = m O N ~ ~ N ~ O O c+Oj m d ~ U M N U N N ~ N O d a qq CJ ~ CV CO o O ~ NC V O M ~A N Nt In N N O O E O N N V C O U d m A u ~ m « ~` ti ~ ~ in v M ~ ~ p N ~ "'~ N N I~ O O M ~ Y O O ^ O O U ~ ~ ~ N N W m a A A W U ti O ~. ~ ~ M O O ~ ^ O N N Cn N a 0 O C O U ~ N N W °- Y ~ a i o c N ~ U f07 N U N N ~ O N m Q Y a s ~ V ~ N ~ N U J O O ch N ~ cv w ~ ° cv ¢_ °v o °v O ~ ci z g U w ~ O U N ~ ~ ~ W ~ N ~ ~ O Ch ~ M N N N ~ Q p_^ ~-- O ~ ~ O z O Vj N m ~ ~ ~ o ~ Q ~ ~ E _ o ~ m ~ tri O _rn d W ~. v rn ~ m Z ~ t ~' ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ rn ~ ~ O d ~ ~ W t C L C ~ ~ ~ H J ~ ~ ~ ~ '-~ E ~ ~ E ~ 0 t E ~ ~ E- ~ ~ ~ w w ~ m m o ~ ' p y ~ ~ Z F- t rn n ~ ~ ~ ~--~ ° m J a -p Z p ~ a ~ s m m m m - E I_ ~ E > 00 ~ ~ ~ c c c o ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ , a° a° a° ~ ~c "a cn ~ ~ ~ ~ cn vmi ~ ai Z Cn ~ O u> to O O O ~ ~~ 3 .~ .-- .O w y 0 v gyn. 3 ~ O ~ M W ~ N_ ~ v ~0 O ,,, 'A O u ~ N ~ aJ ..C . C 3 N v :a ,, aw O (--~ O q a) C 0 b ~ :: o '~ ,~J q u ~ o '] V ~ ~ o ;~ °~ w ao w o n. o -o ca ~ O O ~ pp ~ `~ v p O O` a H ~ N 0 U ~ nNV (ud w ~ '~ CJ ~ ~+ v ~ y p ~y v v H q ~ ~ 'v w 'b R u ~ ~ 3 N N ~ ~ U u ,9 ~ o C ~ -d c~ ~ o u v ;: a u v v, ~ v iF N .L] x ~ V v ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ O C v a ~ b o v II v M U d V D_ Z Q Z U t- Q w rn N x W O V ~\ .1 y Y'~ -lam i '.. :~i. M1~. 1 Yt~„a~ q't- ~. _ -,~iZ. ~.Catcrairi .. '! q ~~ • ~': .~ ~- ., '~ ,~~ ~ ~ '~~': V a_!. r } ~~ ! 4 __i.1 ~!' ,il i ;~ ~; ~ ~.. i~ 'd %! ~q ~!~'. 'kr ~ :~li 249 East Grand EIR Traffic f h Yo Caien Park ; ~ BA Sraciary/; ~~ ~ %• • Figure '13-4 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Bus and Shuttle Routes ~~ •••••••••-•- Caltrain Shuttle ~ Existing CalTrain Station BART Shuttle •••••••••• Bicy{e Paths and Routes CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Route 292: San Francisco-SF Airport-Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 30- to 60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays. Caltrain Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue in South San Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday. Caltrain/BART Shuttles Van shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S.101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service to/from the Colma BART station. Shuttle stops are provided along East Grand Avenue in the project vicinity, The Gateway Area/Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue. There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. The Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers in the Utah/Grand/Littlefield area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot Court, Grandview Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Haskin Way and Utah Avenue. There are six trips in the morning and six trips in the afternoon on the BART shuttle, with seven morning and seven afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. Shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute periods. The shuttles are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board QPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent). PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Sidewalks are in place along both sides of East Grand Avenue in the project vicinity. Allerton Avenue has a sidewalk along the west side of the street but not along the east side of the street. Cabot Road has sidewalks around its cul-de-sac adjacent to the project site. The sidewalk on the north side of the street extends to Allerton Avenue, while the sidewalk on the south side of the street extends only half-way to Allerton Avenue. There are no bicycle Ianes striped or posted along East Grand Avenue, Cabot Road or Allerton Avenue in the Project area. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-16 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION FREEWAY OPERATION Analysis Methodology Freeway segments are evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manua! as specified by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Planning level lane capacities have been determined based on a theoretical maximum of 2,350 vehicles per lane per hour along sections with no auxiliary lanes. Based upon a 2005 count of the U.S.101 freeway by Crane Transportation Group at the Oyster Point interchange, where peak hour factor and truck percentages were obtained, the capacity of a four-lane one-way segment of U.S.101 during peak commute hours in South San Francisco is considered to be 8,880 vehicles per hour (2,220 vehicles per lane per hour), with LOS E for volumes between 7,900 and 8,880 vehicles, LOS D for volumes between 6,340 and 7,899 vehicles, and LOS C for volumes below 6,340 vehicles. The hourly capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 1,500-foot auxiliary lane is considered to be 9,750 vehicles, while the capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 2,000-foot auxiliary lane is considered to be 10,170 vehicles. San Mateo CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county boarder, the LOS standard was set as E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing level of service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on aCMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial, environmental or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions. A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic originating outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance. Existing Freeway Operation Existing levels of service on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based upon Crane Transportation Group's 2005 AM and PM peak period counts of the U.S.101 freeway at the Oyster Point interchange and from Caltrans' February and August 2004 counts of the U.S.101 freeway in South San Francisco. Year 2005 interchange ramp counts were used to derive volumes for freeway segments lacking current counts. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAET FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-17 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Tables 13-4 and 13-5 show existing freeway level of service results based on the 2004/2005 traffic counts when compared to the standard capacity of a four-lane segment or segments with auxiliary lanes. Results are summarized below. AM PEAK HOUR Southbound LOS E LOS D Northbound LOS E LOS D PM PEAK HOUR Southbound LOS D Northbound LOS D LOS E North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp From Oyster Point Boulevard to south of the Produce/ Airport off-ramp South of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp From the East Grand Avenue off-ramp to north of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange All locations From south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp to the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange The San Mateo County Congertian Management Program 2003 Monitoring Report (Fehr and Peers, July 29, 2003), identified AM peak period LOS D operations in 2003 for U.S.101 between the San Francisco County Line and I-380 based on travel time surveys. The 2001 LOS for this segment was measured at E and the 1999 LOS was F. This indicates that traffic congestion has lessened somewhat over the past several years, most likely due to employment reductions in San Francisco and the Peninsula. FUTURE BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS The proposed project's traffic impacts have been evaluated in relation to year 2008 and year 2020 Base Case conditions. Year 2008 reflects the first year the 249 East Grand Avenue project could be completely constructed and fully occupied, while 2020 represents the City's General Plan horizon. This section details the process to determine Base Case traffic operating conditions for both horizon years. Year 2008 Base Case The year 2008 baseline conditions include traffic generated by approved development in the study area, as well as traffic generated by projects that are under construction. Based on recent observed construction and occupancy schedules in South San Francisco, it may be assumed that these approved development projects will be completed and occupied within the next three years. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-18 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13-4 FREEWAY OPERATION DM PF~K HnUR Year 2008 Existing Base Case Base Case + Project Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Project Increment Percent Increase Total Vol. LOS SOUTHBOUND North of SB Off-Ramp to 8350 E 9392 F 191 2.04% 9583 F Bayshore Blvd.i0yster Point Blvd. (San Mateo Origins Only) (188) (A) (192} {A) Between Oyster Point SB 7970 D 8683 D 20 0.2% 8703 E On-Ramp and GrandlMiller SB Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Onty) (174) (A) (174} (A) 7160 D 7604 D 0 0% 7604 D Between GrandlMiller SB Off-Ramp and Produce/Airport SBOff- Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (152) (A) {152) (A) South of Produce) 6460 D 6904 D 0 0% 6904 D Airport Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (138) (A) (138) (A) NORTHBOUND South of East Grand Off- 9050 E 10,424 F 237 2.3% 10,661 F Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (7401) (D) (7569) (D) South of Grand Ave On- 7650 D 8761 E 0 0% 8761 E Ramp (San Mateo Origins Onty) (6220) (C) (6220) (C) Between Grand Ave. On- 8195 D 9349 E 15 0.2% 9364 E Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (6638) (C) (6648) (C) North of Oyster Point On- 8065 D 8517 D 30 0.4% 8547 D Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (6047) (C} (6068) (C) Year 200 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-19 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13-5 FREEWAY OPERATION PM PEAK HOUR Year 2006 Existln Base Case Base Case + Pro ect Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Pr°ject Increment Percent Increase Total Vol. LOS SOUTHBOUND North of SB Off-Ramp to 6965 D 7389 D 36 0.5% 7425 D Bayshore Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. (San Mateo Origins Only) (296) (A) (297) (A) Between Oyster Point SB 7990 D 8947 E 4 0.1% 8951 E On-Ramp and GrandlMiller SB Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (358) (A) (358) (A) Between GrandlMiller SB 7320 D 8212 E 0 0% 8212 E Off-Ramp and Produce/Airport SB Off- Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (328) (A) (328) (A} South of Produce/ 6870 D 7762 D 0 0% 7762 D Airport Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (310) (A) (310) (A) NORTHBOUND South of East Grand Off- 8100 D 8936 D 44 0.5% 8980 D Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (7685) (D) (7723) (D) South of Grand Ave On- 7345 D 7825 D 0 0% 7825 D Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (6730) (D) (6730) (D) Between Grand Ave. On- 8280 D 9045 D 102 1.1% 9147 E Ramp and Oyster Point Off- Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (7778) (D) (7866) (D) North of Oyster Point On- 9060 E 10,071 E 204 2.03% 10,275 F Ramp (San Mafeo Origins Only) (8661) (D) (8837) (D) Year ZUUU Htghmay Gapacrty Manual.9nalysls Methodology Comfiiled by: Crane Transportation Group 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-20 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Committed Road Improvements (to be in place b~20081 The Ciry of South San Francisco is currently completing construction on the final ramp improvement project at the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. The "hook ramps" project is replacing the existing "scissors" off-ramp from southbound U.S.101 to Bayshore Boulevard with a more conventional hook ramp terminating at a signalized intersection. Anew on-ramp is being constructed from Bayshore Boulevard to southbound U.S.101 from the same intersection. The hook ramps will significantly improve access to and from southern Brisbane, and will divert additional traffic from Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Additionally, intersection improvements are committed by the approved Bay West Cove development project for the intersections of Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard (change the existing second westbound left turn lane to a through lane and re-stripe the westbound through/right lane to a right turn lane), Veterans Road and Oyster Point Boulevard (widen southbound Veterans Road to add a right turn lane and re-stripe the optional through/ left lane to an optional right/through/left lane), and Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue (re-stripe the existing northbound Gateway Boulevard shared through/right turn lane to aright turn lane and re-stripe the existing eastbound Grand Avenue approach to provide a separate right turn lane}. Based upon direction from the South San Francisco Public Works Department, these were the only improvements to be assumed in place at study intersections by 2008. Figure 13-5 presents year 2008 intersection geometries and control. Aparoved Development Trip Generation South San Francisco Trip generation was estimated for approved developments in the project area (see Table 13-6). Information on approved developments was obtained from City of South San Francisco staff. In addition, traffic from both Home Depot and Lowe's stores recently proposed along Dubuque Avenue just south of the Oyster Point interchange was also included in the analysis at direction oESouth San Francisco staff (see Table 13-7). The traffic generation rates for approved development are based on the analysis conducted for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the .S'outh .San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Tranrportation Demand Management Ordinance (April 2001). Traffic counts were conducted at existing office, R&D and hotel uses in the East of 101 area. The resulting peak hour ttaff c generation rates were somewhat lower than the standard national averages reported in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation reference. In addition, all recently approved development in the East of 101 area is required to implement transportation demand management (TD1VI) measures to reduce vehicle traffic. The analysis Eor the General Plan Amendment assumes that a 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-21 a~ ~~ ~~ u~p. SB 101 ~I~t ~~ ~ f- V/ `~ ster y om ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~m n ~- ~~ ~ ~ ® Not To Scale ,` / .~ 11 ~ .L ~ ~- ``' ~- ~~ ~ ~,~ . ~ m ~ m v `~ 'hl a~~l~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ -- _ ~ ~~ ~. t US 101 NB Ramp Color ~ o~TT~ ~ ~~ c P~ c a OVSter A~ o~nr ~ ~~ ~ y . =Project site Grand Ave ~l~ ~ Drivewa ~ ~ ah ~ a~T?r~ m~ t--- pint ~ ~~~ -~, =Stop Sign ®=Signal ~ =Free Right Turn o~ ~ ~~ T Fr 1 a ~ a ~ ~" Ca ~~ a a~ T ~-- ~ ~ ~ ~'~, ~, ~ ~ '~ ~ ,` E Grand , n E r n r n r- ~ m -~ -~ ~ a 249 East Grand EIR Traffic Stud Figure 13-5 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2008 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13-6 (PAGE 10F 2) TRIP GENERATION OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA EXPECTED TO BE BUILT AND OCCUPIED BY 2008 (See References on the following page for the List of Studies Providin Traffic Pro'ections for Each Pro'ect RESULTANT PEAK HOUR TRIPS Pro'ect Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1.333 Oyster Point 81vd. Office/R8D 315,444 SOFT. 445 426 (replacing light industrial) (-94,990 SO.FT.) - 46 - 52 Net 399 374 2. East Jamie Court OfficelR&D 133,000 SOFT. 188 180 3. Britannia East Grand Office/R8D 783,530 SOFT. 1,207 1,201 Retail 8,000 SQ.FT. Child Care 8,000 SQ.FT. Fitness Center 5,000 SQ.FT. (replacing light industrial) (-354,880 SO.FT), -170 -191 Net 1,037 1,010 4. Genentech Building 5 33 R&D and 37 garage 125,000 SOFT. 61 131 5. Genentech Building 31 Office/R8D 150,972 SQ.FT. 234 225 6. Bay West Cove (part already constructed) Office 600,004 SQ.FT. 1,623 1,636 Retail 10,000 SOFT. Restaurant 10,000 SOFT. Hotel 350 Rooms 7.180 Oyster Point Office 105,000 SOFT. 100 90 B. 200 Oyster Point Office 155,000 SOFT. 147 133 9.345 East Grand RED 210,560 SOFT. 124 115 (replacing warehouse uses) - 31 - 45 Net 93 Net 70 10.285 East Grand Ave.l 349 Allerton Ave. 122 111 OfficelR~D (replacng existing site uses) - 38 - 28 Net 84 Net 83 Source: Crane Transportation Group. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-23 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13-6 jPAGE 2 OF 2) REFERENCES 1. 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Project Draft EIR (Morehouse Associates) September 2004 Final EIR (Morehouse Associates) February 2005 2. East Jamie Court Office R&D Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Morehouse Associates) September 2002 3. Britannia East Grand Project (Fuller O'Brien Property) Recirculation Draft EIR (Morehouse Associates) February 2002 4. Genentech Site Access-Buildings 33 & 37 Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus Parking Garage (Building 37) (Fehr & Peers) December 2003 5. Genentech Building 31-Administrative Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Lamphier-Gregory/Fehr & Peers) February 2005 6. Bay West Cove Commercial Report Supplemental EIR (Morehouse Associates) October 2002 7., 8. 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Projects Draft Traffic Analysis Report (Hexagon Transportation Consultants) October 2001 Traffic Impact Report 345 East Grand Avenue R&D Office Replacing Warehouse Use (Crane Transportation Group) November 2001 10. Traffic Impact Report 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton Avenue R&D Office Replacing Existing Site Uses (Crane Transportation Group) July 2002 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-24 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13-7 HOME DEPOT TRIP GENERATION DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS 2-Wa Tri s Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Use Size Rate Vol Rate Voi Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Home Depot 125,794 SQ.FT. 29.8 (40) 3750 .65 82 .55 69 1.15 145 1.30 164 + 25% Saf ety Factor 940 21 17 36 41 TOTAL 4690 103 86 181 205 Trip Rate Source: Trip Gerrerahon, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transpottation Engineers, 2003. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group. LOWE'S PROJECT TRIP GENERATION DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS 2-Wa Trl s Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Lowe's 148,749 SQ.FT. 29.8 4434 .65 97 .55 82 1.15 171 1.30 193 West Marine Bldg.- North Area 6,590 SQ.FT. 44.3 292 .72 5 .48 3 1.8 12 1.8 12 Subtotal 4726 102 85 183 205 + 25% Safety Factor 1182 26 21 46 51 Existing West Marine Store {No Change) - NA* 2 0 14 12 TOTAL 5908** 130 106 243 268 * NA =Not surveyed for daily trip generation. ** Does not include existing West Marine store. Trip Rate Source: Lowe's: Trip Gerreruti°>r, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003; Specialty retail: Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 2002. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group. LOWE'S SITE NET CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION LOWE'S $ WEST MARINE BUILDING MINUS EXISTING SITE USES AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS Use Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Lowe's and West Marine Bldg. 130 106 243 268 Existing Site Uses {including West Marine Bldg.) - 42 - 37 -108 - 86 Net Change in Sile Trip Generation +gg +gg +135 +182 Source: Crane Transportation Group. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-25 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 9.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates. Brisbane Traffic generated by development expected to be completed in Brisbane by the year 2008 was projected using a two percent per year growth rate in traffic accessing South San Francisco via Bayshore Boulevard. Regional Traffic Growth on US 101 North and southbound AM and PM peak hour traffic on the U.S.101 freeway not associated with any on- or off-ramp in South San Francisco was projected to grow at a straight line rate of one percent per year from 2005 to 2008. Aptiroved Development Trip Distribution The estimated distribution of approved development traffic was based upon employee surveys conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (Brady and Associates with Barton Aschman Associates, January 1994). Inbound and outbound traffic generation from each development was distributed according to the percentages shown in Table 13-8. Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2008 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 13-6 and 13-7. Year 2008 Base Case Intersection Operation Table 13-1 shows that during the AM peak hour all analyzed intersections would be operating at acceptable levels of service with year 2008 Base Case volumes, with three exceptions. The stop sign controlled Allerton Avenue Approach to East Grand Avenue would be operating at LOS F conditions. In addition, the signalized East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Road intersection would be operating at LOS F conditions. Also, the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp intersection would be operating at LOS E. Table 13-2 shows that during the PM peak hour all analyzed intersections would be operating acceptably, with two exceptions. The stop sign controlled Allerton Avenue approach to East Grand Avenue would be operating at LOS F conditions as would the signalized Airport/Gateway/Mitchell intersection. The lack of a left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach to Allerton Avenue would result in frequent extended queues behind a stopped vehicle waiting for a gap in westbound traffic in order to make a left turn. Vehicles in the queue would then begin to pull around the stopped vehicle. This would be a significant safety concern. Year 2008 Base Case Intersection Signalization Needs By 2008, both AM and PM peak hour Base Case volumes would be exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels at the Allerton Avenue/East Grand Avenue intersection. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-26 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13-8 TRAFFIC ~ISTRIRIiTIr1N Direction South San Franasco Develo ment Year 2005 US 101 North/San Francisco 29 US 101 South 48 South San Francsco (cenUal area) 3 Daly CitylColma via Sister Cities Blvd. 8 Daly CitylColma via Guadalupe Parkway 0 Brisbane 7 Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 3 Local east of US 101 2 TOTAL 100% Year 2020+ US 101 NorthlSan Francisco 2g US 101 South 48 South San Francisco (central area) 2 Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 1 Daly CitylColma via Guadalupe Parkway 0 Daly City/Colma and South San Francisco (central area) 8 via Railroad Avenue Extension Brisbane 7 Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 2 San Brunolsouih via San Mateo Avenue 1 Local east of US 101 2 TOTAL 100% Source: City of South San Francisco, DraJsSr~p/ementalF,nvimnnmxtallnipart Report, South San Francisco General flan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, Aprd 2001. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-27 542 ~ ~- 5 ~-- 205 a i- 869 110 -i ~ f ` 50 185 ~ 405 n i 111 r nd '` 281 195 ~ ~1 t (~ 299 -- 30 290 224 . 90 ~' 875 a i 140 140 280 z1 r. 335 ~ ~ 4 a j' 320 65 ~ ~ `1 1 (~ 260 --- ~ 210 200 36i 130 -i. ~ t- 15 12080 10 ~ f' 205 fJ j l~ m r 35 Mi h !l 140 ~ v~ ~ t (~ 295 -s x470 255 360 465 "i ~ 480 i 15 105 I 25 f-- 5 i ~- i- 25 790 ~ y ~ t (~ 5D .-- ~. 75 240 5 520 'i. a ~ t- 55 39 53 4 m f- 715 1 81 ~ 1483 --- ~ ~ 249 East Grand EIR Traffic ys 65 10 5 t. 10 ~ ~ ~ ~- 580 250 ~ 50 1805 y Oster 310 ~, oin ~6t ~- m ~ t ~ ~~ 1210 F21055145 335 ~ ~ m h P~ ~-- 320 5 1 1 ~ L 6 j- 25 ~ f , 4 ~ ~-- 155 Oyster • ~` ,`- 20 om r Point 1400 --~ m 0 60 ~ ~~ 355 ~ ~ 675 -- ~ 240 ~ 30 y 485 ~ 10 . =Project Site Grand Ave Not To Scale NORTN 0 ~ L 8 140 ~ 1 ~- ~ ,` 85 F 16 ~ nil ~ ~ 610 -- ~25 0 50 35 'i ~ 45 ~ '~ 25 13 55 0 ~-- 10 1 ~-'~7 3 ~ •`1 t ~' 8 -r 20 60 20 7 5 295 720 i 90 .~ l 1. •' 3 ~ 205 Drivewa ~ h 7 ~' cn `1 t (~ 6 .~ n 10 230 590 ~ 5 ~ a 90 20 o L 20 4 ~ ~-- 490 E rn 200 ~ ~~2115 -- ~- 90 L. 45 50 T L 25 0 ~ ~ '~ 0 25 115 1 ~ ~- 445 130 45 - ~ 1 ~ ° ~- 390 0 0 `~ ~ ~ 1 ~ °• ~- 490 ~ - - j 90 - ,` 120 ~ 20 E r n E r n 185 ~' G1 ~ t f 660 ~ _ ~1 t (~ 0 ~ ~1 t f 2415 --- W 70 295 1955 --- F 160 a 60 75 1840 -- ~ 70 50 5 0 105 ~ 210 ~ 120 ~. ~ 2 i 0 9 0 ~- 465 35 ~ r- ~ 1 (~ 1755 --- ~ 45 5560 90 ~ n Figure 13-6 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 2008 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes 60 416 a i 5 '~ ~ 300 ~ ,r 424 146 ~, ~ t ` 111 402 ~ 510 a'~ 313 150 326 ~ ~ 334 ~ 1 4 ~ . ,~- 601 165 ~ `1 t f 100 --- 95 470 106 100 ~, . 95 9815 150 a i 295 r 1 20 135 ! ,~ ~1 t f 185 --- ~ 125 225180 205 'i. ~ 155 m ~ 20 535 15 F f- 715 ,~ l~ °i ,,~ 75 Mit e 65 ,' rn ~ t (~ 100 --- n54014065 355 ~ ~ 510 ~ 25 255 II 25 i ~ i- 15 - ,` 25 1 1 W n r- NB Ramp Color 475 .~ y ~ t (~ 40 -- '265 20 315 X220 ~, a O 120 25 ~ L 90 ~J 4 ~ t- 2100 ~ rn 72 ~ 460 -+ 249 East Grand EIR Traffic y 360 50 5 s KJ t 10 1 4 ~ 2535 30 ~ 105 r0 ster 3 60 ~ orn ~ 0{ ~ oy 2 F 965 15 65 40 55 ~' ~ 285 '~- 115 5 i 4 ~- 1615 r 450 E r n 85s~-,rr- 635 --> ~ 70 10570 95 ~ ~' m ~ 1 f- 1285 75 0 3 - ,` 45 ~ ~ ~ m ~-- 595 `` O ster ~ ,` 15 orn r 440 -- m ~ ~ Poi5t ~ c~~l '~ (~ 145 ';. 465 25 y 180 --- ` 465 25 250 ~ 1 . =Project Site Not T/o Scale V NORTH ~ p '~ 7 11 I1 2 ~ f-- 525 ~ 1 ~- '~ ~ 50 Fr 3 ,' afl t f 215 -- ~55 0 95 30 ~. 5 65 ~ '~- 45 5 I 40 0 ~- 10 i ~- = i' 25 10 ~ •~ t f 10 -- 10 40 25 30 ~ a 190 20 0 ~'- 15 EJ ly ~ f-' 1905 rn 85 .~ 525 --- 115 15 o f 40 0 O b '~ 0 11 30 '~ 0 530 I 1 ~- ~ ~-- 1450 y ' 445 0 0 ~ ~ 1 ~-~ .~-- 1815 3 10 1 ~ l ~- ~-- 1745 350 j ,~ ~ E Grand Grand E rand 190 ~ m~ t f 0~ ~1 1 f 5 .~' ,.. ~l t (~ 490 --- 0 200 55 35 520 -- 100 0 20 495 -~ M 55 1 11! 75 'i 10 -~ 60 ~' a Figure 13-7 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 2008 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Year 2008 Base Case Vehicle Oueuing Table 13-3 shows that by year 2008, all three analyzed off-ramp intersections would have 95th percentile off-ramp queues less than available storage during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. Maximum demand would be about 70 percent of available storage at the Miller Avenue off-ramp, about 50 percent of available storage at the Wondercolor Lane off-ramp and about 25 percent of available storage at the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound flyover off-ramp. Maximum demand at all three locations would occur during the AM peak hour. All other 95th percentile queuing at the three analysis intersections would be within available storage with the exception of the left turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Gateway Boulevard, which would have a demand 10 feet longer than available storage during the AM peak hour. The 50th percentile queue for this turn lane would be less than the available 200-foot storage. Year 2008 Base Case Freeway Operation Tables 13-3 and 13-4 show that by 2008 with Base Case traffic the following freeway segments would be experiencing LOS E or F operation. AM PEAK HOUR Southbound LOS F North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange Northbound LOS F South of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp LOSE North of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp to the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange PM PEAK HOUR Southbound LOSE South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange to the Produce/Airport off-ramp Northbound LOSE North of Oyster Point Boulevard interchange Year 2008 Base Case ~X/ithout Projects Intersection Improvement Needs East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Intersection • Prohibit left turns from Allerton Avenue to East Grand Avenue until the intersection is signalized -or- cut back the hillside on the northeast corner of the intersection to improve sight lines to/from the east to at least 400 feet. • Stripe a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach. This will require removal of parking on the south side of East Grand Avenue. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-30 CHAPTER 13; TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • Signalize the intersection when warranted. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.1 seconds average vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B-17.9 seconds average vehicle delay East Grand Avenue/Littlefzeld Avenue Intersection • Widen the northbound Littlefield Avenue approach to provide two intersection approach lanes. Stripe as one exclusive right turn lane and a combined left/through/ right turn lane. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS C-33.1 seconds average vehicle delay South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue Intersection • Add a second through lane to the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour: LOS D-35.5 seconds average vehicle delay Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp • There is no practical way to mitigate the unacceptable level of service. Year 2020 Base Case The year 2020 Base Case (without project) conditions include traffic generated by approved development in the study area, traffic generated by project which are completed or under construction and were not yet fully occupied, traffic generated by proposed projects, and traffic generated by potential development of vacant or underutilized land in the study area. This evaluation of year 2020 + conditions is based upon the Draft S'upplementul Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportaizon Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001 with updates to project descriptions and needed improvements based upon a series of EIRs and traffic studies conducted over the past four years (see Table 13-5 reference list). The proposed project in the SEIR consists of a General Plan Amendment and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, and it includes a set of physical street improvements as well as policies requiring TDM measures and traffic reduction at employment sites. The program of street improvements and TDM measures is referred to throughout this EIR chapter as the Eart of 101 I"runspartatron Improvements Plan (TIP). 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-31 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION General Plan Amendment Street Improvements The East of 101 Transportation Improvements Plan includes a series of physical improvements that would be implemented along with a TDM program approved by the Ciry in order to mitigate traffic impacts of the potential development of the East of 101 area. General Plan Policy 4.2-1-6 is amended to read as follows: "4.2-1-6 Incorporate as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) needed intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in the East of 101 area." The following improvements are included in the East of 101 TIP and are therefore assumed for the Year 2020 + Baseline scenario (see Figure 13-8). In addition, supplemental mitigation needs have been determined through more recent EIRs (listed in Table 13-5). South San Francisco Planning staff have indicated that these supplemental measures have all been included as part of .Street Improvement program. Those measures are shown in italics in the following lists and have been assumed in place for the year 2020 Base Case and Base Case + project evaluation. Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue/U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp: Widen the off-ramp and reconstruct retaining wall to provide a second left turn lane. Re- stripe the existing off-ramp combined left/through/right turn lane as a through/ right turn lane. Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue: Re-stripe the existing southbound Airport Boulevard right turn lane as a shared through-right lane and re-stripe the southbound shared through-left lane as a left turn lane. Widen eastbound Grand Avenue to add two left turn lanes, re-stripe the eastbound shared through-left lane as a through lane and the eastbound right turn lane as a shared through-right lane. Provide a third westbound left turn lane. South Airport Boulevard and U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane: Widen the northbound off-ramp approach at South Airport Boulevard to provide a second right turn lane. Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Add a second westbound left turn lane on East Grand Avenue and a separate right turn lane on eastbound East Grand Avenue. Re-stripe northbound Gateway Boulevard to provide one left, one through and one right turn lane. Widen northbound Gateway Boulevard to provide a second right turn lane. • Harbor Way/Forties Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Widen westbound Grand Avenue to provide one additional through lane and one additional left turn lane. Widen eastbound Grand Avenue to provide one additional through lane. Widen southbound Forbes Boulevard to provide one additional through lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to a right turn only lane. Widen 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-32 n~® 0 a~ '~ . - o~ I ~'1 n `. ~~ o ~ Not To Scale ~ ~~ n ~ NORTH '~ t?~~ ,~ X11 ~- a ~ n~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i •,•, ~ ~ t--- ~i® ~ ,~ rr ~ ~' o a J ~~~~ US t 01 YB Ramp der- Cotor ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ E Gr n East Grand EIR ~~ ~~- ` ~y .~__._ 'I _ t-- y '` ster ~~1~~ ~~ ~ ®. <-- ster '` O1R ~. ~ `1`1 f N . =Project site Grand Ave m a; L d ~ ~- ~~~Ir ~ 1 r~r -~ m ~~ ~1~~ ~ Drivewa ~ a~ t ~'~ m~ ~' ~-- ~int ~~ ~ =Stop Sign =Signal =Free Right Turn ~ o~ ~~ T Forbes 1 a a ~ n m ''~ Cabot ~r a ~~ o ~ F 7.. Figure 13-8 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2020 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION northbound Harbor Way to provide one additional through lane, one right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to a through lane. • South Airport Boulevard and Utah Avenue: Widen southbound Airport Boulevard to provide a second left turn lane and re-stripe one northbound through lane to provide a shared through/right turn lane (in addition to the existing exclusive right turn lane). • Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue: Widen westbound South Airport Boulevard to provide one additional left turn lane, and re-stripe the existing shared through-left lane as a left turn lane for a total of three left turn lanes, one through lane and one right turn lane. Re-atripe .southbound Airport Boulevard to provide one left turn lane, hvo through lanes and one ahared through-right turn lane. • South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue: Widen eastbound South Airport Boulevard to provide one additional right turn lane and re- stripe the existing shared through right lane as a through lane. (total four-lane approach) Widen westbound Mitchell Avenue to provide two additional through lanes and a right turn lane. Widen southbound Gateway Boulevard to provide one additional right tum lane, and change the existing shared through-right lane to a right turn lane. Re-stripe the northbound approach on South Airport Boulevard to provide one .shared right-through lane and one right turn lane. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp: Widen eastbound Oyster Point approach to provide one left turn lane, three through lanes and one right turn lane. • Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Signalize the intersection. Widen eastbound East Grand Avenue to provide a left turn lane in addition to the two through lanes. • Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Widen northbound Littlefield Avenue to provide one shared left/through/right lane and one right turn lane. Widen East Grand Avenue to provide a third eastbound through lane. • Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard: Remove the median and widen the east side of Eccles Avenue to provide two left tum lanes and an exclusive right turn lane on the northbound approach. • Gull Drive and Oyster Point Boulevard: Widen northbound Gull Drive to provide two left turn lanes and one shared through-right turn lane. • Railroad Avenue: Construct afour-lane road within the Union Pacific Railroad right-of--way between Linden Avenue and Gateway Boulevard. 249 EAST CiRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-34 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • Harbor Way: Widen to four lanes between Grand Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. • Mitchell Avenue: Widen to four lanes between Gateway Boulevard and Harbor Way. Potential Deveio ment South San Francisco The City of South San Francisco identified several projects east of U.S.101 that have been proposed, but are not yet approved for construction. Additionally, there are parcels that are known to have development potential Eor which no development applications have been filed. These projects are included in the Traffic Impact Fee Study for the East of 101 area as well as in this study for the Year 2020+ scenario. The East of 101 TIP would require developers to implement TDM policies in order to achieve the densities and development levels represented in the Year 2020+ scenario. The analysis in the SEIR for the East of 101 TIP assumes that the TDM program approved by the City will reduce peak hour traffic generation by 9.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates. Table 13-9 presents the list of future developments used in preparation of year 2020 traffic modeling projections as part of the 2001 traffic impact fee study. As previously detailed, these projections have been updated based upon changed development proposals evaluated in subsequent EIRs. Brisbane The current planning for the City of Brisbane assumes that the maximum level of Baylands development that could be accommodated without major transportation infrastructure improvements would range from one million square feet of high trip- generating uses to 4.2 million square feet of low trip-generating uses. This traffic operations analysis is based on the most conservative scenario considered in the Brisbane General Plan EIR, which would include 4.2 million square feet of development with high generating uses. This scenario would have higher traffic generation than any of the Baylands development scenarios currently assumed by the City of Brisbane. The specific land uses assumed for the Baylands subarea were not documented, so the land uses shown in Table 13-10 were assumed for this study. Year 2020 Base Case Volume Year 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case (without project} volumes are presented in Figures 13-9 and 13-10. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAET FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-35 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13-9 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROPOSED AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TReFFIr rFNFRATInN FAST AF 101 FREEWAY f2000-20201 - -- - - AM PEA K HOUR PM PEA K HOUR Pro'ect Status Size Land Use Rate Tri s Rate Tri Gateway NE Potential 315,710 SF Office 0.95 300 0.86 271 Existing -140,760 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -67 0.54 -76 Trammel Crow Potential 273,580 SF Office 0.95 260 0.86 235 Potential 11,400 SF Commercial 0.93 10 3.39 39 Potential 65 Rooms Hotel 0.27 18 0.19 13 Existing -94,990 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -46 0.54 -52 Oyster Point Marina Potential 3,250 SF Commercial 0.93 3 3.39 11 Potential 78,090 SF Office 0.95 74 0.86 67 Potential 20 Rooms Hotel 0.27 5 0.19 4 Pt. Grand Potential 2,110 SF Commercial 0.93 2 3.39 7 Potential 15 Rooms Hotel 0.27 4 0.19 3 Pt. Grand Harbor Way Potential 400,000 SF Office 0.95 380 0.86 344 Potential 23,750 SF Commercial 0.93 23 3.39 81 Potential 135 Rooms Hotel 0.27 36 0.19 26 Existing -197,880 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -95 0.54 -107 Forbes Area Potential 750,690 SF Office 0.95 713 0.86 645 Potential 279,790 SF R&D 0.59 165 0.54 151 Potential 10,590 SF Commercial 0.93 10 3.39 36 Potential 60 Rooms Hotel 0.27 16 0.19 11 Existing -366,300 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -176 0.54 -198 Eccles Area Potential 2,178,840 SF Office 0.95 2069 0.86 1874 Potential 90,790 SF Commercial 0.93 85 3.39 308 Potential 520 Rooms Hotel 0.27 140 0.19 99 Existing -799,410 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -384 0.54 -432 MRF Area Potential 35,130 SF R&D 0.59 21 0.54 19 Existing -17,570 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -8 0.54 -9 Genentech Potential 686,630 SF R&D 0.59 405 0.54 371 Grandview Area Potential 737,900 SF Office 0.95 701 0.86 634 Potential 30,750 SF Commercial 0.93 29 3.39 104 Potential 175 Rooms Hotel 0.27 47 0.19 34 Existing -329,530 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -158 0.54 -178 Dubuque Area Potential 794,580 SF Office 0.95 755 0.86 683 Potential 36,100 SF Commercial 0.93 34 3.39 123 Potential 135 Rooms Hotel 0.27 36 0.19 26 Existing -21,830 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -10 0.54 -11 SUBTOTALS Proposed 0 0 Potential 6341 6215 Existing -944 -1063 TOTAL 5397 5152 Note: Trip generation rates for proposed and potential projects were reduced by 19% to reflect a 45% alternative mode usage as presented in the East of 701 Area Plan (April 2001). Sources: City of South San lrancisco, Draft S'upplementa/F.nvimnnientalln~pad Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2007. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-36 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13-10 BRISBANE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC GENERATION r2ooo.~n2oi AM PEA K HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Plannin Subarea Size Land Use Rate Tri s Rate Tri s 1. Sierra Point 42,000 SF Retail 0.67 28 2.93 123 1,646,990 SF Office 1.56 2,569 1.49 2,454 1,100 Rooms Hotel 0.67 737 0.76 836 8,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 26 4.78 39 2. Southeast Bayshore NIA N/A N1A 0 NIA 0 3. Southwest Bayshore 35,000 SF Retail 0.67 23 2.93 102 3,500 SF Office 1.40 5 1.32 5 66,500 SF Trade Comm. 0,98 65 1.24 82 4. Brisbane Acres 210 Units SF Residential 0.74 156 1.01 213 5. Central Brisbane 139 Units SF Residential 0.74 102 1.01 140 16 Units Townhouse 0.44 7 0.55 9 6.OwIlBuckeye Canyons NIA NIA N/A 0 NIA 0 7. Quarry NIA N1A N1A 0 NIA 0 8. Crocker Park 2,500 SF Health Club 0.12 0 1.70 5 2,500 SF Retail Outlet 0.36 1 2.14 5 3,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 10 4.78 15 120,140 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 117 1.24 149 9. Northeast Ridge 87 Units SF Residential 0.74 65 1.01 88 268 Units Townhouse 0.44 118 0.55 147 214 Units Cando/Apts. 0.67 143 0.82 176 10. Northwest Bayshore 228,000 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 224 1.24 283 11. Northeast Bayshore NIA N1A N1A 0 NIA 0 12. Baylandsl~l 2,000,000 SF Retail 0.77 1,540 3.34 6,680 500,000 SF Office 1.40 700 1.32 fi60 690,000 SF R&DlEduc. 1.07 738 0.94 649 75,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 250 4.78 359 2,000 Rooms Hotel 0.67 1,340 0.76 1,520 (app.1 mil. SF) SUBTOTAL 4,200,000 SF 4,568 9,868 13. Candlestick Cove NIA NIA N1A 0 N/A 0 TOTALS 8,964 14,739 N/A = No net additional development planned. (~) Baylands land uses shown are estimated land uses to match maximum high generating traffic increment reported in General Plan EIR traffic analysis. The range of development currently considered feasible by the City of Brisbane would be one million SP of high traffic generating uses to 4.2 million SP of low traffic generating uses. Sources: City of Brisbane 1994 General Plan EIR; CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 3-37 555 a t-- 5 ~. o ~-- 170 ~ ~ 1514 SB 1t7i ramp 103 ~, ~ t 35 270 415 a L 106 160 1599 "~ .~ 1 ~• ~ r 27s Gr 530 ~ ~1 t (~ 395 --- 25 305 218 90 -i. 785 a t- 255 ~5 ~ ~- ~ ~-- 238 r 641 85 ~' •v ~ t (~ 222 --- ~ 195 40 665 135 ~ ~ m t- 40 99 85 135 ~ f- 550 •J 1 1, °' j' 40 129 .? cn f1 t (~ 513 ~ n485 1112 0 373 420 'i. ~ 605 ~ 16 ~0 ~ ~- ~ 27 1685 ,' y'h t (~ 55 ~• ~ 100 345 5 1304 ~ ~ 0 49 93 ° ~' 65 ~ 4 ~ '- 887 1 101 ~ 2074 --- 249 East Grand EIR Traffic ys 65 10 6 ,~ 20 ~ 1 4 ~ 857 250 r 55 1941 y aner 340 ~, Jg1 ~- ~~t~ t 0 1174 ~ 209 55 155 365 ~ ~' 135 L 44 1 4 ~ ioa E r n 215,' L7 ~ I (~ 2709 --- ~ 85 280542 105 ~ ~' - =Project Site Not T/o Scale V NORTH t 10 1 ` 190 ~ 1 ~- ~ ~ a8 orb 710 -- ~ 27 1 50 42 'i ~ 50 ~ i 25 5 ~ 55 o r 16 i ~- ' ,` 10 7 ~ '1 I ~ 10 -- 19 60 20 10 'i a 91 19 c L 20 •J 4 0 ~-- 508 rn 204 ~ ?610 -~ 255 T '~ 19 p ~ ~ '~ 0 215 I 43 1 ~ °~ r- 425 0 0 m ~ l ~ ~ ~. f- 625 `o' - ,~ 264 -. f 20 E an 1385 ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ * ~ I 1706 ~ 0 70 940299 1 1860 --- 50 0 5 225 ~ 170 'i L 0 9 2 0 ~-- 608 .~ j ~. j- 7s 35 ,' r- ~ t (~ 1700 ~ ,~-~ 12 5109! 99 ~ o, Figure 13-9 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes X611 ~ 1 1 ~t--6 30 ~ F 225 O ster ~ ~ + 4 ~` ~ 22 o~n er Point 1730 -- m 335 ~ c ~ 171 65 710 -i ° 40610 40 570 ~ y 550 -i 55 536 n !- 5 ~-- 295 a ,` 930 136 ~, ~ 105 401 ~ 505 a '~- 231 I 4 ~ ~ 392 i ,`" 797 rn 455 .-} ~ 1 (~ 127 -- 95 480 100 100 ~, ~ i 1085 a '~- 410 ~~ I ~ ~ f- 233 i . j"' 2083 165 ~ •-~'1 t f' 233 -- ~. 90 40 195 245 ~ ~ ~ 185 ~ ~ 90 440 80 ~ F 1736 E1 1 4 °i ,` 80 74 ~ to ~l t (~ 159 --- D550 278 143 375 ~ ~ ~ i 550 !- 27 145 I 27 ~ l ~- f- 16 .~ 27 f 7 W n r- NB Aamp Color 686 ~ A ~ t (~ 40 --- 0 315400 22 547 ~, O ~ L 115 145 40 sJ ly m ~-- 2270 ~ E rand 92 ~ 672 -- 249 East Grand EIR Traffic - =Project Site Not To Scale ~~ NORTH '~ 7 11 I1 2 `m ~-- 625 1 ~- °~' ~ 55 s 3 ~' a~ t (~ 255 --- m 60 0 100 36 ~ ~ 65 ~ !- 50 6 45 o F 10 1 ~- ' r 25 Cabot 10 ~' •~1 ? f 10 --- 11 45 25 34 'i ~ a i 190 14 a ~' 20 ~J ~ ~ ~-- 1949 91 ~ 1090 -- 455 t- 108 1065 ~ '~ 24 ~ 0 ~ L 0 5~ ~- r 480 5 ~5 l 4 a ~- 1103 y 7 0 0 °' ~ j ~ °~ 1820 '~ ' ,~ 61 c -. ,` 15 Gran E r n 85 ~ L7 ~ ? (~ 370 , T ~ t (~ 0 ~ ~ 1 (~ 848 -~ ~ 75 130142 574 --~ ~ 255 136 280 721 -~ 100 0 25 110 ~ °1 80 ~ ~ 15 ~ 360 50 10 ` '~ p s ~ . 10 ~- 1766 5 260 3 ~• '~ 1 `m ~- 3120 15 ~ r0 stet 45 nter '` O ~ 4 ~ ~- 680 ~ ~ 25 545 l O stet ~i, orn \ 7 e ~ t ~- • ~ ~ 640 --> ~ Point 65 1' ~ ~ m t 75 '~ ~ 1353 OJ 559 30 290 ~ y 230 ~- ' 741 3 33 15 530 ~ ~, v 345 L 0 30 11 1 ~-- 1719 ~ j ~- r 370 n s ~ ~'1 t r' 686 -.~ ~ 59 1 49; 49 ~, n Figure 13-10 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Level of Service Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that with Base Case volumes and all programmed improvements, 16 of the 17 analyzed intersections would experience acceptable operation during both the AM and PM peak hours. The same intersection would be experiencing unacceptable operation during both time periods. AM & PM Peak Hour Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp: LOS F Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Signatization Needs By 2020 no remaining unsignalized intersections evaluated in this study would have AM or PM peak hour Base Case volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. Year 2020 Base Case Vehicle Oueuing Table 13-11 shows that by the year 2020, the 95th percentile off-ramp queue would exceed available storage on the U.S.101 northbound off-ramp approach to the South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane intersection during the AM peak hour (with a demand about 360 feet greater than the available storage to be provided after planned improvements at this location). This result assumes signal timing to optimal level of service at the intersection and not to clear off-ramp traffic. Ninety-fifth percentile off-ramp queues at the Miller Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard intersections would be less than available storage during the AM and PM peak hours for the 2020 horizon (using about 70 percent of storage on the Miller Avenue southbound off-ramp and 30 percent of storage on the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound flyover off-ramp). All other 95th percentile queuing at the three analysis intersections would be within available storage with the exceptions of the left turn lane on the Ciry controlled eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Gateway Boulevard (which would have a demand 150 feet longer than available storage during the AM peak hour) and the left turn lane on the City controlled westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Gateway Boulevard (which would have a demand 20 feet longer than available storage during the PM peak hour). The 50th percentile queue for the eastbound left turn lane would also be longer than available storage (a 270-foot AM peak hour queue in the 200-foot-long eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard left turn). However, the 50th percentile queue in the westbound left turn lane during the PM peak hour would be less than available storage (a 90-foot PM peak hour queue in the 125-foot-long westbound Oyster Point Boulevard left turn lane). 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-40 Z O U oG V Q Z Q z Q d z ~--' W a Q 2 V 0 O N Q~ W N W W r ~ r r W W 'J V m = H ~ W J Z w v W d F=- u'~ _o d ~ m V ~ O N d ~ ~ ` m N fD <f - ~ ~ ~ N ~ O M O r ~ O ~ ( O U o0 N V ti N O ~ d a N m V N ~ 'd' O N O O M O ~ O U o00 N t V C~D N O ~ O ~ ~ ~ 0 0 m d N O ~ ~ ~ C ~ O to ~ M t0 O ~ O O = Y O ~ N In Q M N CO M ~p ~ v ~ N m a ~ a ~ m ~ V y m U O N Q T M ~ O ~ O ~fJ W M ~ ~ C ~J Q M U7 ~ ~ ~ Z N O V N M O N N g w O c ~ ~ ~ U sN ~ a ~ N (1 ~ O O N ` O M ~ C ~pp l " CD M O V' ) ! N N ~ ~ m Q ~ e- O lL. O ~^ ro .-. ~' j o ~ c o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ o F- ~ Q rn `r, LLi vi Z v~ W E r E d Q o o ° E Q ~O ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ `- t ~ ~ ~ m ~ o J Cn ~ ~ ~ L ~ J J 1-- es ~ ? J J ~ ~ 1 ~ F - F m m o ~ S W W ~ > ~ Z E- t v~ a a J m J ~ Z ~ ~ m m m ro E ~ ~ m a E E c c c ~ ~ a ~ o ~ ~ ~ a° a a° Q ~ ~ ~ Q W ° a o ~„ o ~„ o o ~' ~' ' Q °O ° z ° o ~ 00 o 0 0 ° v i ~i vi v i ~J' ~ xa B N N y N 'C v w O U ~ ..~ O 'a U ~ ~ M W A. L1, ~ ~ v C ~ 'A M U y p ,°., ~ .[ v ••-y V R. w ~ o '~ ~ I° o N -~-~ ~u ~. C" ~ 0 v '~ u ~ C v C C~ O cd L ~ w O v~ ao o a .: ,~ O "O U ~ O O ce Aq O. y, C a w is ~+ ~ O ~ ~' ~" a td w v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ u o ~ ~ H '~ v y [ .~ °"' ' v 7 4. v ~ w 'b ~ ~ u .~ 3 ~ p v v v C u ~ ~e > y ~ o u v ~ v ~ ~ v * `~ .n 7 ,o v ~ ~ e D" ~ o Q 4 o. fi .+ L.J 0 ... M W U O Q. Z Q 0 z U F- Q w ~t N LL, 0 u W H Q z 0 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Improvements to Offset Year 2020+ Base Case (Without Project) Unacceptable Operation South Airport Boulevard/U.S.101 Northbound Ramps/Wondercolor Lane • Signal phasing adjustments would be able to reduce the 95th percentile northbound queue to within acceptable limits during the AM peak hour while maintaining an acceptable level of service. Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS D-47.3 seconds average vehicle delay, 1,620 feet of 95th percentile off-ramp vehicle storage demand (with 1,675 feet of available storage) Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off- Ramp No feasible physical improvements beyond those included in the East of 101 TIP and in subsequent EIRs in the East of 101 area have been identified for the one intersection exceeding the Ciry's level of service standard that also has 50th percentile vehicle queuing exceeding available City required storage in the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound left turn pocket during the AM peak traffic hour. The following General Plan policies and their related programs would mitigate the Probable Future impacts at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/U.S.lOI Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp: Accept LOS E or F after finding that: • There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and • The uses resulting in the poorer than acceptable level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. The East of 101 TIP will require all new development to implement a TDM and traffic monitoring program in order to achieve the maximum development densities. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PR0IECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-42 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 13.3 IMPACT .ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's aesthetic impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: Project impacts would be significant if they result in any of the following conditions: 1. The project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system. 2. Signalized intersection operation would change from LOS A, B, C or D to LOS E or F. 3. Movements or approaches at unsignalized intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F. 4. Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. 5. The proposed project would increase traffic entering an intersection by two percent or more with a signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and already operating at LOS F. 6. The proposed project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding signal warrant criteria levels. 7. Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S.101 freeway from LOS E to LOS F, or would increase volumes by more than one percent on a freeway segment with Base Case LOS F operation. S. The proposed project would increase Base Case 50th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections to unacceptable lengths, or, if Base Case 50th percentile queuing between intersections was already greater than available storage, the project would increase queuing volumes by two percent or more (City of South San Francisco criteria for City controlled intersection approaches). 9. The proposed project would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections to unacceptable lengths, or, if Base Case 95th percentile queuing between intersections was already greater than available storage, the project would increase queuing volumes by two percent or more (Caltrans criteria). 10. The project worsens traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-43 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 11. The project would not provide City code required parking. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Table 13-12 shows that a total of 540,000 square feet of research and development or office uses would be likely to generate 664 inbound and 92 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 124 inbound and 605 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This assumes a 9.5 percent reduction in peak hour trips due to a moderate TDM program and assumed office rather than R&D uses to provide a conservative analysis, as office trip generation has been found to be higher than from R&D uses. Table 13-13 presents the projected trip generation from the Georgia Pacific manufacturing plant that was associated with the 249 East Grand Avenue site up to the middle of 2004. As shown in Table 13-14, after elimination of those trips associated with existing uses on the project site, the net increase in traffic due to total site redevelopment would be about 515 two-way trips during the AM peak hour and 485 two-way trips during the PM peak hour. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Project traffic was distributed to the subregional roadway network based upon East of 101 development traffic patterns contained in the April 2001 Draft SEIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance (see Table 13-7). Overall, about 62 percent of project traffic should be destined to/from south and southwest of the site, with 38 percent destined to/from the north and northwest. However, it is likely that project drivers destined to/from the U.S.101 freeway either north or south would choose to access the freeway via several routes and interchanges. AM and PM peak hour project traffic is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Figures 13-11 and 13-12. Figures 13-13 and 13-14 present resultant year 2008 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + project volumes, while Figures 13-15 and 13-16 present resultant year 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + project volumes. PROJECT IMPACTS Impact 13-1 Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The Project would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours (515 trips during the AM peak hour and 485 trips during the PM peak hour, if allowing for the reduction in traffic from the former Georgia Pacific manufacturing use) or 756 trips during the AM peak hour and 729 trips during the PM peak hour if assuming all site trip generation is new (see Tables 13-11, 13-12 and 13-13). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specific that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-44 Z O t= 5 U z z O F=- O a Z Q H m Fw- d V ¢~ a 0 a 0 f- O O ~ H ~ 2 W Z t..1 W Nam ~~~ ~~z !- Q m W H ~~w az ow W ~ a oa O ~ d ~ O 2 Y Q W a e 1/) x a H a 0 w a 0 0 C1, C w H v V '~ a E 0 V F- z w a O J W W ~ D H 1W- F N ~ W Q x ~z~ Paz m Z Qua r ~ ~w ~- w Q ~ W N ~ O W a s ,"'a .~ n. a ~ ~ v ~ o' z a v ~ m ~ ~ N > ~ v y ~ ~ ti ~ O 0 x Y Q j a0 v ~ ~ ~ c N > N y J ~' ~ ~ N N N [O ~ ~ ("~ ~ °o_ ~ ~ ~°> C7 M ~ rn ~ ~ y 'C ~ .~. U v .~. 0 Q+ a H 0 c 0 .~ 0 II. H c U .a ^. E 0 V 0 Z W U W ~ c~ ~ ~aQ ~~~ J Z N -ma- z 'tea' w~ W atS ~ („) W LL Z O a a 0 (~ 0 a 0 a H c V V .. 0 M w U Q V w Z Q z U H Q W rn V N w N U 0 LL Q 2 A l ~ ,` 20 7l r SB 10i ramp 2 -i a 22 ~ 1. ~-- 3 Gra 9 --- 6 A '~- 2 i' 34 13 -- m 36 ~ ' i h I 6 ,' cn t (~ 7 --- a 7 13 U 101 W nder- NB Ramp ~ Color 20 -~ a 46 '~. ~ O o~ c •- 1$ ~ rn 39 --- f' '~ 6 ~ 60 ~- 18 4 r 36 m 276 -- ~ 13 249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study f- 14 ster om ~ 170 --- ~ 4 40 ~ y . =Project Site L 1 0 o t- 20 7 a ~- 60 62 4 E ~ r ~ 349 --- u=, ~ 362 ,' 26 20 -- ~ ,i- 3 r pint ~~ 170 ~ = 14 Not T~o S\cale V NORTH ~ 177 F 33 "i n `1 f 3 15 a m 210 C 18 ~' 10 ~ 46 a io 9 1 'f-7 ~ ~ E Gr nd 46 r 7 ,` 4 E r n 20 -- ~ g 26 1 ~ n Figure 13-11 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP AM Peak Hour Project Increment a t- 2 ' 4 ~ ~-- 12 ,~ 4 3 -- ~ 1 a o ~' 12 _ ~ ,` 222 2 --- ~0 '~ 'f'- 74 1 ,' ~cn 1 (~ 1 -s a 2 2 ~-- 89 O ster o~n ~ 30 --- ~ 1 10 -i y 30 ~ 89 2 Not T/o~Scale ~~ NORTH a .. ~ 60 6 0 4 ~w1 ..I g ,' ~ o' 11 ~ 42 1 ~- 120 0 '~ 6 ~ t- 322 O~ 407 6 mat- 5 ~-- 31 ~ c ~ f- 120 l~ ,` 160 4 ~ ~ 109 ~ t-~ ~. ~ 30 j 30 _ ~ rn E ran rn ~ ~ f ~ (~ 67 ~ 4 ~ ~ ~1 f I r 8 --- 52 --- ~ 3 66 --- 0 4 4 -~ 6 ~ ~ 6 5 n c n 249 East Grand EIR Traffic Stud I• Figure 13-12 I CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP PM Peak Hour , ~ Project Increment CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact. PROJECT IMPACTS Impact 13-1 Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips Duritng Peak Hours. The Project would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours (515 trips during the AM peak hour and 485 trips during the PM peak hour, if allowing for the reduction in traffic from the former Georgia Pacific manufacturing use) or 756 trips during the AM peak hour and 729 trips during the PM peak hour if assuming all site trip generation is new (see Tables 13-12, 13-13 and 13-14). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agenry Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. This would be a signiftcant impact. Mitigation Measure 13-1 Transportation Demand Management Program. The project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. Appendix Table B-5 outlines TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the 515 total AM peak hour and 485 PM peak hour trips generated by the project. This would reduce the Project's impact to a less than significant level. Impact 13-2 Year 2008 U.S. 101 Freeway Impacts. Tables 13-4 and 13-5 show that the addition of traffic generated by approved development in South San Francisco (year 2008 Base Case without project conditions) would cause two freeway segments to operate at LOS F (both during the AM peak hour). The project would increase volumes by more than one percent on both of these segments (AM peak hour-southbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange and northbound: south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp). In addition, project traffic would result in one segment of the freeway changing from LOS E to LOS F operation (PM peak hour-northbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange). These would be significant impacts. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 3-52 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION , Mitigation Measure 13-2 Transportation Demand Management Program. The project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to minimize potential increase in freeway traffic. The TDM plan shall contain all Required Measures and Additional Measures required by the City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance, Schedule 20.120.030-B, in order to achieve a minimum alternative mode use of 35 percent. The project applicant shall submit a Preliminary TDM Plan containing checklists of Required and Additional Measures, along with a site plan indicating the locations of TDM elements such as preferential parking areas and bicycle facilities. The project applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan incorporating conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. The Project shall coordinate with the City in an annual survey of compliance with the TDM plan, with a minimum required response rate of 75 percent of employees at the project. The project shall also submit a Tri-Annual report of TDM effectiveness, and be subject to penalties for non-compliance in accordance with the City's TDM Ordinance. This impact wou]d remain significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the TDM measures would reduce, but nai fully mitigate impacts to a less than significant level, so that the impacts would remain sign cant and unavoidable. In determining whether to approve the proposed project, decision-makers must balance its benefits against its unavoidable environmental risks. To approve a project despite its environmental risks, the lead agency must make a statement of overriding considerations, giving reasons in writing to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record [CEQA Section 15093(a)J. However, under certain circumstances it is not necessary to make a statement of overriding considerations, as described in the paragraph below. The City may take action on the 249 East Grand project based upon a statement of overriding considerations that was made by the City Council in the process of approving the 1999 South ,San Francisco General Plan. At that time, the lead agency determined that the City could not implement feasible mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on the U.S.101 freeway. Therefore, the agency adopted a statement of overriding considerations for freeway impacts, based an the identified benr~ts of projected development under the General Plan. Since the freeway impacts identified in this chapter were also identified in the Genera! Plan FEIR, there is no need for the agency to make a duplicate statement of overriding considerations for the 749 East Grand project in order to take action on the project. The 1999 statement of overriding considerations should be cited in the appropriate findings and the Notice of Determination for the proposed project. No Deficiency Plan would be required by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency based on exclusion of interregional traffic. Freeway operations were evaluated for Existing, 2008 Baseline without project and 2008 Baseline with project conditions (Tables 13-3 and 13-4). Each freeway segment has been evaluated based on the capacity of a four-lane freeway segment or a four-lane segment with an auxiliary lane, as defined by the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. An impact is identified if the 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-53 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION project would add traffic amounting to one percent or more of the capacity of a deficient CMP freeway segment (operating at LOS F), or if the addition of project traffic results in acceptable Base Case operations being degraded to unacceptable operation. The addition of traffic generated by approved development in South San Francisco and Brisbane as well as regional growth (year 2008 Baseline without project) would cause two freeway segments to operate at LOS F. • Northbound U.S.101 south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp during the AM peak hour. • Southbound U.S.101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard during the AM peak hour. Under the year 2008 Baseline with project scenario, traffic added by the proposed 249 East Grand project would increase volumes by more than one percent on these two segments. Project traffic would also change LOS E to LOS F operation on the following freeway segment. • Northbound U.S.101 north of Oyster Point interchange during the PM peak hour. Project traffic would also increase Base Case volumes by 2.03 percent on this segment. The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program indicates that a jurisdiction may be required to develop a Deficiency Plan for segments of the CMP roadway system that exceed LOS standards. For these purposes, it may be determined if the deficiency would still occur if traffic originating outside San Mateo County is excluded from the determination of conformance. U.S.101 southbound traffic originating in San Francisco, Alameda and Marin counties may be excluded. In the northbound direction, traffic originating in Santa Clara County may be excluded. In the 333 Oyster Point EIR traffic analysis,3 the C/CAG regional travel model for year 2000 was applied to determine the amounts of traffic on U.S.101 that originate in San Mateo County. A "select link analysis" was used to identify the origins and destinations of peak hour traffic on northbound and southbound U.S.101 in South San Francisco. The percentages are as follows: • AM peak hour, northbound U.S.101: 71 % of trips originate in San Mateo County • AM peak hour, southbound U.S.101: 2% of trips originate in San Mateo County • PM peak hour, northbound U.S.101: 86% of trips originate in San Mateo County • PM peak hour, southbound U.S.101: 4% of trips originate in San Mateo County 3 Dowling Associates 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FocusED EIR PAGE 13-54 CHAPTER 7 3: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Tables 13-3 and 13-4 indicate the Freeway level of service that would result when considering only trips that originate in San Mateo County. In the northbound direction, the level of service would not exceed D on any segment during the AM or PM peak hours. In the southbound direction, level of service would be A, as nearly all traffic originates outside of San Mateo County, so San Mateo County vehicles do not contribute significantly to deficient conditions. Therefore, preparation of a Deficiency Plan would not be required. Impact 13-3 Year 2008 Intersection Level of Service. Year 2008 Base Case conditions have assumed removal of the Georgia Pacific manufacturing activity on the project site. These activities were included in the "Existing Conditions" evaluation, as existing counts reflected the conservatively higher volume levels found in 1999/2000. Therefore, year 2008 Base Case + Project evaluation evaluates the full impact of the currently proposed project in relation to an empty site. Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that the proposed project would produce significant AM and/or PM peak hour level of service impacts at the following intersections. East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue More than a two percent increase in traffic (2.1% AM peak hour and 2.9% PM peak hour) at a location with a) unacceptable LOS F operation on the stop sign controlled Allerton Avenue approach, b) both AM and PM peak hour volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels, c} volume warrant criteria being exceeded for the need of a left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach and d) less than acceptable sight lines between traffic turning from Allerton Avenue and westbound drivers on East Grand Avenue. East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue More than a two percent increase in traffic during the AM peak hour (2.9% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation. South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue Change in AM peak hour operation from LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E. Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Change in AM peak hour all-way-stop operation Erom LOS C to an unacceptable LOS E. South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue More than a two percent increase in traffic during the PM peak hour (8.6% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-55 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION ANQ CIRCULATION Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Of j=Ramp More than a two percent increase in traffic during the AM peak hour (5.8% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS E operation. These would be significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 13-3 Intersection Modifications. Modifications are recommended for the following intersections: East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Intersection • Prohibit left turns from Allerton Avenue to East Grand Avenue until the intersection is signalized-or-Cut back the hillside on the northeast corner of the intersection to improve sight lines to/from the east to at least 400 feet. • Stripe a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach. This will require removal of parking on the south side of East Grand Avenue. • Provide a fair share contribution towards having the intersection signalized by the time of project occupancy-or-provide signalization when construction is complete and receive paybacks from other local developments as they are constructed. (All needed for Base Case operation.) Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS B-13.2 seconds average vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS C-25.6 seconds average vehicle delay This impact would be reduced to ales-than-significant level. East Grand Avenue/Little~eld Avenue Intersection • Widen the northbound Littlefield Avenue approach to provide two intersection approach lanes. Stripe as one exclusive right turn lane and a combined left/through/right turn lane (needed for Base Case operation). Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.4 seconds average vehicle delay This impact would be reduced to ales-than-significant level. 249 EAST C,RAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-56 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION , South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue Intersection • Restripe one of the northbound South Airport Boulevard through lanes as a shared through/right turn lane. Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS C-32.1 seconds average vehicle delay This impact would be reduced to ales-than-significant level. Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Intersection • Sign the intersection as an all-way-stop. Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS B-14.1 seconds average vehicle delay This impact would be reduced to aless-than-signiftcant level. South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Mitchell/Mitchell Avenue Intersection • Add a second through lane on the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach (needed for acceptable Base Case operation). • Add a second right turn lane on the southbound Gateway Boulevard approach. Resultant Operation PM Peak Hour: LOS C-28.2 seconds average vehicle delay This impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp • There are no physical improvements at this intersection considered feasible by City of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case conditions or better. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PACE 13-57 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 13-4 Year 2020 Project Intersection Level of Service Impacts. Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that Project traffic would produce a significant impact at the following intersection in 2020. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp More than a two percent increase in traffic during the AM peak hour (a 5.3% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation, and more than a two percent increase in traffic during the PM peak hour (a 3.6% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 13-4 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp • There are no physical improvements at this intersection considered feasible by City of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case conditions or better. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 13-5 Year 2008 and 2020 Project Intersection Queuing Impacts. Table 13-3 shows that the proposed Project would not increase acceptable year 2008 95th percentile Base Case queuing at any of the three analyzed off-ramps to unacceptable levels during either the AM or PM peak hours. In addition, the proposed project would not add any traffic to the left turn movements on the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach during the AM peak hour which would have 95th percentile queuing just slightly exceeding available storage lengths. This would be aless-than-significant impact in 2008. Table 13-10 shows that in the year 2020 the proposed Project would not add any traffic to those left turn movements on the Oyster Point Boulevard east and westbound approaches during the AM and/or PM peak hours which would have 95th percentile queuing exceeding available storage lengths. While the 50th percentile queue in the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard left turn lane would be within acceptable limits with or without the project, the 50th percentile queue in the eastbound left turn lane would still exceed available storage during the AM peak hour. However, since the proposed project would not add any traffic to this movement, it would not be a significant impact for this movement. The proposed Project would also not 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PACE 13-58 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION increase acceptable year 2020 95th percentile Base Case queuing at any of the three analyzed off-ramps to unacceptable levels during either the AM or PM peak traffic hours. However, the project would increase AM peak hour volumes more than two percent (2.2%) at the northbound off-ramp intersection to South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane, where 95th percentile Base Case volumes would already be exceeding available storage. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 13-5 Signal Phasing Adjustment. The following adjustment is recommended: S. Airport Boulevard/U.S.101 Northbound Ramps/Wondercolor Lane Signal phasing adjustments recommended to mitigate Base Case AM peak hour off-ramp queuing would also provide acceptable Base Case + Project 95th percentile off-ramp queuing and intersection level of service. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS D - 48.5 seconds vehicle delay, 1,665 feet of 95th percentile off-ramp vehicle storage demand (with 1,675 feet of available storage} This would reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. Impact 13-6 Project Driveways. The Project will be served by two driveways on East Grand Avenue and by one driveway on the Cabot Road cul-de-sac. The Cabot Road driveway connection would connect to the cul-de-sac directly opposite the extension of Cabot Road to the east. Driveways from three other businesses also connect to the cul-de-sac, and based upon volume levels at Allerton Avenue, have low traffic volumes. Sight lines should be acceptable to/from all driveways connecting to the Cabot Road cul-de-sac (including to/from the project driveway) allowing a "see and be seen" flow of traffic through the cul-de-sac area. The Project's easterly driveway connection to East Grand Avenue would be limited to right turns in and out only by the raised median along East Grand Avenue. It will be located about 140 feet west of the signalized Littlefield Avenue intersection and about 600 feet east of the signalized main project access intersection. East Grand Avenue is level and straight in the project area and sight lines are excellent at both driveway locations. The westerly driveway intersection along East Grand Avenue is now signalized and also serves the Britannia Point Grand parking lot on the south 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-59 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION side of East Grand Avenue. A 100-foot-long left turn lane is provided in the median of East Grand Avenue on the eastbound approach to this project entrance. As shown in Tables 13-1 and 13-2, operation of this signalized intersection would be acceptable during the AM peak hours in 2008 or 2020 (at LOS C) and would be just acceptable during the PM peak hours in 2008 or 2020 (at LOS D). However, during the AM peak hour, the 95th percentile queue of inbound traffic using this left turn lane could extend about 275 feet in both 2008 and 2020 (i.e. 11 vehicles at 25 feet per vehicle). During the PM peak hour the 95th percentile queue would be five cars in 2008 and six cars in 2020. Inbound project vehicles frequently extending out of the existing 100-foot-long left turn pocket and blocking the flow of eastbound through traffic would be a significant operational and safety concern. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 13-6 Lane Extension. Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach to the Project's signalized entrance by 200 feet. There are about 200 feet of landscaped median in which to make this improvement (to the east of the Roebling Road intersection). This would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than signiftcant. Impact 13-7 Internal Circulation. Atwo-lane loop road would circle the proposed campus of four buildings. It would connect to the two driveways providing access to East Grand Avenue as well as to the garage in the north section of the site. All internal surface lot driveways would accommodate two-way traffic flow as would parking aisles in the garage. All parking aisles would be 25 feet wide, which would meet City code and good traffic engineering practice criteria. Parking stalls would be 90-degree throughout the site. The Cabot Road cul-de-sac would access a different level of the parking garage than would the loop road circling the project office buildings. One area of concern with the internal circulation system layout is the eight parking aisle connections to the loop road that intersect at 45 to 60 degrees rather than a preferred 90 degrees. In addition, parking and backing maneuvers to/from some of the parking stalls near many of these 45- to 60- degree connections could impact traffic flow on the loop road. These would be significant impacts. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PACE 13-60 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Mitigation Measure 13-7 The following actions are recommended: • Eliminate parking stalls that will result in parking or backing maneuvers onto the project loop road; and • Channelize 30- to 45-degree parking aisle connections with the loop road to 80- or 90-degree connections. This would reduce impacts to a less than signi~cdnt level. Impact 13-8 Site Parking. The 540,000 square feet of office/R8cD development would provide a total of 1,529 parking spaces {404 surface spaces and 1,125 garage spaces). 'T'his is 91.5% of the 1,670 spaces that would be required by City code. The Ciry of South San Francisco promotes reduction in parking from City zoning standards as a way to support trip reduction goals required per the City's TDM ordinance and supported by various policies in the General Plan (G.P. Policies 4.3-1-8, 11 and 12). Mitigation Measure 13-8 No mitigation is required. Impact 13-9 On-Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Sidewalks will be maintained along the project's East Grand Avenue and Cabot Road cul-de-sac frontages. Sidewalks will also be provided along the interior of the project's internal lop road as well as through the office campus. One sidewalk connection will be made from the office campus to the sidewalk along East Grand Avenue near the southeast corner of the site, while no sidewalk connection is proposed from the site to the Cabot Road sidewalk. Pedestrians accessing the Cabot Road sidewalk would need to use the garage driveway. The East Grand Avenue pedestrian access would be provided by both stairs and a ramp and would be a potential location for a shuttle stop. The lack of a defined sidewalk connection from the project site to Cabot Road would produce safety concerns and would be a significant Impact. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROTECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-61 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Mitigation Measure 13-9 System Improvements. Provide a sidewalk connecting Cabot Way with the internal campus sidewalk system, or to a garage elevator which will provide access to the internal campus sidewalk system. This measure would reduce the Project's impact to a less than signifzcant level. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 3-62 17 REFERENCES 17.1 REPORT PREPARERS Lamphier -Gregory 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, Ca. 94606 510-535-6690 Lamphier-Gregor}r Joan Lamphier, President Rudy Calderon, Associate Planner Crane Transportation Group Mark Crane, Principal 17.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY Crane Transportation Group, Tra~"rc Impact Report.• 249 East Grand Avenue, 2005. Crane Transportation Group, Revised Tra~c Impact Report.• 249 East Grand Avenue, March 2006. Dowler-Gruman Architects, 249 East Grand Avenue Development Plan, June 3, 2005. Dyett & Bhatia, City of .South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999. Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R~'D Project Draft F_IR, September 2004. Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard O~ice R~'D Project Final EIR, February 2005. Morehouse Associates, East Jamie Court O~ce Rd~'D Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration, September 2002. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 7-1 18 APPENDICES APPENDIX A CALTRANS COMMENT LETTERS APPENDIX B TRAFFIC TABLES APPENDIX A Se.,TATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWAR~NEGGER Governor )EPAR,TMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 )AHI~AND, CA 94623-0660 Fdex your power! .'HONE (510) 286-5505 Be energy efftcienil ~TY (800) 735-2929 R~ C E~ V~ D NOV 2 8 200 PANNING November 22, 2005 SM101408 SM-101-22.14 S CH2O05042121 Ms. Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Kalkin: 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project -Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR} Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. Our primary concern with the project is the potentially significant impact it may have to traffic volume and congestion. Although Section 13, Transportation and Circulation addressed most of our concerns, the Department needs to review the traffic operational analysis input data to be more thorough in our review. Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988. Sincerely, . ~~ ~~~~ TIMOTHX. SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) "Caltrans improves mobility across California' ST TE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD GCI-IWA?t?ENEGGER. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 'JAIQ,AND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-6605 FAX (510) 286-5569 TTY (800) 735-2929 ~ ~ C December 23, 2005 Ms. Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Kalkin:. JAN 0 ~ ~ ~~ PLANNl~tG Flex your power! Be energy e/j'~ccientl SM 101408 SM-101-22.14 SCH2O0504212 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project -Traffic Operational Analysis Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the Traffic Operational Analysis in conjunction with the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated October 2005. We have found that several pages of the calculation sheets are missing from the package. Please provide us with a complete package for our review and comment. A 95% queue analysis for intersections #1 and 4 through 10 should be included. The trips generated by this project will produce significant impacts to segments of US 101. Therefore, mitigation measures to reduce those impacts should be provided. All mitigation measures, proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring. Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988. Sincerely, e. ~.,~..~.-. TIMOTHY .SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA "Caltrans improves mobility across California' APPENDIX B APPENDIX TABLE B-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLEp INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Control Delay Per Vehicle fin seconds) A 0-10 g > 10 -15 C > 15-25 p >25-35 E >35-50 F > 50 Conhol delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection, stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay. Source: I~Iiglnvay Capacity [l~lmlunl?000, Transportation Research Board. APPENDIX TABLE B•2 LEVEL OF SERVICE AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL (SIDE STREET STOP SIGN CONTROL) INTER5ECT10NS Level of Service Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (in secondsl A 0-90 B > 10 -15 ~ > 15-25 D > 25 - 35 E >35-50 F > 50 Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection, stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay. r ~ ~ Source: Hisbr»ny Cc~inci~~ tVla~t~iu/?000, Transpoi~ltion Research Board. APPENDIX TABLE B-3 WA,RRANTS.FOR PROVISION OF LEFT TORN LANES Intersection Channelization Guide Highway Research Program, Report #279. TRB, November 1985. a D u z a b i `> a u ~' 0 i vA ADVANCING VOLUME IvrN1 : ~ LANE a ~ao m l[FT.TUNN TNUTw FNT I N.NAirco to I I ~ ' i !t LEFT TUANiw vA l TNGFYEMT f NOT w.A11.gTE0•i ia0 MtN I .... .... .... .... .... .~. rN 5 J z w a VA ADVANCING VOLUME {VfNI NOTE WHEN yo c X00 VPN ItlFJ~w Nn[I. A LEFT-TURN LANE t5 NOT NOflMALLY WARRANTED UNLESS THE ADVANCING VOLUME IVFI IN THE 5AME DIRECTION AS 7HE LEFT-TURNING TRAFFIC EACEEDS ADO VPN IVF~FDD VPNI n w s u z 0 a 4•LANE UNDIVIDED RORD 1500 LEFT .TURN LANE WARRANTED 1000 soD LEFT•TURM LANE ~i~ NOT WARRANTED ~ I // 5 10 IS 70 I5 VL LEFT TURNING VDLUME IyM 1 V A ADVANCING VOLUME I VIN 1 a 1 c APPENDIX TABLE B-4 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT #3 {Urban Area) 2 OR MO RE LA NES (MAJOR) OR 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 600 a 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 7 LANE ( MINOR ) ~ 500 OA 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LAN ES (MIN OR) x ~, a 400 a rn a o W 300 Z~ ~ J 2ao 1oa 0 1 LA NE (MA JOR) & 1 LAN E (MIN OR) 4ao 500 s00 700 800 900 loco 1100 1200 1300 1400 1600 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -VPH * NOTE 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLb VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND i0Q VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE Source: Year 2003 Manual or Unl[orm Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highway Administreficn Caltrans Urban Area Peak Hour Volume Warrant #3 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP APPENDIX TABLE 6-5 Accotuiting of C/CAG Off-Peak Trip Credits t , _, t ~ , ~ ~ ~ : ' t'. i d I ~{ 't 1 ~ ii i { Lab i'J y R.,.~~azvMP . , e ' _ ro ayn Measures ,:: SSF~,Ordmance . . , ~., . ~ ,: ~s ., ~ Quantt. Credit ~. Rati.o ,. ~;,~ .,. 1_. :; Gredxt Bi cle Parkin - lon -Term (Class I) Bic de Parkin -Short-Term (Class II} Total Bic cle Stora e 45 0.33 15 C ool and Van ool Ridematchin Service 1 0 0 Desi ated Em to er Contact 1 S 5 Direct Route to Transit 1 0 0 Free Pazkin far C ool and Van ools 100% 0 0 Guaranteed Ride Home (assumes 4 tenants) 4 1 4 Information Boards/Kiosks 4 5 20 Passers er Loadin Zones 1 5 5 Pedestrian Connections 1 5 5 Preferential C o01 Parkin 150 2 300 Preferential Van ool Parkin 3 7 21 Promotional Pro ams 1 0 0 Showers/ Clothes Lockers 8 10 80 Additional Credit for combination with bi cle lockers 1 5 5 Shuttle Pro •am (assumes S% ridershi -108 em to ees) 108 1 108 Additional Credit for Guaranteed Ride Home ro am 108 1 108 Tran oi-tation Mana ement Association Panics ation 1 5 5 L :~ ," `)' ;; } `'~ '''':Subtotalrof C%CAG{Peak.~Tri. s,CYedited ; ~ ~ `'~ GSx Additional TDM Measures Bi cle Connections 1 5 5 Future Transit Facilities/Bus Shelter 1 0 0 On-site amenities (Exercise faali ,restaurant) 3 1 3 Additional Credit for combination of an 10 elements 1 5 5 Annual Em Ioyee Commute Surve 1 1.5 1.5 Cam us Tr ortation Coordinator 1 20 20 Trans ortation Fair 1 5 5 '; SixbtoEal of~.A:cichfi.orialMeasures 34.5:"+ ' ~Tokal C/C.AG Pealc Tri 's, Cxedlted 7,15,:4'. DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse Number: 2005042121 ~- CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO .~ 249 EAST G RAN D AVEN U E PROJECT PREPARED BY LAMPHIER -GREGORY OCTOBER 2005 CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................. ................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ............................................................................................................... l-1 ~,. 1.2 EIR Review Process .............................................................. ...............................................................................................1-1 1.3 Content and Organization of the EIR ............................... ...............................................................................................1-2 2. ExECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................... ................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Proposed Project ................................................................... ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................... ............................................................................................... 2-1 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................... ................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Project Location and Site Conditions ................................ ............................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Project Description ............................................................... ............................................................................................... 3-1 .,~ 3.3 Required Approvals ............................................................... ............................................................................................... 3-3 4. AESTHETICS ....................................................... .................................................................4-1 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................ ............................................................................................... 41 ~. 4.2 Settin ........ g ............................................................................. ................................................................................................41 4.3 Impact Analysis ..................................................................... ................................................................................................ 48 ~- 5. AIR QUALITY ..................................................... .................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Introduction ............................................................. ...............................................................................5-1 5.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................. ................................................................................................ 5-1 5.3 Air Quality Data .................................................................... ................................................................................................ 5-2 ,.... 5.4 Impact Analysis ..................................................................... ................................................................................................ 5-3 6. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................. .................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Setting ...................................................................................... ................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................... ................................................................................................. 6-1 .~ 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS .......................................................................................................... 7-Z . 7.1 Introduction .......................................................................... ................................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Settin ................... g ................................................................. .................................................................................................7-1 7.3 Impact Analysis .................................................................... ................................................................................................. 7-6 8. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Introduction .......................................................................... ................................................................................................. 8-1 ..- 8.2 Setting .................................................................................... .................................................................................................8-1 8.3 Re ato Settin .............................. gul ry g .................................. .................................................................................................8-6 8.4 Impact Analysis .................................................................... ................................................................................................. 8-7 ".` 9. HYDROLOGY .................................................... ...................................................................9-1 9.1 Introduction ......................................................................... .................................................................................................. 9-1 9.2 Setting ................................................................................... ............................................................................._....................9-1 „-. 9.3 Re ato Settin .............................................. ~ n' g ................. ..................................................................................................9-3 9.4 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9-6 10. LAND USE .........................................................................................................................10-1 10.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................10-1 10.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................10-2 11. NOISE ...............................................................................................................................11-1 11.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................11-1 11.2 Setting .................................................................................................................................................................................11-4 11.3 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................11-5 12. PUBLIC SERVICES .............................................................................................................12-1 12.1 Setting .................................................................................................................................................................................12-1 12.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................12-2 13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................................................13-1 13.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................13-1 13.2 Setting .................................................................................................................................................................................13-1 13.3 Impact Analysis ...............................................................................................................................................................13-38 14. j7TILITIES .........................................................................................................................14-1 14.1 Settmg .................................................................................................................................................................................14-1 14.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................14-7 15. ALTERNATNES .................................................................................................................15-1 15.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................15-1 15.2 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................15-1 15.3 Alternatives Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................15-2 16. IMPACT' OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................16-1 16.1 Significant & Unavoidable Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant ..................16-1 16.2 Impacts Determined not to be Significant ...................................................................................................................16-2 16.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ........................................................................................................16-2 16.4 Growth Inducing Impacts ................................... ...........................................................................................................16-3 16.5 Cumulative Impacts .........................................................................................................................................................16-3 17. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................17-1 17.1 Report Preparers ...............................................................................................................................................................17-1 17.2 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... .........17-i ................................... 18. APPEIVDICES .....................................................................................................................18-1 A: Notice of Preparation, Comments on Notice of Preparation, Initial Study ............................................................... A-1 B: Traffic Tables ..........................................................................................................................................................................B-1 FIGURES 3-1 Project Site and Vicuuty .......................................... 3-2 Project Site Plan ....................................................... 3-3 Project Building Perspectives ................................. 4-1 Site Views .................................................................. 4-2 Site Views .................................................................. 4-3 Site Views .................................................................. 4-4 Site Views .................................................................. ............................................................................................................. 3-2 . ............................................................................................................ 3-4 . ............................................................................................................ 3-5 ................................._........................................................................... 4-3 ................................................................................................. ... 4-4 ............................................................................... .. 4-5 ............................ .............................................................................................. ...... 4-G 4-5 Site Views ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4-7 13-1 Existing Lane Geometncs and Intersection Control ........................ .............................................................................13-2 13-2 Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes ....................................................... .............................................................................13-7 13-3 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes ........................................................ .............................................................................13-8 13-4 Bus and Shuttle Routes .......................................................................... ...........................................................................13-13 13-5 Year 2008 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control .................... ...........................................................................13-20 -- 13-6 2008 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hout Volumes .......... ...........................................................................13-26 13-7 2008 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes .......... ...........................................................................13-27 13-8 Year 2020 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control .................... ...........................................................................13-31 13-9 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes ...........................................................................13-36 13-10 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes . ...........................................................................13-37 13-11 AM Peak Hour Project Increment ...................................................... ...........................................................................13-42 13-12 PM Peak Hour Project Increment .................................................................................................................................13-43 ..~. 13-13 2008 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes ....................... ...........................................................................13-44 13-14 2008 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes ...................................................................................................13-45 13-15 Year 2020 (With Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes ........................ ...........................................................................13-46 13-16 Year 2020 (With Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes ........................ ............................................................................13-47 "°"' 14-1 Project Area Sanitary Sewer System .................................................. ..............................................................................14-4 TABLES 2-1 Executive Summary Table .................................................................................................................................................... 2-2 5-1 Air Quality Data Summary fox San Francisco and Redwood City, 2001-2003 ........................................................ ... 5-2 5-2 Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ............................................................................................................._.....5-7 9-1 Potential Pollutants from Industrial Activities .............................................................................................................. ... 9-8 9-2 Impervious vs. Pervious Surface Axeas ............................................................................................................................9-13 _.. 11-1 Definition of Acoustical Terms ...............................................................................................................................•---..... .11-2 11-2 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry ........................................................................... .11-3 13-1 Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................... 13-10 13-2 Intersection Level of service PM Peak Hour ................................................................................................................ i 3-11 ,~. 13-3 Freeway Operation AM Peak Hour ................................................................................................................................ 13-17 13-4 Freeway Operation PM Peak Hour ................................................................................................................................ 13-18 13-5 Trip Generation of Approved Development within South San Francisco East of 101 Area .............................. 13-21 .~ 13-6 Home Depot/Lowe's Trip Generation ......................................................................................................................... 13-23 13-7 Traffic Distribution ............................................................................................................................................................ 13-25 13-8 South San Francisco Proposed and Potential Development Traffic Generation East of 101, 2000-2020........ 13-34 13-9 Brisbane Potential Development Traffic Generation .................................................................................................. 13-35 °"`" 13-10 Proposed Project Trip Generation w/ 9.5% Peak Hour Trip Generation Reduction due to TDM Program 13-40 13-11 Previous 249 East Grand Avenue Site Development Trip Generation without TDM ......................................... 13-40 13-12 Net Difference in Trip Generation Office/R&D Versus Manufacturing ............................................................... 13-40 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The California. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, requires EIRs to be prepared for all projects which may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an informational document, the purposes of which, according to CEQA Guidelines, are "... to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to a --- project, and to indicate the manner in which such significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." The information contained in this Focused EIR is intended to be objective and impartial, and to enable the reader to arrive at an independent judgement regarding the "` significance of the impacts resulting from the proposed 249 East Grand Avenue Project 1.2 EIR REVIEW PROCESS This EIR is intended to enable City decision makers, public agencies and interested citizens to evaluate the broad environmental issues associated with the overall character and concept of the proposed Project. In accordance with California law, the EIR on the Project must be certified before any action on the Project can be taken by the South San Francisco City Council. During ~-- the review period fox this Draft EIR, interested individuals, organizations and agencies may offer their comments on its evaluation of project impacts and alternatives. The comments received during this public review period will be compiled and presented together with responses to these comments. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR (including the response to comments) together will constitute the EIR for the Project The South San Francisco City Council will review the EIR documents, and will determine whether or not the EIR provides a full and adequate appraisal of the Project and its alternatives. In reviewing the Draft EIR, readers should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts associated with property acquisition, as well as the potential future impacts associated with the 249 East Grand Avenue Project Readers are also .»- encouraged to review and comment on ways in which significant impacts associated with this Project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments axe most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate ~"" significant environmental impacts. Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments and, whenever possible, should submit data or references in support of their comments. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ~~` DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1-1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ~ 22 -~ The 45 day review period for the Draft EIR is from October ~ 2005 to November 1~, 2005. Comments should be submitted in writing during this review period to: Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division .~ P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, Ca. 94083 Please contact Susy Kalkin at 650-877-8535 if you have any questions. After reviewing the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, and following action to certify the EIR as adequate and complete, the South San Francisco City Council will be in a position to approve the Project as currently proposed, revised, or rejected. This determination will be based upon information presented on the entirety of the Project, its impacts and probable consequences, and the possible alternatives .., and mitigation measures available. 1.3 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR Following this brief description of the 249 East Grand Avenue Project Focused EIR, the document's ensuing chapters include the following: ,_„ • Chapter 2: Executive Summary • Chapter 3: Project Description '° • Chapter 4: Aesthetics • Chapter 5: Air Quality • Chapter 6: Biological Resources • Chapter 7: Geology and Soils • Chapter 8: Hazardous Materials • Chapter 9: Hydrology ~. • Chapter 10: Land Use • Chapter 11: Noise • Chapter 12: Public Services • Chapter 13: Transportation and Circulation -~ • Chapter 14: Utilities • Chapter 15: Alternatives .~ • Chapter 16: Impact Overview PAGE 1-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR ,.. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION • Chapter 17: References • Chapter 18: Appendices In Chapters 4 through 14 existing conditions axe discussed in the Setting, followed by an evaluation of potentially significant impacts that map be associated with the Project. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT °" DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1-3 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The objective of the Project is the development of four Class-A office/laboratory buildings, three to five stories in height, totaling about 534,500 square feet, 5,500 square feet of commercial space, and a four level parking structure providing 1,529 parking spaces. -- 2.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The analyses in Chapters 4 through 14 of this document provide a description of the existing setting, potential impacts of Project implementation, and recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts that could occur as a result of Project unplementation. 'The following table lists a summary statement of each impact and corresponding mitigation measures, as well as the level of significance after mitigation. Significant impacts require the implementation of mitigation measures, ox alternatives, or a finding by the Lead Agency that the measures are infeasible fox specific reasons. For some of the significant impacts, mitigation measures may not be effective in reducing the impacts to a ._ less than significant level. These impacts are designated significant and unavoidable. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ""` DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-1 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF PROTECT IMPACTS AN11 MiTiGATTnN MFecrTUFc Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Aesthetics i Impact 4-1: Light and Glare. Project Mitigation Measure 4-1: Glare Minimization Less than implementation would involve construction of four Design Standards. Lighting designs should employ Significant three to four story office buildings. The many fixtures that would cast light in a downwazd direction, windows and outdoor lights associated with these and building materials should not be sources of buildings would potentially be substantial sources substantial glare. of day and nighttime glare, which would be considered a rignificant impact. Air Quality ., Impact 5-1: Construction Dust. Construction Mitigation Measure 5-1: Dust Suppression Less than activity involves a high potential for the emission Procedures. The following basic, enhanced and significant of air pollutants. Construction activities would optional measures are recommended for inclusion in generate exhaust emissions from vehicles and construction contracts to control fugitive dust equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions emissions during construction. that would affect local air quality. This would be a potentially rign ficant impact. Basic Measures Construction activities would temporarily affect • Water all active construction areas at least twice local air quality, causing a temporary increase in daily particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust emission during periods of constmction would • Pave, apply water three times daily or apply increase particulate concentrations at neighboring , (non-toxic} soil stabilizers on all unpaved access properties. This impact is potentially significant, but normally mitigatible. roads, pazking areas and staging azeas at construction site. BAAQMD CEQA Guidekner provide thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. The BAAQMD ~ Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or significance thresholds for construction dust other materials that can be blown by the wind. impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD • Cover all tracks hauling soil, sand, and other guidelines provide feasible control measures for loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at construction emission of PMIO• If the appropriate least two feet of freeboard. construction controls aze to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all would be considered less than significant. paved access road, parking azeas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily .(preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is cazried onto adjacent public streets. • Limit construction equipment idling time. • Properly tune construction equipment engines, and install particulate traps on diesel equipment. PAGE 2-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED ElR """ CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Enhanced Measures • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction azeas (previously graded azeas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non- toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed azeas as quickly as poss~le. Optional Measures • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. Impact 5-2: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. Mitigation Measure 5-2: Transportation Demand Significant and The proposed Project would exceed emissions Management Program. Implementation of a TDM Unavoidable standazds for NOX, by producing 1121bs./day, as Program, as described in Mitigation Measure 13-1 of well as producing 7421bs./day of CO. This would the Transportation and Circulation chapter, would be a rignifscant impact. reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from the Project site, but not to the extent that NOY and CO emissions would be reduced to acceptable levels. f. Siolv~ic tl Resoutc~es~.~}, ; y~i ~_~ ,~, n~ ~ ~ _ .~'~ ~: t Impact 6-L• Removal of Protected Trees. Mitigation Measure 6-1: Tree Replacement. The Less than Construction at the Project site would require Project applicant shall be required to obtain a tree Significant cutting down 104 trees. Fourteen of the trees on cutting permit and adhere to the City of South San the site aze considered protected trees under Francisco Tree Ordinance before removing any trees Section 13.30.020(f)(1) of the City of South San from the Project site. According to the Tree ~ Frandsco Municipal Code relating to tree Ordinance, no protected tree shall be removed, preservation (Tree Ordinance). According to the pruned, or otherwise materially altered without a Ordinance, a protected tree is defined as the permit except as provided in Section 13.30.030. A tree following: cutting peunit requires replacement of a tree with three 24-inch box or two 36-inch box m;n;mum size 1. Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or landscape trees for each tree removed, as described in more when measured 54 inches above natural Section 13.30.080 of the Tree Ordinance. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT °° DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-3 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTfVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts grade; or 2. A tree or stand of trees so designated by the Director based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appeazance, location, historical significance or other factor; or 3. A stand of trees in which the Duector has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. The 14 protected trees on the site aze considered protected because their trunk circumferences measure more than 48 inches above aatural grade. Cutting down these trees would be a potentially .rignifzcant impact of the Project Resulting Recommended Mitigation Measures Leve( of Significance ~eo~a~>'and Soils `` t r ~ r ~~~ ~~~ ~ ,' t - i ? C:"~'. Impact 7-1: Seismic Ground Shalflng. There is a high probability that the proposed development would be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from an earthquake during its design life. Exposure of people and buildings to strong seismic ground shaking is considered a potentially rign~ant impact. Mitigation Measure 7-la: Compliance with Less than Uniform Building Code and California Building Significant Code. Project development shall meet requirements of the California Building Code Vol. 1 and 2, 2001 Edition, including the California Building Standazds, 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officals, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standards would reduce the potenttal for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking. Mitigation Measure 7-16: Compliance with recommendations of a design level geotechnicat report. Proper foundation engineering and constmction in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer shall be included in the Project. The feasibility level geotechnical investigation was completed without a development plan. FoIlowing development of a building plan, a design level geotechnical investigation shall be completed with recommendations specific to the proposed structures. At a minimum, the structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the feasibility level geotechnical report adopted from the California Building Code Site specific seismic PAGE 2-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAET FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance response criteria shall be developed as part of the design level Geotechnical Investigation. Mitigation Measure 7-lc: Obtain a building permit and complete final design review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Impact 7-2: Soil Erosion. The Project would Mitigation Measure 7-2a: Erosion Control Plan. Less than involve mass grading in a sensitive azea near the The Project applicant shall complete an Erosion Significant San Francisco Bay. During construction, grading Control Plan to be submitted to the City in would disturb soil and displace any topsoil that conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. could potentially impact vicinity drainages, and The Plan shall include winterization, dust, erosion and would eventually impact Cohna Creek and the Bay. pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG This would be a potentially .agni~cant impact during Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment and following site construction activities. Control Measures, with sediment basin design calculations. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the "best management practices" (BMPs) to be used during and after construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Recommended soil stabilization techniques include placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel constmction entrance areas or other control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains. Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately. Mitigation Measure 7-2b: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Boazd (SWRCB), the Applicant shall file a SWPPP prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-5 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-O8-DWG. Impact 7-3: Unstable Soils. The site contains Mitigation Measwe 7-3: Construction in Less than shallow groundwater and variable depth of fill soils, Accordance with Design Level Geotechnical Significant which could become unstable if improperly Investigation. A design level geotechnical compacted, stockpiled, or excavated during investigation shall be completed that includes grading. Settlement and dynamic densification subsurface investigation in azeas now occupied by could become issues with improper foundation structures. The design level geotechnical report shall design. Moreover, utility trenches and other include recommendations for site prepazation and excavations are likely to encounter groundwater grading, foundation design, retaining wall design and may require dewatering. This is a poientialy pazameters, concrete slabs-on-grade, pavement sign cant impact. section design, surface and subsurface drainage measures and site specific seismic response aiteria. Grading recommendations shall include specifications for engineered fill, including moisture conditioning and relative percent compaction, and suitability of materials as engineered or structural fill. Recommendations shall also establish maximum cut and fill slopes. Cuts to be made adjacent to the property line shall be evaluated for potential adverse impact to neighboring properties. In accordance with the East of 101 Area Plan, new slopes greater than 5 feet in height, either cut in native soils or rock, or cleated by placing fill material, shaII be designed by a geotechnical engineer and have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. Drainage recommendations shall include provisions to prevent the ponding of water, prevent seepage under structures, including pavements, and generally direct flow away from structural foundations. Drainage recommendations shall incorporate proposed landscaping elements. Permanent subsurface drains aze expected to be necessary for retaining walls to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls. Recommendations for foundations shall include soil bearing capacity or skin friction values, lateral pressures, and types of ground improvement techniques, if necessary. Geotechnical recommendations shall also provide the depth of footings or ptle foundations necessary for the planned structures. During construction, a Registered Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall observe all foundation work. A letter indicating that all foundation construction meets with the intent of the geotechnical recommendations shall be provided to the Building Official prior to concrete pouring. PAGE 2-6 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR !' CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Recommendations for concrete slab construction shall identify measures to mitigate expansive soils to m;n;m;ze shrink/swell potential, such as moisture conditioning or replacement with select non- expansive fill, as well as concrete thickness and reinforcement. The feasibility report recommended that in addition to 4 inches of Caltrans Class II AB underlying slabs, a 10 millimeter m;.,imum thickness vapor retazding membrane meeting ASTM E1745 should be placed between the concrete slab and base rock to m;n;mi~e moisture condensation under floor coverings placed on slabs. The design level report shall either corroborate this recommendation or identify an alternative to be implemented. Recommendations for pavement areas shall include compaction and moisture conditioning requirements, as well as pavement section thickness and construction design based upon aResistance-value (R- value) determined for subgrade soils in the azeas to be paved. The design report shall include specific drainage criteria behind retaining walls, and identify retaining wall foundation design and design parameters. In general, the design report shall either corroborate or provide alternative recommendations to the feasibility report based upon actual soil and rock conditions in the azeas where structures aze proposed. Impact 7-4: Expansive Soils. According to the Mitigation Measure 7-4: Design and Construction Less than feasibility level geotechnical report, potentially in Accordance with Design Level Geotechnical Significant expansive clay soils were encountered. Expansive Investigation. The design level geotechnical report clay soils may shrink and swell, resulting in shall recommend mitigation measures for expansive damaged foundations, conaete slabs, pavements clay soils. Potential measures for control of expansive and other improvements. This is a fiotentially day soils include the following. .rigrriftcant ir~act. a) Placing and compacting potentially expansive soils at high moisture contents (at least 5 percent above optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D1557) and compaction within selected ranges of 88 to 92 percent. b) Using thickened concrete slabs with increased steel reinforcement. c) Replacing clayey soils underlying foundations and concrete slabs with select structural fill that is non- expansive or has a low expansion index. d) Treating site soils with lime to reduce the 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT M. DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-7 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance expansion potential and increase the strength. e) Grade around structures to assure positive drainage away from structures. I~'zardous~ M~~~'~ials, Impact 8-1: Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed development is for construction of four Class-A office and laboratory buildings and a pazking garage. Class A refers to a research laboratory, not merely an instructional laboratory. Depending upon the nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, for which detailed information has not yet been provided, there aze likely to be both hazadous and potentially hazardous materials stored and used on the site that will eventually require disposal. This could include both biohazards as well as chemical hazazds. There is also likely to be transportation of hazardous materials to and from the site, probably traveling along Highway 10] and East Grand Avenue. The risk of acadental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment is a potentially aign~cant impact. Mitigation Measure S-la: Hazazdous Materials Less than Business Plan Program. Businesses occupying the Significant development must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they maybe used and transported from, risks of using these materials, material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergenry response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses qualify for the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Exemptions include businesses selling only pre- packaged consumer goods; medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and who store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oii. 'These exemptions aze not expected to apply to Class A laboratory facilities. Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must submit a business plan prior to the start of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Some of these changes are new emergenry contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous materials storage and/or changes in location of hazadous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall inspect the business at PAGE 2-8 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT 0 .,. ,.. DRAFT FOCUSED ElR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance least once a yeaz to make sure that the Business Plan is complete and accurate. Mitigation Measure 8-lb: Hazardous Waste Generator Program. Prior to operations, businesses should check with the SMCEHD if they need to register in the hazazdous waste generator program. The State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control authorized the SMCEHD to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazazdous waste generators in San Mateo County based on the Hazazdous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. Regulations require businesses generating any amount of hazardous waste as defined by regulation to properly store, manage and dispose of such waste. Division staff also conducts surveillance and enforcement activities in conjunction with the County District Attorney's Office for businesses or individuals that significantly violate the above referenced law and regulations. Mitigation Measure 8-lc: Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations. All transportation of hazazdous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures including the posting of placazds, signs and other identifying information. Impact S-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 8-2: California Accidental Less than Release. Mitigations for accidental release of Release Prevention Program (CaIARP). Future Significant hazazdous materials during construction are businesses at the development shall need to check the presented in the hydrology section of this state and federal lists of regulated substances available environmental impact report. Following from the San Mateo County Environmental Health construction, operations at the proposed facilities Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list aze are expected to represent a continuing threat to the chemicals that pose a major threat to public health environment through accidental release of and safety or the environment because they are highly hazardous materials since the site is proposed to toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses are include Class A laboratory facilities, where responsible for determining which list to use in hazardous materials maybe stored, used, and consultation with SMCEHD. disposed of. 'T'his represents a potentially .rign~cant impact. Should businesses qualify for the program they must complete a CaIARP registration form and submit it to Environmental Health. Following registration, they shall submit a risk management plan (RMP)_ Risk management plans aze designed to handle acadental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-9 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resuiting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance if an acadental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated substance is released neaz schools, residential azeas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for. keeping employees and customers safe; handling regulated substances; training staff; maintaining equipment; checking that substances aze stored safely; and responding to an acddental release. Impact 8-3: Emissions Near Schools. The Eazly Mitigation Measure 8-3: Meet standards of the Less than Years Children's Center is located at 371 Allerton Bay Area Air Quality Management District Significant Avenue, approximately 400 feet east and (BAAQMD) and Occupational Safety and Health downwind of the northeast corner of the property. Administration (OSHA). Each independent R&D Since the proposed development includes research facility operating on the property shall adhere to laboratory facilities it is likely that hazardous BAAQMD standards and periodically demonstrate chemicals will be stored and used on the property. compliance with all other local, state and federal In certain circumstances these chemicals could requirements for emissions. Each facility shall also spill, mix, ignite, or volatilize and cause a hazardous meet OSHA and California OSHA standazds for emission near the childcare center, which would be R8cD facilities. This includes design review by the City a potentially rign~cant impact. of South San Francisco to examine if the proposed development plans meet the same standards as for other similaz facilities. Engineering controls, such as exhaust hoods, filtration systems, spill kits, fire extinguishers, and other controls, shall be incorporated into laboratory facilities to meet OSHA and California OSHA requirements. These standards are primarily designed to maintain worker safety, but also function to reduce the risk of accidental upset and limit potential hazardous emissions. Impact 8-4: Handling of hazardous wastes Mitigation Measure 8-4: Regulation of hazardous Less than within one-quarter mile of a school. The Eady materials in accordance with the San Mateo Significant Yeazs Children's Center is located at 371 Allerton County Environmental Health Department Avenue, approximately 400 feet east of the Programs. Registration and regulation in the northeast comer of the property. Since the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, proposed development includes reseazch lab Hazardous Waste Generator Plan Program, and facilities, it is likely that hazardous chemicals will be California Acddental Release Program in accordance handled in dose proximity to the childcare facility, with earlier mitigations identified in this chapter, for Close proximity of hazardous chemicals to risk of accidental upset and for routine transport, occupants of the childcare facility represents a disposal, and use of hazardous wastes, would significant hazard and potentially .rignificant impact. significantly reduce the risk to occupants of the neazby childcaze facility. In addition, the applicant shall establish an early warning and evacuation plan for the child caze center in the case of a hazardous materials release. Impact 8-5: Potential Interference with Mitigation Measure 8-5: Fire Deparhnent Review. Less than Emergency Response Plan. The proposed The applicant shall submit construction plans for Fire ... ..e ... ..> PAGE 2-1 Q 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance development would physically interfere with Department review, and shall establish temporary Significant implementation of an adopted emergency response alternative emergency routes necessary for the or evacuation plan if on-site circulation does not duration of the construction project During design allow for adequate emergency vehicle access. review, the Fire Department would verify that roads Interference with the local Emergenry Response and driveways meet ordinance and uniform building Plan would be a sign cant impact. code requirements for emergency access. Impact 8-6: Airport Land Use Plan. The Mitigation Measure 8-6: FAA Regulations Less than proposed Project would be located within the Compliance. Public Utilities Code, Section 21659, Significant jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the "Hazards Neaz Airports Prohibited" prohibits San Francisco International Airport. The Project structural hazards near airports. To ensure could have a significant impact in terms of the Plan's. compliance with this requirement and Federal policies. Aviation guidelines the developer shall submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) to the Federal Aviation Administration. .~~~Sti1L~~~~~y~yy. 1.:~ r Z:~ r y ~. / OJ Sv~ ~ Y - ,, :, ~~ jt ~s" ~ 1 ~S I` t'. ~. t 1 !i i Y } :~ N C ~ S f- h•. ~ }. .. 3 fT:. ~ S Y i,~ 1 ~ Impact 9-1: Site Conditions May Be Unsuitable Mitigation Measure 9-1: Evaluate Project Site for Less than for Infiltration. Appropriate evaluation of site Feasibility of Infiltration as Water Quality BMP. Significant conditions is critical to the effectiveness of The use of infiltration trenches at the Project site may infiltration trenches. The geotechnical borings be limited by several factors, including soil indicate groundwater conditions in the proposed characteristics, distance to groundwater, and proposed parking azeas can be as high as 3 and 4.5 feet bgs land uses. The feasibility of infiltration BMPs at the during winter months. Shallow depth to Project shall be evaluated as follows: groundwater could cause underlying soils to become saturated, particularly during winter 1) Groundwater levels at the invert of the infiltration months, and could impair the ability of the trenches shall be reevaluated. The Project applicant infiltration trenches to infiltrate water and filter out shall ascertain that the distance from the proposed pollutants. Infiltration structures require a trench inverts to groundwater be at least 10 feet minimum soil infiltration rate of 0.5 inches/hour. Percolation testing to verify the infiltration capacity 2) Soil parameters, such as the amount of silt and clay of site soils has not been conducted. Infiltration shall be examined. Soils should not have more than 30 trenches have a high failure rate if soil and percent clay or more than 40 percent clay and silt subsurface conditions aze not suitable. combined. Furthermore, infiltration trenches are not considered suitable for sites that use or store 3) Infiltration rates shall be evaluated to ensure chemicals or hazardous materials unless hazazdous adequate permeability of site soils. Infiltration rates and toxic materials aze prevented from entering the' shall be no less than 0.5 inches/hour and not more infiltration trenches. This represents a potentially than 2.4 inches/hour. .sgnifzcant impact. 4) Proposed land uses shall be examined: infiltration BMPs are not suitable for sites that use or store chemicals or hazazdous materials unless hazazdous and toxic materials aze isolated such that they are not able to enter the trench. The potential for spills can be minimized by spill prevention control measures. If site constraints preclude the use of infiltration trenches at the Project site, other BMPs that do not allow interaction with groundwater should be considered. Possible alternatives for storm water 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ~... DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-1 1 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance treatment include Vortex Sepazator Units or Stormceptors at drop inlets. Vortex Separators aze round gravity sepazators that induce removal of suspended sediment with the centrifugal force caused by water moving circularly through the system. Stormceptors aze comprised of a round precast concrete tank and fiberglass partition that remove oil and sediment from storm water runoff by gravity sepazation. Any storm water quality BMPs to be implemented at the site must be approved by the City's Public Works Department Impact 9-2: Potential Contamination of Local Mitigation Measure 9-2: Preparation and Less than Groundwater. The Project site is located within a Implementation of Project Storm Water Pollution Significant groundwater basin as defined by the DWR The Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Pursuant to NPDES potential for groundwater contamination from requirements, the applicant shall develop a SWPPP to infiltration BMI's must be cazefully considered, protect water quality during and after construction. especially in areas where the distance between The Project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, groundwater and the trench invert is shallow or to the following mitigation measures for the where groundwater is or could potentially be used construction period: for human consumption or agricultural purposes. The infiltration of industrial and pazking lot 1) Grading and eazthwork shall be prohibited during pollutants into shallow groundwater could the wet season (October 15 through Apr115) and potentially impair the quality of local groundwater such work shall be stopped before pending storm sources. This represents a potentially significant impact. events. 2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments "Erosion & Sediment Control Measures" manual. Silt fences shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Hay bales shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and azound storm drain inlets. 3} BMI's shall be used for preventing the dischazge or other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream waters. 4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP shall include, but aze not limited to, the following: S) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the Project site. Industrial activities and PAGE 2-12 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT .~. DRAFT FOCUSED EIR ""` CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site should be described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. ~ Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of dogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced azeas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs should be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. 8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. 9) The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development This information shall be distnbuted to all employees at the Project site. At a mini*num, the information shall cover. a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) dean-up and appropriate disposal of hazazdous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Impact 9-3: No Treatment of Runoff for Mitigation Measure 9-3: Implement Water Less than Parking Garages. No water quality BMPs have Quality BMPs for Stormwater Runoff From Significant been proposed for Parking Garage A nor Pazking Parking Garage. The Project applicant shall Garage B. Parking azeas represent a source of implement storm water quality BMPs for treatment of suspended solids, petroleum hydrocarbons, and runoff from Pazking Gazages A and B. Possible BMPs heavy metals. NPS pollutants from these azeas include drop inlet filtration devices such as the Vortex represent a potentially .rign~cant impact. Sepazator Units or Stormceptors described in Mitigation Measure 9-1. Any storm water quality BMPs implemented at the site must first be_approved by the City's Public Works Department. ', 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ~. DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-13 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Impact 9-4: Site Drains to Cohna Creek Flood Mitigation Measure 9-4: The Project applicant Less than Control Channel. The proposed Project drains to shall implement one of the following two Significant the Colma Creels flood control channel. The mitigation scenarios for Impact 9-4. Project site is not located within the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. For this reason, the San 1) Reroute All Flows to Southeastern Corner of Mateo County Department of Public Works has Site and Out of the Colma Creek Watershed. The requested that storm water runoff from the Project Project applicant shall investigate the feasibility of site not be directed into the Colma Creek channel. routing all site runoff to the existing drop inlet located Thus, storm water runoff from the Project site that at East Grand Avenue just below the southeast corner would flow to Colma Creels represents a potentially of the site. This would entail designing the Project significant impact. drainage infrastructure to drain to the southeast. This configuration would likely increase peak flows to the southeastern drainage system and would require evaluation of the existing drainage infrastructure from Littlefield Avenue to the point of discharge at San Frandsco Bay. Inadequate capacity in the southeastern drainage system may require offsite drainage improvements. 2) Enter into Agreement with Cohna Creek Flood Control Districrt. If it is found that routing all storm water to the southeast corner is infeasible, a second mitigation strategy shall be implemented. The Project applicant shall enter into an agreement with the San Mateo County Depaztment of Public Works to be included in the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone and comply with the conditions and Eees that are associated with participation in that zone. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that Project design has mitigated the potential impact to a level of less than significant. ~:~: I ~:: Impact 10-1: Construction Related Noise. Mitigation Measure 10-1: Noise Abatement. It is Less than Project construction would result in temporary possible that a child caze center located 400 feet from Significant short-term noise increases due to the operation of the Project site at 371 Allerton would be affected by heavy equipment. This would be a potentially Project generated construction noise. If noise controls aign~cant impact associated with Project are installed on construction equipment, noise levels development. Construction noise sources range could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet fox most types depending on the type of equipment. Assuming of construction equipment, and slightly higher construction noise levels comply with the 90-dBA levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet fox certain noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance, types of earthmoving and impact equipment construction related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of lean than aign~cant. ~ Tr~ansportatit~ti and' Circulation ~ ~~~ ~_ ~ ' ~,: ~ . , r, Impact 13-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Mitigation Measure 13-1: Transportation Demand Less than Trips During Peak Hours. The project would Management Program. The project applicant shall Significant PAGE 2-14 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ..., DRAFT FOCUSED EIR ..~ CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours (515 trips during the AM peak hour and 485 trips during the PM peak hour, if allowing for the reduction in traffic from the former Georgia Pacific manufacturing use) or 756 trips during the AM peak hour and 729 trips during the PM peak hour if assuming all site trip generation is new (see Tables 13-10,13-11 and 13-12). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the itnplementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines' spedfy that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (mcluding the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development This would be a significant impact. Impact 13-2: Freeway Level of Service. The addition of traffic generated by approved development in South San Francisco (year 2008 Base Case without project conditions) would cause two freeway segments to operate at LOS F (both during the AM peak hour). The project would increase volumes by more than one percent on both of these segments (AM peak hour - southbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange and northbound: south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp). In addition, project traffic would result in one segment of the freeway changing from LOS E to LOS F operation (PM peak hour - northbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange). These would be significant impacts. Impact 13-3: Year 2008 Intersection Impacts. Yeaz 2008 Base Case conditions have assumed removal of the Georgia Pacific manufacturing activity on the project site. These activities were included in the "Existing Conditions" evaluation, as existing counts reflected the conservatively higher volume levels found in 1999/2000. Therefore, yeaz 2008 Base Case + Project evaluation evaluates the full impact of the current implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development The C/CAG guidelines spedfy the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. Appendix Table B-5 outlines TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the 515 total AM peak hour and 485 PM peak hour trips generated by the project Mitigation Measure 13-2: Transportation Demand Management Plan. The project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (I'DM) program to minimise potential increases in freeway traffic. The TDM plan shall contain all Required Measures and Additional Measures required by the City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance, Schedule 20.120.030-B, in order to achieve a minimum alternative mode use of 32 percent. The project applicant shall submit a Preliminary TDM Plan containing thecklists of Required and Additional Measures, along with a site plan indicating the locations of TDM elements such as preferential pazking areas and birycle facilities. The project applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan incorporating conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. The project shall coordinate with the City in an annual survey of compliance with the TDM plan. The project shall also submit a Tri-Annual report of TDM effectiveness, and be subject to penalties for non- compliance in accordance with the City's TDM Ordinance. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measure 13-3: Intersection Significant and Modifications. Modifications aze recommended for Unavoidable the following intersections. East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Intersection Prohibit left turns from Allerton Avenue to East Grand Avenue until the intersection is signalized- or-~ut back the hillside on the northeast comer of the intersection to improve sight lines to/from the 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-15 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance proposed project in relation to an empty site. The proposed project would produce significant AM and/or PM peak hour impacts at the following intersections. East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue More than a two percent increase in traffic (2.1% AM peak hour and 2.9% PM peak hour) at a location with a) unacceptable LOS F operation on the stop sign controlled Allerton Avenue approach, b) both AM and PM peak hour volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels, c) volume warrant criteria being exceeded for the need of a left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach and d) less than acceptable sight lines between traffic turning from Allerton Avenue and westbound drivers on East Grand Avenue. East Grand Avenue/Ls'ttlefreld Avenue More than a two percent increase in traffic during the AM peak hour (2.9% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation. South Airport Boulevard/ Utah Avenue Change in AM peak hour operation from LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E. Forbes B°ulevarr!/Allerton Avenue Change in AM peak hour all-way-stop operation from LOS C to an unacceptable LOS E. South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue More than a two percent increase in traffic during the PM peak hour (8.6% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Bvulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Bwnp Change in PM peak hour operation from LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E. These would be .significant impacts of the Project. east to at least 400 feet. Stripe a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach. This will require removal of parking on the south side of East Grand Avenue. Provide a fair share contribution towards having the intersection signalized by the time of project occupanry---or-provide signalization when construction is complete and receive paybacks from other local developments as they are constructed. (All needed for Base Case operation.) Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour. L05 B-13.2 seconds average vehicle delay PM Peak Hour. LOS C-25.6 seconds average vehicle delay East Grand Avenue/Iittlefield Avenue Intersection Widen the northbound Littlefield Avenue approach to provide two intersection approach lanes. Stripe as one exclusive right tum lane and a combined left/through/right tum lane (needed for Base Case operation). Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour. LOS D-38.4 seconds average vehicle delay South AirportBaulevard/Utah Avenue Interrection Restripe one of the northbound South Airport Boulevard through lanes as a shared through/right turn lane. Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour. LOS C-32.1 seconds average vehicle delay Farber BoulevardlAllerton Avenue Intersection Sign the intersection as anall-way-stop. Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour. LOS B-14.1 seconds average vehicle delay South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Mitchel!/Mitchell Avenue Intersection Add a second through lane on the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach (needed for acceptable Base Case operation). Add a second right turn lane on the southbound Gateway Boulevazd approach. PAGE 2-16 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Impact 13-4: Year 2020 Intersection Impacts. Project traffic would produce a significant impact at the following intersection: Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/ U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Kamp Change in PM peak hour operation from an unacceptable LOS E to an unacceptable LOS F and more than a two percent increase in traffic (a 4.4% increase) during this time period. This would be a .rienifrcant imbact. Impact 13-5: Long Queues in Driveway Lanes. The project will be served by two driveways oa East Grand Avenue and by one driveway on the Cabot Road col-de-sac. The Cabot Road driveway connection would connect to the col-de-sac duecdy opposite the extension of Cabot Road to the east. Driveways from three other businesses also connect to the col-de-sac, and based upon volume levels at Allerton Avenue, have low traffic volumes. Sight lines should be acceptable to/from all driveways connecting to the Cabot Road cal-de- sac (including to/from the project driveway) allowing a "see and be seen" flow of traffic through the col-de-sac azea. The project's easterly driveway connection to East Grand Avenue would be limited to right toms in and out only by the raised median along East Grand Avenue. It will be located about 140 feet west of the signalized Littlefield Avenue intersection and about 600 feet east of the signalized main project access intersection. East Grand Avenue is level and straight in the project area and sight lines are excellent at both driveway locations. The westerly driveway intersection along East Grand Avenue is now signalized and also serves Resultant Operation PM Peak Hour: LOS C-28.2 seconds average vehicle delay Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/ U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp No feasible physical improvements beyond those included in the East of 101 TIP have been identified at this study intersection when it would exceed LOS standazds. The impact at this intersection would remain significant and unavoidable. No feasible physical improvements beyond those included in the East of 101 TIP have been idenrified at this study intersection when it would exceed LOS standards. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 13-5: Tum Lane Extension. Extend the left tom lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach to the project's signalized entrance by 200 feet There aze about 200 feet of landscaped median in which to make this improvement (to the east of the Roebling Road intersection). This would reduce the impact to a level of leu than tigns~cant. Significant and Unavoidable Less than Significant 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-17 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmentai Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance the Britannia Point Grand parking lot on the south side of East Grand Avenue. A 100-foot-long left turn lane is provided in the median of East Grand Avenue on the eastbound approach to this project entrance. As shown in Tables 13-1 and 13-2, operation of this signalized intersection would be acceptable during the AM peak hours in 2008 or 2020 (at LOS C} and would be just acceptable during the PM peak hours in 2008 or 2020 (at LOS D). However, during the AM peak hour, the 95th percentile queue of inbound traffic using this left turn lane could extend about 275 feet in both 2008 and 2020 (i.e. 11 vehicles at 25 feet per vehicle). During the PM peak hour the 95th percentile queue would be five cars in 2008 and six cars in 2020. Inbound project vehicles frequently extending out of the existing 100-foot-long left turn pocket and blocking the flow of eastbound through traffic would be a significant operational and safety concern. This would be a significant impact. Impact 13-6: Internal Traffic Flow. A two-lane loop road would circle the proposed campus of four buildings. It would connect to the two driveways providing access to East Grand Avenue as well as to the gazage in the north section of the site. Mitigation Measure 13-6: Eliminate Stalls and Channelize Aisle Connections. Pazking stalls that will result in parking or backing maneuvers onto the project loop road shall be eliminated. In addition, 30 to 45 degree parking aisle connections with the loop road shall be channelized to 80 or 90 degree connections. Less than Significant All internal surface lot driveways would accommodate two-way traffic flow as would parking aisles in the garage. All pazking aisles would be 25 feet wide, which would meet City code and good traffic engineering practice criteria. Parking stalls would be 90-degree throughout the site. The Cabot Road cul-de-sac would access a different level of the pazking garage than would the loop road circling the project office buildings. One area of concern with the internal circulation system layout is the eight parking aisle connections to the loop road that intersect at 45 to 60 degrees rather than a preferred 90 degrees. In addition, parking and backing maneuvers to/from some of the parking stalls near many of these 45- to GO- degree connections could impact traffic flow on the loop road. This would be a .rignificant impact. impact 13-7: Lack of Sidewalk Connections. Sidewalks will be maintained along the project's East Grand Avenue and Cabot Road cul-de-sac frontages. Sidewalks will also be provided along the interior of the project's internal lop road as well Mitigation Measure 13-7: Provision of Sidewalk Connections. A sidewalk connecting Cabot Way with the internal campus sidewalk system, or to a gazage elevator which will provide access to the Less than Significant PAGE 2-18 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED E!R CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance as through the office campus. One sidewalk connection will be made from the office campus to the sidewalk along East Grand Avenue neaz the southeast comer of the site, while no sidewalk connection is proposed from the site to the Cabot Road sidewalk. Pedestrians accessing the Cabot Road sidewalk would need to use the garage driveway. The East Grand Avenue pedestrian access would be provided by both stairs and a ramp and would be a potential location for a shuttle stop. The lack of a defined sidewalk connection from the Project site to Cabot Road would produce safety concerns. This would be a rig~rificant impact of the project Impact 141: Increased Wastewater Flows. According to City of South San Francisco design wastewater flow estimates, the project would contribute 216,000 gpd of sewage and industrial wastewater to the City's sanitary sewer system, which amounts to an increase of 42 percent or more as compared with the former use of the site. The project does not include conservation or recycling technologies that would lessen its wastewater flows to the municipal system. This is a potentially .rignificant impact. campus sidewalk system shall be provided. Mitigation Measure 141a: Sanitary Sewer Fees. The City of South San Francisco is currently upgrading its sanitary sewer facilities to handle increased flows from new development. In order to recover the costs of these upgrades, the City charges new development aflat-rate sewer connection fee and a monthly impact fee. The amount of the impact fee is based on both the quantity (flow) and the quality (pounds BOD and pounds solids) of wastewater generated. In addition, the City raised its sewer rates by twenty-five percent in fiscal yeaz 2004-05 and plans to continue to raise rates by up to nine percent in each of the fiscal yeazs 2005-06 through 2008-09 in order to finance continuing sewer improvements. The occupants of the proposed project development shall pay the sanitary sewer fees imposed by the City of South San Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of the sewer system upgrades necessary to manage the wastewater flows generated by the project Mitigation Measure 141b: Wastewater Recycling. The proposed Project development is intended for biotech uses. However, a particular occupant or occupants for the Project site have not yet been identified. Depending on the laboratory practices of the future occupants, it maybe possible to recycle process and/or dean-up water at the Project site. The occupants of the proposed Project development shall evaluate the potential for on-site wastewater reryding and shall implement wastewater recycling methods. Less than Significant 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED ElR PAGE 2-19 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS The Project site is part of the City of South San Francisco's East of 101 Planning Area. The area ,.- consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land, and is bounded by San Francisco Bap on the east side, Highway 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The area is mostly developed and has a mix of land uses, -~- including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development facilities. °~- The Project site is located in a central part of the East of 101 area, at 249 East Grand Avenue near Roebling Road. The Project site's location is shown in Figure 3-1. The site was, until recently, developed with a large industrial building occupied by the Georgia Pacific Company, which was used to manufacture paper and cardboard products. The concrete-walled building is surrounded on the north, west and south by asphalt-paved areas used for parking and truck -„ staging areas, and on the east by a railroad spur that was used exclusively by Georgia Pacific to receive raw materials. Existing vegetation on the site consists of a large lawn area along the East Grand Avenue frontage, as well as 104 trees of varying heights and maturity, primarily along -- East Grand Avenue. 3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project would involve development of four Class-A office/laboratory buildings, ranging from three to five stories in height, totaling about 534,500 square feet, including 5,500 square feet of commercial space, and a four level parking structure providing 1,529 parking spaces. Building elevations would be a combination of punched and ribbon-window systems in ,_, conjunction with panels of glass-fiber reinforced or precast concrete. The Project would include extensive landscaping and open space areas. The site plan features a terraced landscape area between the buildings, visible from the main approach from East Grand Avenue. The Project landscape includes several different zones: the site perimeter and parking areas; the large public landscaped area between the buildings; and smaller sheltered landscaped °-- areas between the buildings (where the buildings serve as a barrier to the prevailing winds). The site perimeter and parking landscape areas include plantings at the perimeters to screen parking 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE .PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PACE 3-1 Figure 3-1 SOURCE: I.amphier-Gregory Project Site Location ..~ CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION as well as to present a positive image of the Project as viewed from East Grand Avenue. The „_,_ surface parking areas would include tree plantings. From the street, a visitor would approach the buildings from the main entry drive that provides a view of the large public landscape area between the buildings. The Project Site Plan is shown in Figure 3-2, while perspective views of ~- the proposed Project are shown in Figure 3-3. 3.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The proposed Project would fulfill the following objectives: 1. Convert a vacant former industrial site into a high technology research and development facility, ~~ 2. Build a project that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco, 3. Generate net property tax and other fees from the development project and enhance 4~ property values, 4. Build a project which is viable in the East of 101 Area based upon market conditions and projected service requirements for the Area, 5. Develop a project that has the high quality of design that is called for in the Design Policies and Guidelines of the East of 101 Area Plan, ,_ 6. Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the General Plan designation of the site for Business and Technology Park facilities, ,~ 7. Continuing to develop the East of 101 Area into a nationally recognized research and development center that will attract other life science businesses, and ~.-. 8. Retain the flexibility to build the project in phases that respond best to the market conditions. 3.4 REQUIRED APPROVALS The EIR will be used to provide decision makers and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in considering approval of the Project. The following approvals would be required: -- Use Permit • Tentative Parcel Map Permit • Planned Unit Development Permit "` Design Review Approval • Development Agreement 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ~~' DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-3 .. ~~«~ ~ ~~_ ~a ~ =rte # 1 ~$9A 9t 9C :1:9! ~Sf l~4 °~ ~ ` ~ fig` / ,, ~ ~,_ '~ ,. , ;,~ ~ '`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; _. _ . ~ ~, ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~:j~ '~ ~~ -Sac ,,f~~~^'~ ,i ~~~.~ ~ t' i ~ ~: ~97j 414' ` t t ~'~.~ _.~ ~ ~~ ~ Y " jj t.~~, ~ ti ~ __ - II , ~~ `~ b c c ~ ~,_ ~r,.~ 7~w t i F _ F ; f "254 ~ , i 'a ~ 3 :''gq''°° 3 /Y mom... Y.t 4 {del I (i."~~'~ `d ~., ~ ~ ,._~~ '~ 917 (~ a __ _~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ V A a 0 Q a 0 f-~4 MCI) d a'' >.. w .. V O/ L v c ro E a C7 d 3 0 A O 0 z 0 3 V d N W Q Z Y F- I Z 0 1 K F Z Z N V m f O oc 3 6 W y .~ ++ V N VJ it N ~r '~ M ~ c~ W v ~ ~ ~ •~ ^~ W " 4 AESTHETICS ~. 4.1 INTRODUCTION New development can substantially change the visual qualities and characteristics of an urban .~, area and may have long term lasting effects on the evolution of the urban area, thereby stimulating growth and increasing its attractiveness fox new or expanding businesses, residential development or other desired or planned land uses. On the other hand, new development can °- change the character of an area by disrupting the visual and aesthetic features that establish -the identity and value of an urban area fox its existing residents, merchants or other users. Loss of such identity and value may discourage new investment, continued residency or business activity or other activities that attract visitors to the area. A single new development can add to a district's appeal ox complement adopted goals for development and change or entirely overwhelm a district's scale and visual landmarks. Over time, a new development may become a valued component of the district and its identity, ox generate dissatisfaction by residents, visitors, employers and employees. The visual value of any given feature is highly subject to personal sensibilities and variations in subjective reaction to the features of an urban area. A negative visual impression on one person map be viewed as positive or beneficial by another. Objective ox commonly agreed upon standards are difficult to establish, but an extensive body of literature is devoted to the subject of urban design and visual aesthetics. 4.2 SETTING 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 west and north. Hills axe 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 1 Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco Genera! Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issuer, 1997, p.4-2, 4-10, 4-15. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 4-1 CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS 0 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. The Project site is located in the East of 101 Planning 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, warehousing and ...~ distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The recent emergence of modern office buildings marks the third major wave of land use change in the area. The newly emerging office areas are unique in their 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. .. The Project site is located at 249 East Grand Avenue, where East Grand Avenue intersects with Roebling Road. The site is currently vacant, but was formerly occupied by a large industrial building owned by the Georgia Pacific Company, which was used to manufacture paper and cardboard products. SITE DESCRIPTION The following descriptions and photographs of the Project site facilitate an understanding of the .-~ site's visual characteristics. The photographs were taken in April and May of 2005, prior to demolition of Georgia Pacific's building. .- The site's frontage, looking west along East Grand Avenue is shown in Figure 4-1a. From this vantage point it is possible to see virtually all of the landscaping on site, including a Large lawn area and a line of shrubs and olive trees. Figure 4-1b is a picture taken from near the location of ~"' Figure 4-1, looking south to an office development across East Grand Avenue. The former building's massing and front parking lot are shown in Figure 4-2a. Figure 4-2b is a picture taken from near the former building's southwest corner, looking north with neighboring properties and San Bruno Mountain in the background. Moving northward on the Project site, Figure 4-3a is a picture of the former building's west side and a large paved area to the west. ..„ Though not visible in the picture, an abandoned railroad right-of--way is located between the cyclone fence and large building in the picture's background. Figure 4-3b shows part of the western paved area and the property located west of the site, with Sign Hill in the background. "'° Figure 4-4a is a view of land uses to the west of the site as well as San Bruno Mountain. Figure 4-4b shows a southern view of the Project site, looking toward East Grand Avenue, while Figure 4-5a is a view of the northern {rear) portion of the site. Figure 4-5b shows the site's eastern boundary, including a railroad spur formerly used by Georgia Pacific to receive raw materials. ..~ PAGE 4-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR .~ :~: site rrontage Along East Grand Avenue ~ t' ~ ~~~ ~i ~~~ ~ ' ;. ' ~. ~<< ~,x - /~ s u.r~l rr w~, B: Office Complex Across From Project Site Figure 41 Site Views {~J" .. ' ~ : ' "~ ~ 1 Y "~ w -G . . S tom y r r < ~ .+ y +~L~ _~ K f ~ J - P f r , r. ~ 't H - ~ Y ~ , ,~ . t ti S.c ~ ..< f~ ~ ~.. ,_~ a.0. ~ 5.`- 1T S"'1't r „I~J'y~'J1 .'-~ J- J. ~y a ti { ' ~ ~ S+ R x. ~' 1t, 3' li , f. n i :' ~ C4 ld _ ~~ v.. ~ .. A: Site Frontage ~h'itltin Parking Lot B: View of San Bruno A4ountain and Neighboring Properties Figure 4-2 Site Views z ~- }~. ~~ i V+s' ~ •_ ~ { ry* Y t~.~~M'~ bra ~~~ v ~ h~ a, 'Yf ~['~' ~~ ~'a >'i F ~ o .~ ~ t t ~ ~~ wtm - i A: Western Area of Project Site "'r'h~1 ~J4 L'& ~~~_ tiT~ ~~ C x ~~ ~ ~ 1~ ~"y :'. !~ SR's _ d 4 i~y~ .~ w. ~ ~ f w-~ ~-sAI ~~ 'L' ¢ q. "7 ~ ~ ~.. 4 ~ y- t{ ~ 'l'am r ~ r t_~ ~ 74 ~ ~ Y~~~~. G~'° G 4 ~ a ~ ~,t.F_ ,. (y~ s.. Y h ~ e ~ -o: u ~- ~ :- c ~ - v ! _ - x .. , ~ ~ ~~. `~ ~~ - - ~ - B: Neighboring Properties and Sign Hill Figure 4-3 Site Views ~~ 3~4'~(, ~ 7r j'{` ~ ,~~ F ~ iii ~ i\ 9 ~ ~r y. ~._ A: San Bruno Mountain Figure 4-4 Site Views '"" ts: ~outhem View'Cowazd East Grand Avenue ~, x~:> f r; ~~ ~~' ~,;,., B: Eastern Boundary of Project Site Figure 4-5 Site Views CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS ... 4.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS "` STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's aesthetic impacts axe based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: „~ 1. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, ~" trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3. Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site '" and its surroundings? 4. Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would ~" adversely affect day ox nighttime views in the area? PROJECT IMPACTS AND 1VIITIGATION MEASURES SCENIC VISTA San Bruno Mountain is a prominent visual landmark in South San Francisco, and can be seen from many locations throughout the city, including from the Project site. San Bruno Mountain can also be seen from across East Grand Avenue, from the sidewalk, and from the business park located across the street. Construction of the proposed Project, with its three to five story buildings, may block out all ox a portion of the existing view to the north. However, the area on East Grand Avenue from which the mountain is visible is not designated a scenic overlook; it is not a place where people gather in order to gain a view of San Bruno Mountain. Therefore, blockage of existing views by the proposed Project would be considered Less than signi~icunt. SCENIC HIGHWAYS The Project site is not located on a scenic highway, and therefore would have no impact related to scenic resource damage on a scenic highway. VISUAL CHARACTER ..~ As described in the Setting section above, the visual character of the East of 101 area consists of a mixture of older and newer office and industrial buildings, with differing amounts of associated landscaping. The Project site was until recently occupied by an older, unattractive industrial building, while the proposed Project would involve construction of a new highly designed office building complex with extensive landscaping and open space areas for public PAGE 48 _ 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAF•r FOCUSED EIR ... CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS use. The proposed Project would have a beneficial impact on the visual character of the East of 101 area. LIGHT AND GLARE '°' Impact 4-1 Light and Glare. Project implementation would involve construction of four three to five story office buildings. The many windows and outdoor lights associated with these buildings would potentially be substantial sources of day and nighttime glare, which would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation -' Measure 4-1 Glare Minimization Design Standards. Lighting designs should employ fixtures that would cast light in a downward direction, and building materials should not be sources of substantial glare. Provided these standards are followed, the amount of light and glare emanating from the Project site would be considered Zess than Significant. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT '- DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 4-9 5 Al R QUALITY 5.1 INTRODUCTION While air quality is largely a regional issue, the protection of air quality is vital to the overall health of the environment and the attractiveness of any locality.' South San Francisco enjoys generally good air quality due largely to the presence of the San Bruno Gap, a break in the Santa Cruz Mountains that allows onshore winds to flow easily into San Francisco Bap and quickly ,~, disperse air pollutants. Within South San Francisco, certain areas of the city are more likely to result in pollutant _. exposure fox residents and workers. These areas include the Highway 101, Interstate 280, and El Camino Real corridors, which experience relatively high pollutant concentrations due to heavy traffic volumes, particularly during peak periods. In addition, wind blowing out of the south and ~~ southeast exposes the city to emissions from the San Francisco International Airport. 5.2 REGULATORY SETTING South San Francisco is located within the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Air quality in the basin is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which operates a regional network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards fox criteria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air ~... contaminants are being achieved. Under the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can classify ~- an air basin or portion thereof, as either in "attainment" or "nonattainment". This classification is based on whether or not the basin meets national ambient air quality standards. Likewise, a basin is classified under the California Clean Air Act with respect to the achievement of State '~' ambient air quality standards. The Bay Area is considered "attainment" for all of the national standards, with the exception of ozone. It is considered "nonattainment" fox State standards for ozone and suspended particulate matter (1'Mio)• ~ Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francirco General Plan, 1999, p. 233. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT °~ DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-1 CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY Air quality standards have also been established for other common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to address the State requirements of the California Clean Air Act. The Plan has been updated three times, in 1994, 1997 and 2000, "°" with the continued goal of improving air quality through tighter industry controls, cleaner fuels and combustion in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives. 5.3 AIR QUALITY DATA The BAAQMD monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Air Basin, although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the Project site are located in San Francisco and Redwood City. Table 5-1 summarizes exceedances of the -~ state and federal standards at these two sites. The table shows that most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the Project area with the exception of the state standard fox PMIo and ozone. "` TABLE 3-1 AIR DUALITY DATA SUMMARY FOR SAN FRANCISCO AND REDWOOD CITY. 2001-2003 ~. Pollutant Standard Monitori Site Da Standard Exceed ed 2001 2002 2003 Ozone Federal 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 Ozone State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 1 0 1 Ozone Federal 8-Hours San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 PM~o Federal 24-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 PM~o State 24-Hour San Francisco 7 2 1 Redwood City 4 1 0 Carbon Monoxide State/Federal San Francisco 0 0 0 8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 0 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2004. PAGE 5-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY 5.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The criteria. is further defined as follows: -- - If the Project shows an estimated population greater than assumed in the Clean Air Plan (as defined in ABAG Projections), then it would be inconsistent with air quality planning, and would be deemed to have a significant air quality impact. - If the Project shows a growth rate in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) higher than the population growth rate, it would be considered to be hindering progress toward "~ achieving a substantial reduction in the rate of increase in passenger vehicle trips and miles traveled. Therefore, it would be considered inconsistent with regional air quality planning, and deemed to have a significant air quality impact - The consistency of the Project with Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures ._ (I'CMs) must also be considered in evaluating air quality effects associated with implementation of the Project If the Project does not demonstrate reasonable efforts to implement the TCMs identified in the Clean Air Pia.n, then it would be considered .-.. to be inconsistent with the CAP and deemed to have a significant air quality impact 2. Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ~-- existing or projected air quality violation? 3. Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria. °°- pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 5. Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES CONFLICT WITH AIR QUALITY PLAN The amount of development associated with the proposed Project is consistent with the intensity of development for the Project site foreseen in the South San Francisco General Plan, ~-. which was published in 1999. The site is located in an area designated as Business and 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ~... DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-3 CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY Technology Park in the General Plan, and the Project site's proposed use is also consistent with the city's Zoning Ordinance. The city's General Plan designations, and future land use types and intensities, would have been taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD's most "" recent Clean Air Plan, released in 2000. The Project would therefore be consistent with, and have no impact on, the Clean Air Plan. ' AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Impact 5-1 Construction Dust. Construction activity involves a high potential for the emission of air pollutants. Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions ~,„ that would affect local air quality. This would be a potentiaZZy significant impact. 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 mitigable. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines' provide thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. 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 of PM,o. If the appropriate construction controls are to be -~ implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure 5-1 Dust Suppression Procedures. The following basic, enhanced and optional measures are recommended for inclusion in construction contracts to control -~ fugitive dust emissions during construction. Basic Measures • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction site. a Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised 1999). ,.., PAGE 5-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -" CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY • 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. • Limit construction equipment idling time. • Properly tune construction equipment engines, and install particulate traps on diesel equipment. Enhanced Measures • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. ~- • Install sandbags ox other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Optional Measures • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds ('instantaneous ._, gusts) exceed 25 mph. With the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, impacts related to construction ~-- emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level. 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 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ._. DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-5 CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY vehicle trip generation. New vehicle trips add to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets that provide access to the site. The Bap Area Air Quality Management District's BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommends estimation of carbon monoxide concentrations for projects where Project traffic would impact 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% or more (if the increase is at least 100 vehicles per hour). Emissions and ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide have decreased greatly in recent years. These improvements are due largely to the introduction of cleaner burning motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels. No exceedances of the State ox National CO standard have been recorded at any of the Bay Area's monitoring stations since 1991. The Bay Area has attained the State and National CO standard. .., However, despite this progress, localized CO concentrations still warrant concern in the Bay Area and should be addressed. The region must safeguard against localized high concentrations '" of CO that may not be recorded at monitoring sites. Because elevated CO concentrations are generally fairly localized, heavy traffic volumes and congestion can lead to high levels of CO, or "hotspots", while concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below State .. and National standards. A screening method of the Caline4 Model was used in order to determine what effect the Project would have on localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. The screening method used for the Project area assumed worst-case, peak-hour traffic volumes along the Allerton/East Grand Avenue intersection and the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. According to the traffic analysis completed by Crane Transportation Group (CTG) for this Project, and as shown in Table 13-2 of this EIR, the Allerton/East Grand Avenue intersection ... would be the intersection most affected by the project in terms of decreased Levels of Service. According to Figure 13-7, the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection would be the busiest intersection in terms of traffic volume as measured by CTG. "° The model was run for each intersection for the PM Peak Hour for existing CO concentrations, as well as CO levels in 2008 with and without the Project The following table details the results of the Caline4 Model runs. PAGE 5-b 249 EAST GRAND AVEI\IUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED FIR CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY TABLE 5-2 LOCALIZED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS (parts per million) Model Scenario AllertonlEast Grand CO Concentration Oyster PointlGateway CO Concentration 1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour Existing 3.08 2.45 3.61 2.98 2008 no Project 3.17 2.58 3.72 3.13 2008 with Project 3.19 2.60 3.78 3.19 In any scenario, CO emissions would not reach the thresholds established by the BAAQMD of 20 parts per million over a 1-hour period, or 9 parts per million over an 8-hour period. As shown in the above table, CO emissions in the area would increase by 2008 with the proposed Project. However, because 2008 CO emission levels in the area would remain below BAAQMD standards, this impact would be less than significant. CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE IMPACTS The Project would 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. Based on CTG's estimate of 5,946 daily two way trips to and from the Project site, URBEMIS7G Model calculations were performed in order to determine whether the Project would exceed air emissions thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrous Oxide (NO,~ and Carbon Monoxide (CO). Emissions thresholds are 80 pounds per day for ROG and NOx and 550 pounds per day fox CO. The Project's emissions for ROG are estimated at 54 lbs./day, below the significance threshold. Impact 5-2 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. The proposed Project would exceed emissions standards for NOX, by producing 112 lbs./day, as well as producing 742 lbs./day of CO. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 5-2 Transportation Demand Management Program. Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Program, as described in Mitigation Measure 13-1 of the Transportation and Circulation chapter, would reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from the Project site, but not to the extent that NOa and CO emissions would be reduced to acceptable levels. This would remain a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-7 CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY .~ SENSITIVE RECEPTORS The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly,, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptor is the Early ,,, Years Children's Center located at 371 Allerton Avenue, which is located roughly 400 feet east of the proposed Project site. The proposed Project could expose the Early Years Children's Center to on-site emissions during construction and operation of the Project. Any Project occupant who would potentially release toxic air contaminant emissions would be subject to rules, regulations and procedures of -~ the Bap 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 maybe 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. Chemical toxicity is based on animal study results and in some instances, on the results of human exposure. Issues -~ . of toxic air contaminants are discussed in Chapter 8 of this document. ODORS During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would cxeate odors. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the ~` Project site's boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore less than significant. .w Because at this time it is not known exactly what type of business activity (beyond what has been identified as high technology research and development) would take place at the Project site if the proposed Project is implemented, it is not possible to determine what level of impact, if anq, the Project would have. However, the Project would be expected to conform to any applicable ~, air quality regulations, in order to ensure that it produces a less than significant amount of offensive odors. PAGE 5-8 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -- 6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 6.1 SETTING The primary natural resources in the East of 101 area are wetlands and their associated plant and animal species, and slopes with native vegetation. Other natural resources, such as forests, soils and minerals, are generally absent in the East of 101 area due to previous industrial use of the land and the fill soils found in the area. Natural vegetation is limited to isolated, scattered parcels, and much of the vegetated areas are landscaped. The vast majority of the Project site has until recent demolition activities been developed, .~.. covered mostly by an industrial building and asphalt Portions of the site fronting along East Grand Avenue are covered with vegetation, and include a large lawn area, shrubbery and trees. There is also a thus strip of vegetation located along the western and northern property lines. ~" There are 104 trees located on the Project site. 6.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds fox measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species °- in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California. Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 3. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ~"' DRAFT FOCUSED ElR PAGE 6-1 CHAPTER 6: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4. Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5. Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? -- 6. Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state '°` habitat conservation plan? PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SPECIES AND HABITATS Because the Project site is located in a largely industrial area, on a site that has already been developed, the Project would have no impact on any endangered, threatened or rare species or ... their habitats, or to any federally protected wetlands or wildlife corridors. POLICIES, PLANS AND .ORDINANCES .~ The Project site is vegetated by various types of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, and lawn areas. Of the 104 trees located on the site, 14 are considered protected trees, based on the City '~ of South San Francisco Tree Ordinance. Impact G-1 Removal of Protected Trees. Construction at the Project site would require cutting down 104 trees. Fourteen of the trees on the site are considered protected trees under Section 13.30.020(f)(1) of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to tree preservation (Tree Ordinance). According to the Ordinance, a protected tree is defined as the following: 1. Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade; or 2. A tree or stand of trees so designated by the Director based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or -» 3. A stand of trees in which the Director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. -- The 14 protected trees on the site are considered protected because their trunk circumferences measure more than 48 inches above natural grade. '" Cutting down these trees would be a potentially significant impact of the Project. PAGE 6-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED ElR -~ CHAPTER 6: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure 6-1 Tree Replacement. The Project applicant shall be required to obtain a tree cutting permit and adhere to the City of South San Francisco Tree Ordinance before removing any trees from the Project site. According to the Tree Ordinance, no protected tree shall be removed, pruned; or otherwise materially altered without a permit except as provided in Section 13.30.030. A tree cutting permit requires replacement of a tree with three 24-inch box or two 36-inch box minimum size landscape trees fox each tree removed, as described in Section 13.30.080 of the Tree Ordinance. Adherence to the provisions of the City of South San Francisco Tree Ordinance would reduce the impact of cutting down protected trees on the Project site to a level of less than significant. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-3 _ 7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 7.1 INTRODUCTION The information presented below was drawn from several sources of data including: (1) Geotechnical report fox the Project site completed by KC Engineering Company (April 2, 2004); (2) Review of USGS Open File Reports (OFR) of the area, including a map of the bedrock geology (USGS OFR 98-354, 1998), Quaternary Geologic Map, including liquefaction ~„ susceptibility (USGS OFR 97-715,1997), and Landslide Map (CTSGS OFR 97-745 C); (3) Review of Official California. Geologic Survey (CGS) (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG)) Maps, including the South San Francisco Alquist=Priolo (A-P) Earthquake -- Fault Zone Map (1982), and Fault Activity Map of California (1994); (4) Review of government websites, including the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) website (www.abag.gov) for a summary of hazards ranging from liquefaction to seismic landsliding; and (5) Review of the °r East of 101 Area Plan of the City of South San Francisco, as well as all other applicable ordinances and regulations. 7.2 SETTING °~° Regional Seismicity The site lies in the tectonically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of northern .~ California, on the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. Development of the northwest trending ridges and valleys in the vicinity, including the Santa Cruz Mountains and San Francisco „~ Bay, are controlled by active tectonism along the boundary between the North American and Pacific Tectonic Plates, the San Andreas Fault System. Area faults have predominantly right- lateral strike-slip (horizontal) movement, with lesser dip-slip (vertical) components of °°- displacement. Horizontal and vertical movement is distributed on the various fault strands within a fault zone. Throughout geologic time the fault strands experiencing active deformation change in response to regional shifts in stress and strain from plate motions. Within 15 miles of - the project site there are three major active faults that display large right-lateral strike-slip offsets, the San Andreas fault, the San Gregorio fault, and the Hayward fault. The geotechnical report cited the nearest active or potentially active fault zones to the site as the San Andreas fault, located 3.4 miles southwest of the site, the San Gregorio Fault (Seal Cove 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ~~- DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-1 CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS fault), located approximately 8.6 miles to the southwest, and the Hayward Fault, located approximately 15.0 miles to the northeast. The nearest potentially active fault (showing evidence of Quaternary movement, or movement within the past 1.6 million years) is the San Bruno fault, .. located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the site. The nearest geologic fault is the Hillside fault, located approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the site. This fault is not considered active or potentially active. Seismicity of the Project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic period, including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and most .~ recently, the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.' Small, non-damaging earthquakes occur frequently in the project vicinity. Larger potentially damaging earthquakes are expected to occur .,., periodically, and are considered likely during the design life of the Project site. Regional Geology The site is located at the edge of the San Francisco Bay, a submerged valley in the Central Coast Ranges of California.. This area is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and .~ valleys oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Tertiary strata commonly rest in angular unconformity on rocks of the Franciscan complex, which is composed of weakly to strongly metamorphosed greywacke (sandstone), "" argillite, limestone, basalt, serpentinite, and chert. The rocks of the Franciscan complex are ancient Jurassic oceanic crust and deep marine (pelagic) deposits accreted onto the edge of the North American Continent and metamorphosed as a result of accretion and partial subduction. .» These deposits have been overlain by Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous sedimentary deposits. Deposits of these rocks may be found outcropping along San Bruno Mountain in the Project ., vicinity. Little metamorphosed, high-pressure, low-temperature metamorphic minerals are common in the Franciscan complex, but there are also high grade metamorphic blocks in sheared but relatively un-metamorphosed argillite matrix which reflect the complicated history --< of the Franciscan. These rocks have been offset by movement along the San Andreas Fault System, which traverses the Santa Cruz Mountains prior to heading offshore in Southern Daly City, on the other side of the Peninsula. The San Francisco Peninsula is dissected by several northwest trending and structurally controlled valleys, including the valley of Colma Creek, which contains the Project site. During the Quaternary Period of rising and falling sea level in response to patterns of global glaciation these valleys have been incised and then backfilled with sediment to form the suite of ,~ alluvial deposits that can be found today, including the Pleistocene Colma Formation. Along the bap margin, deposits of Holocene `Bay Mud" deposited during the past 11,000 years, during which time the Bay has filled with seawater, can be found, as well as marsh deposits, and other -~ Erne grained sediment accumulated by currents along the shore. ~ California Division of Mines and Geology, 2002. PAGE 7-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED ElR .~. CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Site Geology and Soils According to a recent map of bedrock geology (1998), most of the site is underlain by the Pleistocene Colma Formation, with a small area of historic artificial fill over tidelands in the south corner. The Cohna Formation is described as friable, well sorted, fine to medium grained ,v, sand containing a few beds of sandy silt, clay, and gravel throughout most of the area, but also as sandy clay and silty sand in the Project vicinity. Fill is described as clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, orgaauc matter, and man made debris, placed over tidal flats. The site is likely ~- underlain at depth by Franciscan Rocks similar to those exposed in nearby San Bruno Mountain. Sandstone bedrock typical of the Franciscan Complex was penetrated in two boreholes at the site. A site geologic map was not completed for the geotechnical investigation, but several boreholes drilled through the property indicate subsurface conditions. Since boreholes were not drilled inside the warehouse, the subsurface information is only detailed around the edge of the proposed development. These boreholes typically encountered 2 to 4 inches of asphalt, and ,.~ variable gravel depths as thick as 12 inches. Along East Grand Avenue, between 4 and 5 feet of silt, sand, and clay fill was reportedly encountered, while significant fill was not reported in the other boreholes. However, with the exception of Borehole 6 on the north corner, all the logs w-° report typically clayey sand soils to a depth of between 24.5 to 31.5 feet BGS. Borehole 1 penetrated sandstone bedrock at 27.5 feet BGS, while Borehole 6 penetrated apparently similar sandstone bedrock at about 6 feet deep. While other boreholes did not reportedly penetrate ~"` bedrock, it seems likely that the depth to bedrock should not significantly exceed about 30 feet and soils should become thinner in the northerly direction and toward the hills. Although .~ medium-dense to dense sand was most commonly found, clay lenses between about 5 and 10 feet thick were encountered in Boreholes 2 and 6. Boreholes 1 and 2 initially encountered groundwater at 10 feet BGS, while in Boreholes 3, 4, and 5, shallower groundwater was found at .._ depths of 1, 4.5, and 3 feet, respectively. No groundwater was encountered in Borehole 6. Results indicate a shallow, probably perched groundwater table between about 1 and 4.5 feet BGS underlies most of the eastern portion of the property, with a deeper water table about 10 ~'- feet BGS found toward the west edge of the property, and little or no groundwater next to the hill behind the property. Landsliding and Slope Stability Slope steepness is generally the dominant factor governing slope stability, depending upon soil and bedrock conditions. Steep slopes greater than 50 percent are especially prone to landslides in areas of weak soil and/or bedrock. The geotechnical feasibility report did not exa+r~ne the risk „_ of landsliding or slope stability at the site, since the development will redevelop a nearly level parcel of land, the risk from slope instability may be assumed to be minor. According to ABAG the site is not at risk from slope instability. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT "" DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-3 CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Primary Seismic Hazards -Surface Fault Rupture A number of active and potentially active faults are present in the region. According to criteria of the State of California Geological Survey, active faults have experienced surface rupture within the last 11,000 years (Holocene Period). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 initiated a program of mapping active and potentially active faults (faults with ... displacement within Quaternary time -the last 1.6 million years). According to the program, active faults must be zoned and development projects within the Earthquake Fault Zones investigated to establish the location and age of any faulting across the development site. Active '"` and potentially active faults along the San Francisco Peninsula have undergone extensive investigation in the past. ABAG has s~,mmari7ed results from many of these studies to quantify the potential impact to certain areas, while the California Geological Survey has established Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ} boundaries. According to these maps, the proposed development is not located within an EFZ. 'The nearest EFZ is for the San Andreas Fault, located slightly more than 3 miles southwest of the site. Since no faults are mapped across the Project site on any published maps, the ... geotechnical consultant inferred ground rupture at the site as a result of an earthquake unlikely and the risk of ground rupture within the Project boundaries is considered very low. Secondary Seismic Hazards Ground Shakin '" The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region. The Project site and region will likely be subjected to strong to violent seismically induced ground shaking within the design life of the "'" development. The site is located in an area of active regional seismicity near active seismic sources. According to a recent study completed by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), which assesses the probability of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is a 62 percent probability that an earthquake of Richter Magnitude 6.7 or greater will strike between 2003 and 2032.2 The intensity of ground shaking will vary with the distance and magnitude of the earthquake causing the ground shaking. The maximum intensity ground shaking expected to occur at the site would be a modified Mercalli intensity level of IX (violent) in response to an earthquake of ,_ equivalent magnitude to the 1906 earthquake (7.9) on the San Andreas fault. An earthquake of magnitude 6.8 on the Hayward fault would be expected to produce strong ground shaking equivalent to Mercalli intensity level VII s ... 2 WGCEP, 2002. Association of Bay Area Governments, ~v~vw.abag.cagov , 2005. PAGE 7-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR "° CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Peak ground accelerations for the site with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50- year period are approximately 60 percent of the acceleration due to gravity (g).4 Actual ground -~-- motions resulting from ground acceleration may be amplified or dampened depending on the underlying geologic materials. Deep soft soils tend to amplify waves whereas shallow soils overlying hard bedrock tends to dampen shaking intensity. With relatively shallow soils at the °`~' project site, no amplification of seismic waves is anticipated. Seismically Induced Liquefaction Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of saturated, cohesionless soil into a viscous liquid as a result of ground shaking. Liquefaction potential was examined for the site in the ~. geotechnical report. According to that report, the risk of liquefaction was determined to be very low. According to ABAG, soils at the site have a very low susceptibility to liquefactions These ,~ maps show a sharp demarcation at the line separating Bay fill and native ground, from very high risk to very low risk. The geotechnical report assessed liquefaction potential at the site and concluded a very low risk due to the presence of dense silty and clayey sands, with a liquid limit N- greater than 35 percent and silt plus clap content between 28 and 42 percent and at least 15 percent clay. Seismically Induced Densification Dynamic densification or ground subsidence can occur when dry cohesioniess soils collapse as a °~" result of seismic shaking. This may be particularly true of unconsolidated sandy fill, or ground overlying hollow areas due to caves, mines, or areas with excessive groundwater removal. Since these conditions do not occur at the site, dynamic densification is not considered a hazard. Seismically Induced Lurch Cracking `°` Lurching is the sudden swaying, rolling, or spreading of the ground during a strong earthquake. Lurch cracking is the development of fissures or cracks on slopes overlain by weak soils. According to the geotechnical report, soil materials present at the site were typically stiff to very stiff clayey soils, and are not susceptible to lurch cracking. Lurch cracking is not considered a hazard. Seismically Induced Landslides ,~ Seismically induced slope failure is another secondary seismic hazard. During earthquake induced ground shaking, unstable slopes can fail, causing landslides and debris flows. Due to the nearly level topography of the site, seismically induced landslides are not considered a °- hazard. a California Geologic Survey, htt~://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/~shamap/gshamain html . 5 ABAG website, wwar.abag.ca.gov 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT .~ DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-5 CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS 7.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS -~ STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's aesthetic impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refex to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? _~ iv) Landslides? 2. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 3. Would the Project 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? 4. Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5. Would the Project 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? '" PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SEISMIC IMPACTS According to CEQA guidelines, exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards is a significant adverse impact. The primary geologic hazards affecting the Project identified in the Initial Study are strong seismic ground shaking, slope instability, and expansive clayey soils. The basic criterion applied to the analysis of impacts is whether construction of the Project will create, or be founded on, unstable geologic conditions that would last beyond the short-term PAGE 7-6 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS construction period. The analysis of geological hazards is primarily based on the degree to which the site geology could produce hazards to people, structures, and the environment from ~~- earthquakes, fault rupture, landslides, soil creep, expansion and settlement or other geologic events. Surface Fault Rupture According to the latest available maps, the site is not contained within an Alquist-Priolo °-°' Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. Published geologic maps show no faults across the site, and there is no other indication of an active fault, and therefore no impact to the Project. Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Impact 7-1 Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a high probability that the proposed development would be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from an earthquake during its design life. Exposure of people and buildings to strong seismic ground shaking is considered a potentiaZZy significant impact. Mitigation Measure 7-1a Compliance with Uniform Building Code and California Building Code. Project development shall meet requirements of the California. Building Code Vol. 1 and 2, 2001 Edition, including the California. Building Standards, 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standards would reduce the potential fox catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking. Mitigation Measure 7-1b Compliance with recommendations of a design level geotechnical report. Proper foundation engineering and construction in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer shall be included in the Project. The feasibility level geotechnical investigation was completed without a development plan. This investigation revealed that the Project is geotechnically feasible. Following development of a building plan, a design level geotechnical investigation shall be completed with recommendations specific to the proposed structures. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-7 CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure 7-1c At a minimum, the structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the feasibility level geotechnical report adopted from the California. Building Code. Site specific seismic response criteria. shall be developed as part of the design level Geotechnical Investigation. There would be no additional impact upon completion of the design level study and adherence to recommended seismic parameters, given that the Project was deemed feasible by the initial geotechnical study. Seismic Zone 4 Moment Magnitude M6.9+ Soil Profile Type S~ Seismic Source Type A Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Seismic Coefficients Ca = 0.40Na; Cv = 0.56Nv Near Source Factors Na = 1.5; Nv = 1.6 Obtain a building permit and complete final design review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria. fox planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Conformity with these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact related to seismic ground shaking to a level of less than significant. Seismic Ground Failure, including Liquefaction, Densification, Differential Settlement According to Association of Bap Area Governments hazard maps, the site is not within a liquefaction hazard zane. The Geotechnical Investigation by KC Engineering Company PAGE 7-8 ~ 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS concluded that site soils axe not susceptible to liquefaction. This would be considered a less than significant impact. Exposure to Seismically Induced Landslides No landslides are mapped across the property and the site is nearly level. There would be no impact. SOIL EROSION Impact 7-2 Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading in a sensitive area near the San Francisco Bay. During construction, grading would disturb soil -- and displace any topsoil that could potentially impact vicinity drainages, and would eventually impact Colma Creek and the Bay. This would be a potentially significant impact during and following site construction activities. ~~-- Mitigation Measure 7-2a Erosion Control Plan. The Project applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Grading "~~` Permit Application. The Plan shall include winterization, dust, erosion and pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, with sediment basin design calculations. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the "best management practices" (BMPs) to be used during and after construction to control ..., pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Recommended soil stabilization techniques include placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance areas or other ._., control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains. Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and _. construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately. Mitigation Measure 7-2b Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the ..~ Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Applicant shall file a SWPPP prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best management practices to reduce soil 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT °- DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-9 CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit fox Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity {Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWG. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level of Zess -- than significant. UNSTABLE GEOLOGIC SOILS .~ Impact 7-3 Unstable Soils. The site contains shallow groundwater and variable depth of fill soils, which could become unstable if improperly compacted, stockpiled, or excavated during grading. Settlement and dynamic densification could become issues with improper foundation design. Moreover, utility trenches and other excavations axe likely to encounter groundwater and may require dewatering. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 7-3 Construction in Accordance with Design Level Geotechnical Investigation. A design level geotechnical investigation shall be completed that includes subsurface investigation in areas now occupied by structures. The design level geotechnical report shall include recommendations for site "" preparation and grading, foundation design, retaining wall design parameters, concrete slabs-on-grade, pavement section design, surface and subsurface drainage measures and site specific seismic response criteria.. Grading recommendations shall include specifications for engineered fill, including moisture conditioning and relative percent compaction, and suitability of materials as engineered or structural fill. Recommendations shall also establish maximum cut and fill slopes. Cuts to be made adjacent to the property line shall be evaluated for potential adverse impact to neighboring properties. In accordance with the East of 101 Area Plan, new slopes greater than 5 feet in height, either cut in native soils or rock, or created by placing '" fill material, shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer and have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. Drainage recommendations shall include provisions to prevent the ponding of water, prevent seepage under structures, including pavements, and generally direct flow away from structural foundations. Drainage recommendations shall incorporate proposed landscaping elements. Permanent subsurface drains are expected to be necessary for retaining walls to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls. PAGE 7-10 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Recommendations for foundations shall include soil bearing capacity or skin friction values, lateral pressures, and types of ground improvement -- techniques, if necessary. Geotechnical recommendations shall also provide the depth of footings or pile foundations necessary for the planned structures. During construction, a Registered Geotechnical Engineer or his "` representative shall observe all foundation work. A letter indicating that all foundation construction meets with the intent of the geotechnical recommendations shall be provided to the Building Official prior to concrete pouring. M_ Recommendations for concrete slab construction shall identify measures to mitigate expansive soils to minimize shrink/swell potential, such as moisture conditioning or replacement with select non-expansive fill, as well as ~_ concrete thickness and reinforcement. The feasibility report recommended that in addition to 4 inches of Caltrans Class II AB underlying slabs, a 10 millimeter minimum thickness vapor retarding membrane meeting ASTM `°° E1745 should be placed between the concrete slab and base rock to minimize moisture condensation under floor coverings placed on .slabs. The design level report shall either corroborate this recommendation or identify an alternative to be implemented. Recommendations for pavement areas shall include compaction and moisture conditioning requirements, as well as pavement section thickness and construction design based upon aResistance-value (R-value) determined -.. for subgrade soils in the areas to be paved. The design report shall include specific drainage criteria behind retaining ~-- walls, and identify retaining wall foundation design and design parameters. In general, the design report shall either corroborate or provide alternative -- recommendations to the feasibility report based upon actual soil and rock conditions in the areas where structures are proposed. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the Project's impact relating to unstable or potentially unstable soils to Zess than significant. EXPANSIVE SOILS Impact 7-4 Expansive Soils. According to the feasibility level geotechnical report, potentially expansive clay soils were encountered. Expansive clay soils may ,,,_ shrink and swell, resulting in damaged foundations, concrete slabs, pavements and other improvements. This is a potentially significant impact. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT -- DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-11 CHAPTER 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure 7-4 Design and Construction in Accordance with Design Level "` Geotechnical Investigation. The design level geotechnical report shall recommend mitigation measures for expansive clay soils. Potential measures fox control of expansive clay soils include the following: a} Placing and compacting potentially expansive soils at high moisture '" contents (at least 5 percent above optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D155~ and compaction within selected ranges of 88 to 92 percent. b) Using thickened concrete slabs with increased steel reinforcement. c) Repla.cang clayey soils underlying foundations and concrete slabs with select structural fill that is non-expansive or has a low expansion index. d) Treating site soils with lime to reduce the expansion potential and increase the strength. e) Grade around structures to assure positive drainage away from structures. Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the impact of potentially expansive soils to less than significant. _, SEPTIC SYSTEMS No impact would occur, because a sewer system is present in the area and septic systems are not required at the site. PAGE 7-7 2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR "" HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 8.1 INTRODUCTION A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, map either 1) cause, or '°`" significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and safety, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed. Hazardous waste (a subset of hazardous material) refers to hazardous material that is to be abandoned, discarded or recycled. -- The following section describes the history of hazardous materials at the site, and the threat to future occupants and the surrounding environment resulting from the proposed development, ,~ including expected use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with Class A laboratory facilities. The information presented below was drawn from several sources of data including. (1) Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for the property completed by Environ '~" International Corporation (April 2, 2004); (2) Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment for the property completed by Envixon International Corporation (April 2, 2004); (3) Reports on Asbestos Surveys .completed on the existing Georgia Pacific Facility (February 27, 2004 and April 5, 2005); (4) Appendix to Phase 1, Environmental Data Resources Incorporated Radius Map with Geocheck database search Qanuary 6, 2004); (5) Review of Historical Topographic Maps Online (http://sunsite.berkelep.edu/histopo/); (6) Review of the East of 101 Area Plan of the City of South San Francisco, as well as all other applicable ordinances and regulations; ('7) 249 East Grand Avenue Development Plan Sheets prepared for Alexandria Real Estate Equities, ~-- by Dowler Gn,man Architects; (8) 249 East Grand Avenue Preliminary Project Description (April 25, 2005); (9) Review of the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department website, which map be found at (http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/smc/department/home.html); ~' (10) private telephone conversations with San Mateo County and City of South San Francisco officials; and (11) a site visit by Questa Engineering Staff on May 17, 2005. 8.2 SETTING ~~ A history of the site was documented from the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment {ESA) prepared by Environ International Corporation (2004), as well as independent review of old maps. More recent information was obtained from private conversations with county and city 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ,_ DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-1 CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..~ officials, planning documentation, and a site visit on May 15, 2005. One of the earliest maps of .~ the area is the 1896 topographic quadrangle map of the site. This map shows East Grand Avenue in a similar configuration to the present configuration, but with only six buildings shown -- along the length of the road between the main north-south railroad line and Point -San Bruno. Most of the area south of East Grand Avenue is shown as a marsh. In the location of the current property only a single small building is shown located near the northeast corner of the "~ existing Georgia Pacific warehouse. According to the Phase 1 ESA the site was later used as a stockyard far the meat packing industry from 1910 to 1956. During this time the property was traversed by railroad tracks, a spur of which still remains along the east edge of the property. From 1956 until 1966 the property was apparently vacant. In 1966 Georgia Pacific developed the property, and has occupied the facility until recently, when manufacturing stopped. During ,.. the past several months the facility has been used by the local police department fox training drills in cooperation with the Georgia Pacific facility manager. During operations Georgia Pacific stored and used a number of potentially hazardous chemicals at the site. In the spring of 2004, '^~ Georgia Pacific sold the property to Alexandria Real Estate Equities who have proposed the development, which is the subject of this report. As a result of the real estate transaction and site demolition, Phase 1 and Phase 2 environmental site assessments (FBAs) have already been ~. completed at the site, which provide most of the background information presented here. PHASE 1 INVESTIGATION Environ International Corporation of Irvine, California. completed a Phase 1 ESA report on the ,,,. property and surrounding area dated April 2, 2004. The report included a literature review, records review, site reconnaissance, and interviews with knowledgeable parties. The Phase 1 ESA indicated potential contamination of the site is primarily due to recent operations by Georgia Pacific Corporation, fox which the principal site use was manufacturing of corrugated and solid fiber boxes. The report also disclosed the presence of five former underground storage tanks and two underground concrete sumps on the property, which may have also caused contamination of the site. The report identified three major chemical categories of concern: 1) inks and dyes; 2) oils, .. including hydraulic oils and possible PCB's; and 3) wax and wax products. During a site visit for the Phase 1 ESA, ink staining was noted on the floor of the facility, while oil stains were noted ,,,, around sump grates and next to sumps, some of which were still filled with accumulated liquid, including apparent oil and water mixtures. According to the Phase 1 ESA, wax residue and pulp were also found scattered about the property, including some residual fluids leaking from piping. The report further discussed the status of the underground storage tanks recorded at the site. The property is listed in both Underground Storage Tank (UST) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) databases. According to the Phase 1 ESA, Georgia Pacific provided no "'" reports regarding the leaking tank; however, in 1986 two 10,000-gallon diesel and gasoline tanks, as well as one 500-gallon solvent tank (reportedly with 98 percent paraffin and 2 percent benzene and naphthalene) were removed. Between 1993 and 1995 an 8,000-gallon tank was also removed. A remaining 10,000-gallon tank was abandoned in place in accordance with a San Mateo County Environmental Health Division permit. A schematic site plan included with the ... PAGE 8-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Phase 1 ESA shows this tank located about 15 feet from the north wall of the warehouse, and approximately 60 feet from the northeast corner. No information was found on the method of ..~- tank abandonment. However, sampling was completed during excavation, and monitoring wells were installed to monitor contamination from all the underground tanks. Records indicate the wells were destroyed in 1998 by pressure grouting with cement after drilling out the casing, annular seal and filter pack materials of the wells. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Division granted site closure for underground tanks in a letter dated November 10, 1998. ~` The Phase 1 ESA also included an investigation of neighboring and nearby sites, including searches of the underground storage and leaking underground storage tank databases, and related databases. The search revealed that two nearby facilities in South San Francisco were also on LUST lists: 1) the Shell Oil Company at 899 Airport Boulevard, and 2) Gallo Sales Company located at 440 Forbes Boulevard. According to the Phase 1 ESA review of records, the Shell site .,., is located 0.75 miles from the subject property and gasoline constituents were detected in very low concentrations and were not detected off-site. Environ reported that according to a groundwater report for the Gallo Sales Company site dated November 14, 2003, the petroleum °~` hydrocarbons TPH-g, BTEX, and MTBE were detected in a monitoring well near the property (off site). Environ proposed groundwater sampling in the Phase 2 ESA to ascertain whether .contamination had crossed onto the Georgia Pacific property. PHASE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Environ followed up the Phase 1 ESA with a Phase 2 ESA, documented in a report dated April 2, 2004. The purpose of the Phase 2 ESA was to follow up on questions raised by results of the literature review, records and database search, and interviews conducted in the Phase 1 ESA. The Phase 2 ESA was also conducted to determine if a complete program of remediation was required to remove or treat hazardous chemicals remaining on the property. The most pertinent °~- question was the extent of any contamination on the property considered hazardous to the environment, public, new owners and occupants. While the case for the Underground Storage Tanks reported at the site was closed by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department in a letter dated November 10, 1998 due diligence in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and other environmental laws applicable to the property and „_, property transactions required further subsurface excavation and boreholes to examine the nature and extent of any possible groundwater and soil contamination. ,_ Evidence of contamination from the Phase 1 ESA included observation of: 1) melted wax and oil draining into a catch basin; 2) a leaky pipe to an aboveground storage tank; and 3) ink and heavy oil staining on the floor in and around the oil storage area, sumps, and pits. Subsurface °-- contamination from the underground storage tanks at the site was apparently mitigated satisfactorily since San Mateo County Environmental Health issued a closure letter. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ~-- DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-3 CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ... In accordance with CAL OSHA requirements for work where hazardous chemicals are suspected and following identification of underground utilities, a subsurface investigation was completed. Following concrete coring or cutting to expose the subsurface soil, 29 borings were ..- drilled and soil and groundwater samples were collected. Groundwater samples were collected from 24 of the boreholes, while soil samples were collected from another 15 boreholes. These samples were sealed and sent to Severn Trent analytical laboratories in South San Francisco for "° analytical testing under chain of custody documentation. All soil samples were analyzed for volatile organic compound (VOCs), including methyl tertiary '~" butyl ether (MTBE), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, trimethylbenzenes, naphthalene, methylene-chloride, acetone, and butanone according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260B. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) occurring in the gas, diesel, and ~. motor oil ranges were also analyzed for select samples according to EPA Method 8015B. In addition, three of the soils samples were analyzed for metals according to ICP-MS (inductively ~. coupled plasma mass spectroscopy) and pesticides according to EPA Methods 6020 and 8081A. Groundwater samples were tested for VOCs and TPH as gasoline and diesel were tested for select samples. Summaries of the contaminant concentrations detected were reported in '"' summary tables and compared to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) Exposure Screening Levels (ESLs) for shallow soil (< 3m) at commercial and industrial sites. "' The Regional Water Quality Control Board {RWQCB) has established environmental screening guidelines for residential developments (RWQCB, 2003). According to the publication, the environmental screening levels (ESL's) are to be used as Tier 1 guidelines: "Use of the ESLs and this document in general is intended to be entirely optional on the part of the regulated facility and subject to the approval of the case manager in the overseeing regulatory agency. The presence of a chemical at concentrations in excess of an ESL does not necessarily indicate that adverse impacts to human health or the environment are occurring; this simply indicates that a potential for adverse risk may exist and that additional evaluation is warranted. ESLs presented for chemicals that are known to be highly biodegradable in the environment may in particular be overly conservative for use as final '" cleanup levels (e.g., many petroleum-related compounds). Use of the ESLs as cleanup levels should be evaluated in view of the overall site investigation results and the cost/benefit of pertorming a more site-specific risk assessment." None of the concentrations was found to exceed these screening levels. Contaminant concentrations in groundwater were compared to the RWQCB ESLs for groundwater that is a current or potential source of drinking water for commercial and industrial sites. None of the concentrations were found to exceed these ESLs. Results were also compared to the California Department of Health Services Maximum Contaminant Levels {MCLs) and concentrations were below these levels. PAGE 8-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -- CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ~. Based on these findings; Environ concluded that uniform low levels of VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbon residues found in soil across the site do not suggest a single source of ,~-. contamination, or a "hotspot". A similar conclusion was made regarding groundwater, since low concentrations of VOCs were scattered and sporadic. No potential up-gradient source was identified, such as the former LUST at the Gallo Sales Company site. Based on their findings, °°' the Phase 2 ESA concluded that residual soil and groundwater beneath the property does not pose a significant risk to future onsite workers or occupants. No recommendations for additional subsurface investigation, excavation, ox treatment were made by Environ. However, the Environmental Health Department has recommended that despite granting closure to the site, residual contamination associated with the remaining 10,000 gallon underground storage ,~ tank abandoned in place may remain and should be investigated should the Building Department notify the Health Department of any change in use of the site. Such a change in use is obviously represented by the proposed development. Results of the Phase 2 ESA should be provided to ~- the regulatory agencies for review. ASBESTOS SURVEYS The Georgia Pacific facility was used to store and process paper and cardboard, which are both highly flammable. Due to the fire hazard, asbestos fibers were used as insulation in walls and ceilings to mitigate fox potentially disastrous fires. Asbestos fibers were commonly used to fireproof facilities (throughout the 1960s, when the facility was originally constructed) and were „~„ even used into the 1970s. Later research has indicated that asbestos fibers axe carcinogenic (cancer causing). Research indicates that the microscopic needlelike fibers can cause extreme lung irritation, and lead to diseases such as mesothelioma. Prior to demolition and --a redevelopment, surveys were completed to assess the extent of asbestos at the facility and hazard posed to workers as well as future occupants. The results of these surveys were documented in reports also completed by Environ, dated February 27, 2004 and April 5, 2005. Results of the asbestos survey reported February 27, 2004 indicated asbestos in six types of floor file and mastic covering,. one type of linoleum, mastic associated with cove base for securing a ~' border between the wall and flooring, joint compound on drywall, boiler insulation, duct wrap, tank wrap and insulation, and some roofing material. However, the April 5, 2005, report r indicated no asbestos containing material (ACM) encountered in roofing material, Recommendations of the earlier report were for asbestos containing material to be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to renovation or demolition. Until that time the ~- recommendation was that ACM be managed under an Operations and Maintenance Program. CURRENT CONTAMINATION LEVELS AND HEALTH RISKS Contamination levels map be assessed from the Phase 2 ESA. The 1998 closure letters fox former underground storage tanks indicate that the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department had considered the site remedial activities complete. The Health Department suggested that residual contamination might be associated with the remaining abandoned ._ underground 10,000-gallon storage tank. During site redevelopment, the potential for residual 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ~- DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-S CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ~.. contamination should be addressed. No further investigation was recommended in the Phase 2 ESA, but consideration in regard to specific details of the proposed development was not considered. The level of contamination is expected to remain unchanged in the subsurface provided that sediment and debris control measures are maintained around catch basins and other entry pathways into the .subsurface. Hazardous materials were removed from the site during demolition. Following removal of the concrete slab prior to new grading, local staining '"' of soil and contamination not previously detected may also be found. Based on results of the Phase 2 ESA, the extent of any contamination is likely to be very low. Risk of exposure to future occupants will also be very low since most of the site will be paved and the subsurface will remain undeveloped. The greatest risk of exposure from any residual contamination would be to workers during site grading and construction. These hazards are in addition to the normal ,_, hazards associated with any large construction projects. 8.3 REGULATORY SETTING Regulation of toxic and hazardous substances is locally administered through the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department The department administers several programs to "" regulate and monitor the use of hazardous materials, including the hazardous materials business plan program, hazardous waste generator program, California accidental release program, underground storage tank program, groundwater protection program, and the stormwater pollution prevention program. These programs, which are mandated by State and Federal Laws, are aimed at protecting public health and the environment At the federal level, the chief _,,, regulator is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency {EPA), Region IX for Northern California. At the State level, the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) is chiefly responsible fox regulation, handling, use, and disposal of toxic materials. The State Water -- Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates discharge of potentially hazardous materials to waterways and aquifers, as well as stormwater protection through the general permit, which must be obtained for any grading projects exceeding one acre, including the proposed project The '!"` local branch of the Water Board is the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB}. The Hazardous Materials Business plan is used to keep track of the use of hazardous materials by businesses in accordance with both state and federal laws. The Hazardous Waste Generator Program was started in 1984 when the State of California DTSC authorized the Health Department to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous waste generators in San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and Safety -~ Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. The groundwater protection program is funded wholly or in part, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), under Cooperative Agreement L-009450-1-0 to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by Contract 8-014-550 to the County of .~ San Mateo. In conjunction with these laws the underground storage tank program was created to regulate the chief source of underground contamination, leaking underground storage tanks PAGE 8-6 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -~ CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (LUST). Regulatory agencies maintain a database of sites with these sources of contamination, as well as potential sources of contamination, such as underground fuel tanks. Databases with •,- information on hazardous materials sites include the Federal Superfund list started through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Conservation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the USEPA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability °r° Information System (CERCLIS), HAZNET, the leaking underground storage tank information system (LUST), the Cortese list, and many others. These databases were searched for the Phase 1 ESA. Air pollution is regulated through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ~~Q~) These programs and regulations are primarily intended to mitigate for environmental contamination including hazards to wildlife, provide protection for natural resources, and limit public exposure to harmful chemicals. Specific programs intended to protect workers from .~. exposure to hazardous materials and from accidental upset are covered under the Occupational Health and Safety Administration at both the Federal Level (OSHA) and the state level (CAL- osHA). Transportation of hazardous materials on the highways is regulated primarily through the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) and the California Department of Transportation "' (CALTR.ANS). This includes a system of placards, labels, and shipping papers required to identify the hazards of shipping each class of hazardous materials. Existing federal and state laws ._ address risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials. These laws include regulations outlined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act administered by the DOT. Caltrans is mandated to implement the regulations established by the DOT, which is published as the ,~„ Federal Code of Regulations, Tide 49, commonly referred to as 49 CFR. The California. Highway Patrol (CHP) enforces these regulations. Regulations of hazardous materials and wastes include the manufacture of packaging and transport containers; packing and repacking; labeling; marking ~°- or pla.carding;-handling; spill reporting; routing of transports; training of transport personnel; and registration of highly hazardous material transport. ~' 8.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS °® STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds fox measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ._ the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ~, reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT «- DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-7 CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3) Would the Project produce hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ox acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ... 4) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it ,.,,, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5) Would the Project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has .- not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport ox public use airport? Would the Project result in a safety hazard fox people residing or working in the Project Area? ,.. 6) Fox a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area? ~ Would the Project impair implementation of ox physically interfere with an adopted r emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands axe adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences axe intermixed with wildlands? PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE, TRANSPORT Impact 8-1 Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The ..,. proposed development is for construction of four Class-A office and laboratory buildings, and a parking garage. Class A refers to a research laboratory, not merely an instructional laboratory. Depending upon the "" nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, for which detailed information has not pet been provided, there are likely to be both hazardous and potentially hazardous materials stored and used on the site that will eventually require disposal. This could include both biohazards as well as . chemical hazards. There is also likely to be transportation of hazardous ,~„ materials to and from the site, probably traveling along Highway 101 and East Grand Avenue. The risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous -~ and potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 8-1a Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. Businesses occupying the development must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan must include the type PAGE 8-8 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -a CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of using these materials, material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses '- qualify for the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods; °~ medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet fox each material, and who store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These _,,, exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A laboratory facilities. Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must ~.. submit a business plan prior to the start of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Some of these changes are new emergency °- contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous materials storage and/or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall ,,_, inspect the business at least once a year to make sure that the Business Plan is complete and accurate. Mitigation Measure 8-1b Hazardous Waste Generator Program. Prior to operations, businesses should check with the SMCEHD if they need to register in the hazardous waste generator program. The State of California Department of Toxic ,~ Substances Control authorized the SMCEHD to inspect and regulate non- permitted hazardous waste generators in San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and Safety .... Code- Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. Regulations require businesses generating any amount of hazardous waste as defined by regulation to `" properly store, manage and dispose of such waste. Division staff also conducts surveillance and enforcement activities in conjunction with the 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT -- DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-9 .,. CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS County District Attorney's Office for businesses or individuals that significantly violate the above referenced law and regulations. Mitigation Measure 8-1c Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations. All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in '"` accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT}, State of California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures including the posting of placards, signs and other identifying information. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the impact of routine transportation, use ox disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant. ~,, Impact 8-2 Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. Mitigations for accidental release of hazardous materials during construction are presented in the hydrology section of this environmental impact report. Following construction, operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a .,, continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of hazardous materials since the site is proposed to include Class A laboratory facilities, where hazardous materials may be stored, used, and disposed of. This represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation '""' Measure 8-2 California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP). Future businesses at the development shall need to check the state and federal lists .~ of regulated substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because _. they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses are responsible for determining which list to use in consultation with SMCEHD. Should businesses qualify for the program they must complete a CaIARP registration form and submit it to Environmental Health. Following registration, they shall submit a risk management plan (RMP). Risk ..~ management plans are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more '° than a threshold quantity (T~ of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential PAGE 8-10 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR -~ CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures fox: keeping employees and customers safe; handling regulated substances; -~- training staff; maintaining equipment; checking that substances axe stored safely; and responding to an accidental release. -- Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than significant. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES -- According to the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments completed for the property, the site was on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) `° closed the case on leaking underground storage tanks reported at the site, and monitoring wells were decommissioned in 1998 because no contamination of soil and groundwater that could ._ pose a threat to the health of future residents and the environment was found. The presence of the site on a list of hazardous material sites represents a Zess than significant impact because the condition that resulted in the inclusion of the site on the list no longer exists. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS NEAR SCHOOLS `°"' Impact 8-3 Emissions Near Schools. The Early Years Children's Center is located at 371 Allerton Avenue, approximately 400 feet east and downwind of the northeast comer of the property. Since the proposed development includes research laboratory facilities, it is likely that hazardous chemicals will be stored and used on the property. In certain circumstances these chemicals could spill, mix, ignite, or volatilize and cause a hazardous emission near the childcare center, which would be a potentially significant impact. '° Mitigation Measure 8-3 Meet standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Each independent R&D facility operating on the property shall adhere to BAAQMD standards and periodically demonstrate compliance ,.._ with all other local, state and federal requirements for emissions. Each facility shall also meet OSHA and California OSHA standards for R&D facilities. This includes design review by the City of South San Francisco to examine if °° the proposed development plans meet the same standards as for other similar facilities. Engineering controls, such as exhaust hoods, filtration systems, spill kits, fire extinguishers, and other controls, shall be incorporated into -. laboratory facilities to meet OSHA and California OSHA requirements. These standards are primarily designed to maintain worker safety, but also 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT .,~ DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-11 CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS function to reduce the risk of accidental upset and limit potential hazardous emissions. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to the school from potential hazardous emissions to a level of Iess than significant. Impact 8-4 Handling of hazardous wastes within one-quarter mile of a school. The Early Years Children's Center is located at 371 Allerton Avenue, approximately 400 feet east of the northeast corner of the property. Since the proposed development includes research iab facilities it is likely that hazardous chemicals will be handled in close proximity to the childcare facility. Close proximity of hazardous chemicals to occupants of the childcare facility represents a significant hazard and potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 8-4 Regulation of hazardous materials in accordance with the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Programs. Registration and regulation in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, Hazardous Waste Generator Plan Program, and California Accidental Release Program in accordance with earlier mitigations identified in this chapter, for risk of accidental upset and fox routine transport, disposal, and use of hazardous wastes, would significantly reduce the risk to occupants of the nearby childcare facility. In addition, the applicant shall establish an early warning and evacuation plan for the child care center in the case of a hazardous materials release. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to the school from nearby handling of hazardous materials to a level of Iess than significant. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN Impact 8-5 Potential Interference with Emergency Response Plan. The proposed development would physically interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan if on-site circulation does not allow for adequate emergency vehicle access. Interference with the local Emergency Response Plan would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 8-5 Fire Department Review. The applicant shall submit construction plans for Fire Department review, and shall establish temporary alternative emergency routes necessary for the duration of the construction project. During design .., PAGE 8-12 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 8: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS review, the Fire Department would verify that roads and driveways meet ordinance and uniform building code requirements for emergency access. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact of development to any _. emergency response or evacuation plan to a level of less than significant. AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN -°- Impact 8-6 Airport Land Use Plan. The proposed Project would be located within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport The Project could have a significant impact in terms of the Plan's policies. ,_ Mitigation Measure 8-6 FAA Regulations Compliance. Public Utilities Code, Section 21659, "Hazards Near Airports Prohibited" prohibits structural hazards near ~° airports. To ensure compliance with this requirement and Federal Aviation guidelines the developer shall submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) to the Federal Aviation Administration. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of development to any °- emergency response or evacuation plan to a level of less than significant. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ,._, DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-13 9 HYDROLOGY 9.1 INTRODUCTION This section presents an evaluation of potential Project impacts to hydrology and water quality. The discussion is based on: (1) review of the Preliminary Project Description (dated April 25, '~"` 2005) and Planning Application figures (dated June 3, 2005); (2) a site visit conducted on Map 18, 2005 by Questa Engineering; (3) review of the Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation prepared by KC Engineering; and (4) correspondence with City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County Public Works Departments. .- 9.2 SETTING CLIMATE AND TOPOGRAPHY The Project site is located in a relatively flat industrial area east of Highway 101 in the City of South San Francisco. The San Francisco Bap is located approximately 2,000 feet southeast of the `~" site. The regional climate is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters. About 80 percent of the total annual precipitation occurs during the months of November through March with an average annual precipitation of 20 inches. Average monthly temperatures range from a high of 74 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer to a low of 42 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter.' The Project site and surrounding area are largely developed with light industrial, research and development, warehousing, retail, office, and hotel land uses. Nearly 90 percent of the Project .- site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. A 330,000 square foot warehouse building previously occupied the 15.75-acre site. Paved parking and loading areas are located on the west, north and south areas of the site, with a railroad loading/unloading dock rnnn;ng along the `" eastern boundary of the property. The site generally slopes gently (less than one percent slopes) to the south toward East Grand Avenue and elevations range from approximately 22 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) along the northern boundary of the site to approximately 15 feet above MSL at the southeast and southwest corners. i Western Regional Climate Center, 2005 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT _. DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-1 CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY REGIONAL HYDROLOGY The majority of the site drains to the Colma. Creek watershed. The Colrna Creek watershed ,_, includes portions of San Bruno Mountain as well as urbanized areas of Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco. Most of this urbanized creek is channelized and/or conveyed underground to allow fox urban development The percent of impervious surface area in Colma Creek was -P previously estimated at 63 percent, the highest in the County.2 Colma. Creek is a flood control channel maintained by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works that discharges into the San Francisco Bay just north of the San Francisco International Airport. Improvements and ~"` maintenance of the creek are funded by the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone, which contains the parcels that must contribute financially to the Zone's revenue and maintenance of flood control infrastructure. The Project site is not located within the designated boundaries of the Zone. SITE HYDROLOGY Approximately 87 percent of the 15.75-acre Project site is currently covered by impervious --~ surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Project site begins as overland sheet flow. Several storm drains currently exist on the Project site in the parking areas to the west, north and south of the site and adjacent to the railroad loading area on the eastern edge of the site. These existing storm ~'" drains convey storm water runoff to two existing drop inlets located below the southeast and southwest corners of the site at East Grand Avenue. The southeastern drop inlet drains approximately 1/3 of the site and conveys flows into a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that runs south down Littlefield Avenue, east to Kimball Way before discharging into the San Francisco Bay. The southwestern drop inlet drains the remainder of the site and connects to a ~„ 24-inch RCP along East Grand Avenue. Flows are conveyed west up East Grand Avenue and south down Gateway Boulevard to the point of discharge at the Colma Creek flood control channel. ~„ GROUNDWATER The California. Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines state groundwater basins based on geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the site is located within the Westside Groundwater Basin. The Westside Groundwater Basin consists of bedrock and unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated materials overlying the basin represent the primary water-bearing strata and are comprised of dune sands, the Colma Formation, and the Merced Formation. While groundwater quality in the basin is generally in compliance with drisikitig water quality standards, some wells in the basin have experienced nitrate-nitrogen concentration in excess of the primary maximum contaminant levels s .... 2 City of Daly City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, 1998 s Department of Water Resources, 2004. PAGE 9-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY The preparation of the Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation fox the proposed Project involved six subsurface investigations to depths of between 8 and 31.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). ..~ The borings were dug March 3, 2004, when seasonal groundwater levels are generally high. Groundwater at the Project site was encountered at depths ranging between 1 to 10 feet bgs.' FLOODING The Project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone of Colma Creek as delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agenry (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). According to the FIRM, several areas downstream of the Project site axe located within the 100-year floodplain. These include the properties at Gateway Boulevard between East Grand Avenue and Mitchell Avenue and the properties south and west of Colma Creek and north of the navigable slough (1981). However, flood control improvements to Coltna Creek since the effective date of the FEMA FIRM have reduced flooding along the creek channel.$ ~' 9.3 REGULATORY SETTING The proposed Project must be constructed in accordance with several regulatory programs, laws, Y" and regulations that aim to protect surface water resources. In some cases, Federal laws are administered and enforced by state and local government. In other cases, state and local r regulations in California are stricter than those imposed by Federal law. This section summarizes relevant regulatory programs, laws, and regulations with respect to hydrology and water quality and how they relate to the proposed Project. FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS CLEAN WATER ACT The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since ~"" inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce ox eliminate water pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum water quality standards for all waters of the United States. Several mechanisms are employed to ,~ control domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution under the CWA. At the Federal level, the CWA is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control -- Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The State of a KC Engineering Company, 2004. 5 Munar, 2005. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ...... DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-3 CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations, in part to assist in the implementation of the CWA and related Federally mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standaxds and policies and the laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards exceed them. STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT ,~ The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water ,,, quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCBs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Pla.ns), which set forth the state's water quality standards (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and the -- objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The NPDES permits must be consistent with the Basin Plans. NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The CWA has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from any "" point source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added section 402(p), which established a framework for regulating nonpoint source (NPS) storm water discharges under the National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES). The Phase I NPDES storm water program .~ regulates storm water discharges from industrial facilities, large and medium-sized municipal separate storm sewer systems (those serving more than 100,000 persons), and construction sites that disturb five or more acres of land. Under the program, the Project applicant will be required to comply with two NPDES permit requirements. The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as excavation. The Project applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board's (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality. The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities that will occur on the site. The applicant will also be required to submit asite-specific plan called the .~ Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) fox construction activities. The SWPPP will include a description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharge of pollutants from the site during construction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain coverage under the permit prior to site construction. The NPDES General Industrial Permit Requirements apply to the discharge of storm water ~. associated with industrial sites. The permit requires the implementation of management measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology (BAT) ... economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Under the statute, operators of new facilities must implement industrial BMPs in the Project SWPPP and PAGE 9-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR "' CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY perform monitoring of storm water discharges and unauthorized non-storm water discharges. An annual report must be submitted to the RWQCB each July 1. Operators of new facilities ,_, must file an NOI at least 14 days prior to the beginning of operations. LOCAL PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM -- To comply with the CWA, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and town in the County formed the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bap RWQCB. The permit `~" includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. SAN FRANCISCO BAY WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN BASIN PLAN The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and ~. programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bap Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region and specifies water quality objectives to maintain the continued beneficial uses of these waters. The proposed ~~~ Project is required to adhere to all water quality objectives identified in the Basin Plan. Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters and Groundwaters The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater in its corresponding jurisdiction. The beneficial uses of surface waters in Colma Creek include wildlife habitat, `~" municipal and domestic supply, agricultural supply, and industrial supply. The beneficial uses of groundwater in the Westside Groundwater Basin (also referred to as the Merced Valley North Groundwater Basin) include municipal and domestic supply, industrial process supply, industrial supply, and agricultural supply. -- EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN The East of 101 Area Plan provides detailed planning policies that are consistent with policies of ._ the adopted South San Francisco General Plan. With respect to hydrology and water quality, the plan aims to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals to determine drainage and flood protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of water quality by `° miti+ri7ing erosion and sedimentation, and requiring that Projects comply with NPDES permit requirements.6 ~ City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-S CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY COLMA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT The Colma Creek Flood Control District (District) is administrated by the San Mateo County ~~°~ Department of Public Works. The District was created for the purpose of constructing flood control facilities along the Colma Creek channel and reducing flooding problems in the City of South San Francisco. The Colma Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone) extends over the entire ~` watershed and contains the parcels that must contribute financially to the District's revenue and maintenance of the flood control facilities. Several channel improvements have been constructed since the District was created in 1964. The proposed Project is located outside of the Zone boundary. Since the Project is located ~" outside of the Zone boundary, it does not contribute to funds for flood control improvements nor maintenance. For this reason, the San Mateo County Department of Public Works has requested that storm water runoff from the site not be directed to drain into the District's flood control channel.' 9.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's aesthetic impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ,~ 2. Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing ~- nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ~.. 3. Would the Project 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 ar siltation on- or off-site? 4. Would the Project 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? ~ San Mateo County Department of Public Works, 2005. PAGE 9-6 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY "' 5. Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of '"°` existing or planned stormwater drainage systems ox provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6. Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 7. Would the Project 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? 8. Would the Project place within a 100-pear flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9. Would the Project 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? 10. Would the Project cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES INCREASE IN NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION (NPS) IN RECEIVING WATERS Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are washed by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and streets and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical industrial NPS pollutants for various industrial activities are listed in Table 9-1. Development of the proposed Project would "" contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering downstream waters, including Colma Creek and San Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of potential groundwater drinking sources. Under the NPDES storm water permit, the proposed Project is required to provide permanent treatment for site runoff. To meet this requirement, the proposed Project includes the use of infiltration trenches at the 6-foot wide vegetated islands in the parking areas. Notches in the .._ curb surrounding the parking islands would allow water to enter the infiltration trenches. The infiltration trenches would be equipped with an overflow pipe above the bottom of the trench to convey excess flows to the formal subterranean storm drain system.8 Infiltration trenches are '" long, narrow, rock-filled trenches for storm water runoff. Ideally, the runoff is stored between gravel and sand layers before infiltrating through the bottom of the trench and into the underlying soil matrix. Details regarding the infiltration trenches were not included in the Storm i Drain Plan dated June 3, 2005 for the proposed Project. a Nakashima, 2005. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-7 ~-~ CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY TABLE 9-1 POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS FROM INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES a U .~ N ~t ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY Li ~ L~yi ~~ y ~ j-.1 'b cd ~ ~ ~ N C7 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ Q G o 0 Vehicle & Equipment Fueling X X ~ X Vehicle & Equipment Washing X X X X X X Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance & Repair X X X Outdoor Loading & Unloading of Materials X X X X X X X Outdoor Container Storage of Liquids X X X X X X Outdoor Process Equipment Operations & Maintenance X X X X Outdoor Storage of Ray Materials, Products, & X X X X X X X Bproducts Waste Handling & Disposal X X X X X X Contaminated or Erodible Surface Areas X X X X X X X X Building & Grounds Maintenance X X X X X X X Building Repair, Remodeling, ' & Construction X X X X Parking/Storage Area Maintenance X X X X Source: California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003. California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Industrial & Commercial. PAGE 9-8 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY Impact 9-1 Site Conditions May Be Unsuitable for Infiltration. Appropriate !, evaluation of site conditions is critical to the effectiveness of infiltration trenches. The geotechnical borings indicate groundwater conditions in the proposed parking areas can be as high as 3 and 4.5 feet bgs during winter -~ months. Shallow depth to groundwater could cause underlying soils to become saturated, particularly during winter months, and could impair the ability of the infiltration trenches to infiltrate water and filter out pollutants. Infiltration structures require a minimum soil infiltration rate of 0.5 inches/hour. Percolation testing to verify the infiltration capacity of site soils has not been conducted. Infiltration trenches have a high failure rate if soil w and subsurface conditions are not suitable. Furthermore, infiltration trenches are not considered suitable for sites that use or store chemicals or hazardous materials unless hazardous and toxic materials are prevented from entering .~ the infiltration trenches. This represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation ~" Measure 9-1 Evaluate Project Site for Feasibility of Infiltration as Water Quality BMP. The use of infiltration trenches at the Project site may be limited by several factors, including soil characteristics, distance to groundwater, and proposed land uses. The feasibility of infiltration BMPs at the Project shall be evaluated as follows: ... 1) Groundwater levels at the invert of the infiltration trenches shall be reevaluated. The Project applicant shall ascertain that the distance from -- the proposed trench inverts to groundwater be at least 10 feet (CASQA, 2003). 2) Soil parameters, such as the amount of silt and clay shall be examined. r Soils should not have more than 30 percent clay or more than 40 percent clay and silt combined (CASQA, 2003). -- 3) Infiltration rates shall be evaluated to ensure adequate permeability of site soils. Infiltration rates shall be no less than 0.5 inches/hour and not more .~ than 2.4 inches/hour (CASQA, 2003}. 4) Proposed land uses shall be examined: infiltration BMPs are not suitable for sites that use or store chemicals or hazardous materials unless hazardous and toxic materials are isolated such that they are not able to enter the trench. The potential for spills can be minimised by spill prevention control measures. If site constraints preclude the use of infiltration trenches at the Project site, other BMPs that do not allow interaction with groundwater shall be used. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-9 -~ CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY ~" Possible alternatives for storm water treatment include Vortex Separator Units or Stormceptors at drop inlets. Vortex Separators are round gravity separators that induce removal of suspended sediment with the centrifugal force caused by water moving circularly through the system. Stormceptors are comprised of a round precast concrete tank and fiberglass partition that W., remove oil and sediment from storm water runoff by gravity separation. Any storm water quality BMPs to be implemented at the site must be approved by the City's Public Works Department. The use of effective BMPs at the Project site would reduce impacts to a level of Zess than significant. Impact 9-2 Potential Contamination of Local Groundwater. The Project site is located within a groundwater basin as defined by the DWR. The potential for groundwater contamination from infiltration BMPs must be carefully considered, especially in areas where the distance between groundwater and the trench invert is shallow or where groundwater is or could potentially be used for human consumption or agricultural purposes. The infiltration of industrial and parking lot pollutants into shallow groundwater could potentially impair the quality of local groundwater sources. This represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 9-2 Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during and after construction. The Project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation measures for the construction period: 1) Grading and earthwork shall be prohibited during the wet season (October 15 through April 15) and such work shall be stopped before pending storm events. 2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments "Erosion & Sediment Control Measures" manual. Silt fences shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Hay bales shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. PAGE 9-1 O 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ~_ DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY ... 3) BMPs shall be used fox preventing the discharge or other construction- related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream waters. 4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected fox accumulated sediment and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 5) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site should be described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. 7) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector .,G control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed -_ from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs should be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. 8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted .~ annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. 9) The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. "` 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-71 -~ CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Impact 9-3 No Treatment of Runoff for Parking Garages. No water quality BMPs have been proposed for Parking Garage A nor Parking Garage B. Parking areas represent a source of suspended solids, petroleum hydrocarbons, and heavy metals. NPS pollutants from these areas represent a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 9-3 Implement Water Quality BMPs for Stormwater Runoff From Parking Garage. The Project applicant shall implement storm water quality BMPs for treatment of runoff from Parking Garages A and B. Possible BMPs include drop inlet filtration devices such as the Vortex Separator Units or Stormceptors described in Mitigation Measure 9-1. Any storm water quality BMPs implemented at the site must first be approved by the City's Public Works Department. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. DECREASE IN GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Approximately 87 percent of the Project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. Redevelopment of the site would result in an approximately 6 percent decrease in impervious surface areas. Thus, the proposed Project would not likely have a negative affect on groundwater recharge. Pre- and post-development impervious verses pervious surfaces are presented in Table 9-2. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. INCREASED EROSION OR SILTATION TO RECEIVING WATERS Construction of the proposed Project would involve demolition of existing structural foundations and pavement areas that currently help to stabilize site soils. Site grading is expected to occur over 95 percent of the Project site and involve 13,600 cubic yards of cut volume and 16,000 cubic yards of fill volume (Richardson, 2005). Construction operations associated with the Project would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting ~- unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff. The Project applicant will be required to comply with all Phase I NPDES General Construction "" Activities permit requirements established by the CWA and the Grading Permit requirements of the City of South San Francisco. Erosion control measures to be implemented during PAGE 9-12 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY construction would be included in the Project SWPPP. The Project SWPPP will accompany the NOI filing and will outline erosion control and storm water quality management measures to be implemented during and following construction. The SWPPP will also provide the schedule for monitoring performance. Refer to Mitigation Measure 8.1b for more information regarding the Project SWPPP. Implementation of Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities permit requirements would reduce construction-related impacts associated with erosion and/or siltation '°` to less than significant. Following Project development, soil and sediment in runoff would be treated by storm water quality BMPs. Refer to Mitigation Measures 9-1 through 9-3 for more information regarding storm water quality BMPs at the Project site. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, post-development impacts associated with erosion and siltation are considered less than significant. TABLE 9.2 IMPERVIOUS vs. PERVIOUS SURFACE AREAS CHANGES iN PEAK RUNOFF The Project site currently has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Redevelopment of existing industrial development in the Project area is not expected to increase runoff from the site. As shown in Table 9-2, development of the proposed Project would result in an approximate 6 percent decrease in impervious surfaces at the Project site. A decrease in impervious surface area would result in a corresponding decrease in peak discharge from the Project site. As currently designed, the proposed Project would not increase peak flows to downstream infrastructure. No '" impact associated with increases in peak runoff is anticipated. No mitigation is necessary. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-13 -.~ source: howler-Ciruman Architects (DGA). June, 17 2005. Email correspondence between Niall Malcolmson of DGA and Kelly White of Questa Engineering. ~- CHAPTER 9: HYDROLOGY `" FUNDING FOR COLMA CREEK CHANNEL FLOODING/DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The Project storm drain plan indicates approximately 2/3 of the Project site will be conveyed to ,_, the drop inlet located at the southwestern corner of the Project site (DGA, 2005). These flows are discharged to the Colma Creek Flood Control Channel approximately 3/4 mile southwest of the Project site near the corner of Mitchell Avenue and Gateway Boulevard. Flood control -- improvements and maintenance to the Colma Creek channel are funded partially by property taxes from property located within the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. Impact 9-4 Site Drains to Colma Creek Flood Control Channel. The proposed Project drains to the Coltna Creek flood control channel. The Project site is .-. not located within the Zone. For this reason, the San Mateo County Department of Public Works has requested that storm water runoff from the Project site not be directed into the Colma Creek channel. Thus, storm water "' runoff from the Project site that would flow to Colma, Creek represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 9-4 The Project applicant shall implement one of the following two mitigation scenarios for Impact 9-4. 1) Reroute All Flows to Southeastern Corner of Site and Out of the Colma Creek Watershed. The Project applicant shall investigate the feasibility of routing all site runoff to the existing drop inlet located at East Grand Avenue just below the southeast corner of the site. This would entail designing the Project drainage infrastructure to drain to the southeast. This configuration would likely increase peak flows to the southeastern ~°° drainage system and would require evaluation of the existing drainage infrastructure from Littlefield Avenue to the point of discharge at San Francisco Bay. Inadequate capacity in the southeastern drainage system ~~' may requite offsite drainage improvements. 2) Enter into Agreement with Colma Creek Flood Control District. If it is found that routing all storm water to the southeast corner is infeasible, a second mitigation strategy shall be implemented. The Project applicant shall enter into an agreement with the San Mateo County Department of Public Works to be included in the Colxna Creek Flood Control Zone and comply with the conditions and fees that are associated with ~°- participation in that zone. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that the Project design ~-~ has mitigated the potential impact to a level of less than significant. Implementation of one of these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than significant. PAGE 9-14 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR ~o _ LAND USE 10.1 INTRODUCTION South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to initially locate .. industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in order to take advantage of topography and winds on Point San Bruno.' Another development trend that shaped the "` arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City, single family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. "° During the 1950s, the City of South San Francisco converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable fox industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the City for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 fora 600-acre industrial park adjacent to the newly developed Oyster Point Marina. This industrial park was South San -°~ Francisco's first industrial development to incorporate comprehensive planning, integrated design and performance provisions, and featured a 0.5 Floor Area Ratio. It supplied ample parking and consistent landscaping and building design. -m In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a slow industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy industries have largely been replaced by warehousing, research, development and biotechnology. Because the City's industrial base has continued to evolve as the context for industry has changed, industry will continue to play an important role in South San Francisco's future. The City's continued status as a goods transportation hub, stemming mainly from proximity to San Francisco International Airport, is reflected in the presence of large tracts of land, formerly used for heavy industry, east of U.S. 101. As high technology businesses have moved into many of these older industrial areas, conflicts, such as between automobile and truck traffic, and land use and visual character have become increasingly pronounced. The needs of business centers include smaller blocks, more through street connections, ancillary facilities such as restaurants, 1 Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED ElR PAGE 10-i .~. CHAPTER 10: LAND USE ~- easier connections to transit, sidewalks and bikeways -and higher landscape standards. These needs are much different than those of warehousing and industrial areas. The City attempts to balance regional growth objectives with conservation of residential and industrial "" neighborhoods. The East of 101 Area Plan, adopted in 1994, was prepared to maximize the potential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City's traditional industrial east of U.S. 101 area. Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for quality design are important components of the -- Plan. In addition to policies relating to land use dispersion, intensities, and transportation, the Plan includes a Design Element to help achieve high standard development. 10.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Project physically divide an established community? 2. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project? 3. Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES DIVIDING ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY The proposed Project would have no impact related to the division of an established °-` community. CONFLICT WITH PLANS AND POLICIES The Project site is currently zoned Planned Industrial (P-1) and is part of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's ._ General Plan designation is Business and Technology Park. This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and _, offices. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards? The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan policies: z Ibic1, p.43. PAGE 10-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 10: LAND USE ""' Policy 3.5-G-3 Promote campus style biotechnology, high technology and research and development uses. Policy 3.5-I-3 Do not permit any residential uses in the East of 101 area. The proposed Project is consistent with the following East of 101 Area Plan policies: Policy DE-13 New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees and landscaping to meet the City's specifications for their frontages. Streetscape planting, irrigation and hardscape should be designed for minimum maintenance by City staff. ,.,, Selection and spacing of street #rees shall be approved by the City Landscape Architect and the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. Medians should be cobbled and grouted or landscaped with low maintenance plants with automatic irrigation. Policy DE-15 Site design should de-emphasize the visual prominence of parking areas by separating parking areas into relatively small components and locating parking behind buildings whenever possible. The standard practice of placing -° the majority of the parking between the building and the main street frontage should be avoided when possible. Policy DE-22 Developments in the Planned Industrial category should include on-site open space as a unifying element and as areas for employee use. Open space should be continuous and should connect separate buildings or sites, "~ especially in campus-like developments. Open spaces should particularly be located adjacent to lunch rooms and conference rooms. Policy DE-25 The design of front yard (andscaped buffers should be integrated with that of adjacent sites. Policy DE-27 Parking lots should be shaded with trees and should also include shrubs in most cases. Trees should be planted along parking lot edges and in planters among stalls. Design policies for the number of trees and amount of shrubbery in parking lots are contained in Section D of the Design Element for the individual land use categories. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED E{R PACE 10-3 m-, CHAPTER 10: LAND USE m_ Policy DE-28 Plant species chosen for the area should include low maintenance plants and plants adaptive to the extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant species and planting design should complement the development's design. Policy DE-34 All activities and stored materials in loading, service, storage and trash disposal areas should be screened from views from public streets, trails, "" adjacent properties, and overhead views from adjacent properties, by planting, berms and/or decorative walls. The screening should be integrated into the design of structures or the site landscaping, so it does not appear as -- an appendage added to the outside of the structure. This policy applies to all types of outdoor storage areas containing materials, supplies, or equipment, including autos, trucks and trailers. Policy DE-37 The installation or replacement of exposed chain link fences, barbed wire, razor wire or similar material shall not be allowed in those parts of the East of ~-` 101 Area that are visible from public rights-of-way, including roads and trails. ,_. Policy DE-38 The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials and the selection of landscape materials and street furniture shall consider the overall context of the Project and promote the development of a sense of _.. identity for the East of 101 area. Policy DE-52 Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral --- architectural elements such as pitched roofs, ornamental parapets, mansards or low towers. Policy DE-56 The following additional design policies apply in Planned Industrial areas: .-- Street Trees: Street trees should be planted within at least 30 feet of each other and should be selected to match or complement the existing pines on Allerton Avenue and portions of East Grand __ Avenue. Landscape Buffer: Landscape buffers along major arterial streets °' should be at least 20 feet wide and along other streets at least 10 feet wide. On side and rear property lines, they should be six feet wide. All landscaping shall provide a clear connection between the W- street and buildings for pedestrians. Blank Walls: Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet "~ long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-39. Pedestrian scale is of particular importance for 'campus-like developments and settings. PAGE 10-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 O: LAND USE Building Orientation: Buildings should be oriented with a clear ~. relationship to the street to create a sense of continuity along it. Inviting pedestrian linkages from individual buildings shall be provided. Design Guidelines: New development plans for larger campus-like projects should include specific design guidelines, developed as an integral part of master planning efforts. Parking Lot Shrubs: Medians and bulbs inside the perimeters of a parking lot shall be planted. A minimum of five percent of the total parking lot area required to be landscaped shall be planted with shrubs. The proposed Project would be consistent with and would not conflict with the above applicable City of South San Francisco General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan land use policies, thereby constituting no adverse impact. CONFLICT WITH CONSERVATION PLAN Construction at the Project site would require cutting down one-hundred-four (104) trees. '" Fourteen (14) of the trees on the site are considered protected trees under Section 13.30.020(f)(1) of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to tree preservation (Tree Ordinance). More information on this topic is included in the Biological Resources section of this report. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 10-5 -~ 11 NOISE -~ 11.1 INTRODUCTION Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of -R the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it "` is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave. In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dBJ is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect Sound levels in decibels axe calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents aten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 11-1. There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- ivei~hted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 11-2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. _., This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Ley can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAfT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-1 CHAPTER 1 1 : NOISE TABLE 11-1 DEFINITION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS TERM DEFINITIONS Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter). Frequency, HZ The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. A-Weighted Sound Level, d6 The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise. Loy, Lso, Lso, Lso The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1 %,10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period. Equivalent Noise Level, LeQ The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 am. Day/Night Noise Level, Len The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 am. Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Ambient Noise level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Source: ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC. /Acoustical Engineers PAGE 11-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 11: NOISE TABLE 11.2 -N TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS MEASURED IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRY At a Given Distance From Noise Source A-Weighted Sound Level in Decibels Noise Environments Sub'ective Im ression 140 Civil Defense Siren (100'} 130 Jet Takeoff (200') 120 Pain Threshold 110 Rock Music Concert Diesel Pile Driver (100') 100 Very Loud 90 Boiler Room Freight Cars (50') Printing Press Plant Pneumatic Drill (50') gp Freeway (100') In Kitchen With Garbage Disposal Vacuum Cleaner (10') 70 Running Moderately Loud 60 Data Processing Center Light Traffic (100') 50 Department Store Large Transformer (200') 40 Private Business Office Quiet Soft Whisper (5') 30 Quiet Bedroom 20 Recording Studio 10 Threshold of Hearing 0 .~~w~.c. i~urvwvvrcl h di KVUKIN, ING./HCOUSIICaI tnglneerS 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-3 .._ CHAPTER 1 1: NOISE from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. 11.2 SETTING ~~- In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use criteria for noise impacted areas. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses, in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the ~"' implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less than 75 dBA (CNEL)' are acceptable noise levels for industrial and open space uses. ~` The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.030) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The Project site is zoned "P-I, Planned Industrial," and the noise level standard for this zone is 70 dBA (L5~.2 Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but only- for specified periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB fox more than 15 minutes, ~~. the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the "' ambient noise level becomes the standard. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts ~` construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits .~ noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. ~ The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA". CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise "° intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artifidal dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). z The noise limit that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour). PAGE 1 1-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: NOISE ~"` 11.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1 • Would the Project expose persons to, or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3. Would the Project lead to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? 4. Would the Project lead to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.? 5. For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? 6. 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? IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES PERMANENT NOISE INCREASES Tra~c. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase traffic noise levels along local _. streets due to Project generated traffic. In general, a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a 3-dBA noise increase in a traffic dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise increase is barely perceptible to most people. As shown in Tables 13-10, 13-11 and 13-12 of the Transportation and Circulation chapter of this EIR, Project related daily traffic trips would increase from 1,262 daily trips under the site's previous land use, to an estimated 5,946 daily trips under the proposed Project, a difference of 4,684 trips. This would lead to a noticeable increase in traffic noise levels at the Project site and its vicinity. However, due to the prevalence of industrial land uses in the area, noise thresholds vis-a-vis the .. Project and neighboring land uses are higher there than they would be if more sensitive land uses were present near the Project site. Also, though the Project would produce more vehicle -°° trips than were produced by the site's previous land use, it would be expected that these trips would generally be quieter, due to a lesser amount of in-going and out-going diesel truck trips. In .» 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED ElR PAGE 1 1-5 _.. CHAPTER 1 1 : NOISE -u- addition, the railroad spur located at the eastern edge of the Project site and previously used by the Georgia Pacific Company to receive raw materials would be abandoned. Therefore, a significant source of noise at the Project site under previous conditions would no longer exist after implementation of the proposed Project. Due to these factors, the impact of traffic noise produced by the Project would be considered less than signzfzcctnt. Mechanical Equipment. Implementation of the proposed Project could increase ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity due to the operation of more powerful rooftop mechanical equipment than currently function at the Project site. 'The impact of the HVAC system would be considered less than significant provided that the noise level produced by it conforms to the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. Vibration. It is not be expected that future land uses at the Project site would generate excessive ~- groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Therefore, it is expected that the Project would have no impact related to excessive groundborne vibration or excessive groundborne noise. NOISE, GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION Temporary Noise Increase. During site preparation and construction at the Project site, operation of heavy equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. Impact 10-1 Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy n_ 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 fox most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher °~- levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet fox certain types of earthnioving and impact equipment Mitigation Measure 10-1 Noise Abatement. It is possible that a child care center located 400 feet from the Project site at 371 Allerton would be affected by Project generated construction noise. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, depending on the type of equipment Assuming construction noise levels comply with the 90- dBA noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance, construction related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant. AIRPORTS The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) 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 PAGE 11-6 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 11: NOISE 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. „~ 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-7 _. 12 PUBLIC SERVICES -~ 12.1 SETTING FIRE PROTECTION The South San Francisco Fire Department provides a full emergency medical services program with certified paramedics on the fire engines as well as staffing two full time Advanced Support ambulances. The department staffs three engine companies, two quints (combination fire engine and fire truck) and two ambulances. Minimum on duty staffing is 20 persons.' "" Many areas of open space within the city pose a substantial risk of fire hazard to surrounding areas.2 Beyond the topographic, climatic, and land use conditions that create fire hazard, two factors contribute to fire risk in individual locations: 1. Vegetation. Accumulations of vegetation serve as fuel for wildland fires; large concentrations of fuel, particularly where fires can spread from ground level to the tops of trees, can create conditions where wildland fires spread rapidly. Vegetation on both public and privately owned land in South San Francisco is generally poorly maintained .~ and overgrown. 2. Infrastructure. Public infrastructure, particularly site access and water supply, affect the City's ability to respond to fire. Poor access and inadequate local water supply can increase the loss of life and property in a fire. ,.. Eight fire hazard management units are identified in areas of the city that need vegetation management or other measures to reduce wildland fire risk and increase the potential for '"` successful fire suppression.3 Each management unit is designated as high, medium ox low priority in recognition of the relative need for risk management. The project site is not located in any of these fire hazard management units, and access to the site is good via East Grand Avenue. 1 City of South San Francisco web site. z City of South San Francisco, City of Sauth San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 264. s Ibid 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 12-1 CHAPTER 12: PUBLIC SERVICES POLICE PROTECTION The South San Francisco Police Department's jurisdictional area includes the entire city. The Department currently has a total of 76 sworn officers. The current ratio of officers is 1.2 per 1,000 residents. The Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes. These times are within the Department's response time goals. The Department °~- typically works afour-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by a one officer unit with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, `~` float, and supervisory units available for backup and overlap. SCHOOLS The South San Francisco Unified School District operates all public schools serving South San Francisco, the Serxamonte area of Daly City, and a small area of San Bruno, and is the largest school district in San Mateo County. The District operates ten elementary schools, three middle schools and two high schools. The District does not expect that school facility capacities will be met or exceeded during the General Plan horizon. Although projected residential development, and state directed class size reduction efforts have added new students, an aging population and a trend toward smaller families in the city will reduce the student population. Some schools have been closed, since they are no longer needed, and additional schools may need to be closed in coming years for the same reason. PARxS For a discussion on City of South San Francisco park facilities, please see the Recreation chapter of this document. 12.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: • 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 following public services: - Fire Protection `~" -Police Protection PAGE 12-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 12: PUBLIC SERVICES .. -Schools - Parks - Other Public Facilities IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FIRE PROTECTION The Project site is not located in any of the city's fire hazard management unit areas, and access to the site via East Grand Avenue is good. The Project's design would be required to comply with the city Fire Marshall's code requirements regarding on site access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on the city's fire protection services. POLICE PROTECTION Though the Project would bring more people to the city, it is expected that the proposed office/research and development land use would lead to a less than significant increase in r service calls to the Police Department. It is not expected that the Project would lead to an increase in Police Department service call response times. -- SCHOOLS The proposed Project would not involve the construction of residences which would increase ... student enrollments in the South San Francisco Unified School District. It is possible that the Project might lead some future employees of the company/companies occupying the Project's buildings to move their families to the city to live. However, such an influx of new residents would be so small that it would have a Zess than significant impact on the South San Francisco Unified School District. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 12-3 ~„ 13 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 13.1 INTRODUCTION Crane Transportation Group (CTG) performed a traffic and circulation analysis for the proposed Project. This EIR chapter incorporates that analysis. This chapter describes the transportation conditions in the study area in terms of existing roads and traffic operations, transit service and pedestrian and bicycle conditions. Where appropriate, excerpts from the following EIRs or initial studies/negative declarations have been included in this writeup: 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D project Draft and Final EIRs (Morehouse Associates and Dowling Associates, September 2004 and February 2005) and East Jamie Court Office R&D Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Morehouse Associates and Dowling Associates, September 2002). 13.2 SETTING ROADWAYS The 249 East Grand project site is served directly by East Grand Avenue and the Cabot Road cul-de-sac, while regional access is provided by the U.S.101 freeway. The two driveway connections to East Grand Avenue and the single driveway connection to Cabot Road will be connected via internal parking aisles, as was shown in Figure 3-2 of the Project Description chapter. Access to the U.S. 101 freeway is provided by a variety of major streets with several route options available to the three interchanges that could potentially be used by project traffic. Each is briefly described below while a schematic presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and control are presented in Figure 13-1. Freeways U.S.101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the project area. It extends from downtown San Francisco and northern California to Los Angeles and southern California. Within the study area, U.S.101 has northbound on-ramps at Grand Avenue, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue) and at Oyster Point Boulevard; northbound off-ramps are provided at East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive, South Airport 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAfT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-1 ~ o ~~ Miller ~ S8101 ramp ' off' ~'T /. / ~ ~1~~ ~~ Grand '` ~ ~ TT~~ a ~~~~ ~~ ~ o~TT~~ m ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~- Mitchell ~ n~~T~ -~ ~~~~ ~ US 101 Wonder- : NB Ra~ Color ~ o~TT~ ~~ ~ ~ J 249 East Grand EIR Traffic Not To Scale /~ NORTH ~ ~~ O <- Sf~~. ~ ~` '` ster yy o~nt T gt ~ ~~~ ~- ~ l ~ ~-- ~E rand ~ ~~T~ ~~ ~~ Study ~ a ~~ T E Grand t ~~ ~ y ~ l` y l~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~E Grand ~ "!! ~ ~ ran E Grand ~ '` ~ ~~ a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ a Figure 13-1 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Existing Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control t- E- O ster '` orn ~~ Emil ~ O m ~_ O ster ~ Point ~~ c ~ J =Stop Sign - =Project =Signal Site e~~a ~ =Free Right Turn er Point 1 O <~ m ~ ~ m T Forbes ~ _~ a 1 0 ~ a ~ _-~ Cabot ~~ ~ Grand Ave CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .~ Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue) and at Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard). Southbound on-ramps are provided from Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard) and at Produce Avenue; southbound off-ramps are provided at "" Produce Avenue, Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue and at Bayshore Boulevard (just north of Oyster Point Boulevard). There are auxiliary lanes on northbound U.S.101 both north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound U.S.101 south of Oyster Point Boulevard. U.S.101 carries an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 237,000 vehicles south of Produce Avenue, 226,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard and 212,000 vehicles north of Oyster Point Boulevard. -° Streets East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/ office areas east of the U.S.101 freeway. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway and ~" narrows to four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way intersection. In the project vicinity it has two travel lanes in each direction separated by a raised median, with no on- streetparking allowed along either the north or south sides of the street (i.e. there is no room far on-street parking on either side of East Grand Avenue in the project vicinity). The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). The roadway traverses a sharp horizontal curve just east of the Allerton Avenue intersection and ends about a half mile east of the project site. r. AZZerton Avenue is a two-lane local street extending northeasterly from East Grand Avenue to Forbes Boulevard. It has a gradual south-to-north uphill grade and a posted speed limit of 30 mph. On-street parking is prohibited along both sides of the street and its curb-to-curb width is 40 feet. Allerton Avenue is stop sign controlled on its approaches to East Grand Avenue and "` Forbes Boulevard. A sidewalk is provided along the west side of the street. Cdbot Road is a wide, two-lane roadway extending westerly from Grandview Drive to west of "` Allerton Avenue, where it ends in a cul-de-sac adjacent to the project site. There is no posted speed limit and on-street parking is prohibited. Sidewalks are provided around the cul-de-sac and along the north side of the street to Allerton Avenue. However, the sidewalk on the south side of the street only extends about half-way to Allerton Avenue. Air~iort Boulevdrd is a four- to six-lane, north-south arterial street that parallels the west side of the U.S.101 freeway. Gdtewdy Boulevard is a four-lane street connecting East Grand Avenue with South Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Harbor Wldy is a two-lane street serving existing and planned industrial/office uses south of r East Grand Avenue. Harbor Way provides access to South Airport Boulevard and several U.S.101 freeway ramps via Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-3 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION °° Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane collector street connecting the San Bruno Point Genentech area with East Grand Avenue. Littlefield Avenue is a 40-foot-wide, two-lane north-south street connecting East Grand Avenue with Utah Avenue. ' ~. Utah Avenue is a four-lane east-west street connecting Littlefield Avenue with South Airport Boulevard. Oyster Point Boulevard is one of the primary arterial access routes serving the "East of 101 area" of South San Francisco. It has six travel lanes near its interchange with the U.S.101 freeway, four lanes east of Veterans Boulevard and two lanes near Gull Road. VOLUMES Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was requested by City staff at the following 17 major intersections serving the project site. • Airport Boulevard & Miller Avenue/U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp • Airport Boulevard &~ Grand Avenue ,_ • East Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue • East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard .~.. • East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard • East Grand Avenue/249 East Grand Signalized Entrance • East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue • East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue • Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard • South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue • South Airport Boulevard/U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps • South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue • Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road • Allerton Avenue/Forbes Boulevard "' • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard & U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp • Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue ~„ • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive ,~ Existing counts were obtained for most locations from either the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Draft EIR (September 2004), the East Jamie Court Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (September 2002) or the Proposed Costco Gas Station Along South Airport ~. Boulevard Traffic Study ((une 2004). These counts were conducted from 1999 to 2003. In addition, AM and PM peak period counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in April 2005 at the following six locations. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PACE 13-4 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp • East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard -~ • East Grand Avenue/249 East Grand Avenue/Britannia Point Grand Parking Lot Driveway Entrance • East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue • Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road • Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue Past counts in the East of 101 area between 1999 and 2004 have indicated a measurable drop in volumes starting in the year 2000 (due to the recession in the high tech/biotech industry), which then continued after the September 11, 2001 terrorist incident, which significantly reduced air travel, and as a result related activities in the airport service industries in the East of 101 area. Recent EIRs and other traffic analysis in the area have utilized the older counts as a basis for near term evaluation as they are higher than counts from the past few pears. The 2005 counts by Crane Transportation Group showed a significant increase in AM peak hour volumes along Oyster Point Boulevard compared to past studies, primarily due to the recent opening of the U.S.101 southbound flyover off-ramp connection to the Gateway intersection and the increased ease for southbound freeway traffic to enter the East of 101 area via this new ramp. New PM peak hour volumes along Oyster Point Boulevard were a little lower than previous counts as there is little traffic entering the East of 101 area during the evening commute and the flyover off-ramp does nothing to facilitate the heavy outbound traffic flow headed westbound towards the freeway during this period. The 2005 counts along the East '"" Grand Avenue corridor were 10 to more than 20 percent lower than past counts in the AM (possibly due to the diversion of some inbound traffic to Oyster Point Boulevard and away from East Grand Avenue (accessed via the Airport/Miller southbound freeway off-ramp). During the PM peak hour, the 2005 counts long East Grand Avenue were about the same as older counts. Likewise, at the Airport/Gateway/Mitchell intersection, 2005 AM peak hour counts were about 15 percent lower than older volumes, while PM volumes were similar. In order to provide a conservative evaluation, the 2005 AM counts were used at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway/flyover off-ramp intersection along with required adjustments to older AM counts at the two other intersections evaluated along Oyster Point Boulevard. However, the older PM counts along Oyster Point Boulevard (with new PM volumes from the "" flyover off-ramp) along with the older AM and PM peak hour counts along the East Grand Avenue and Airport/South Airport corridors were still used to reflect existing conditions. Use of the older counts in these remaining corridors required that traffic activity associated with the former Georgia Pacific manufacturing operation on the 249 East Grand Avenue site be included in the existing system counts, as was some activity associated with the now mostly empty Britannia Pointe Grand parking area on the south side of East Grand Avenue opposite the 249 .~ East Grand Avenue parcel. The older AM peak hoax counts along East Grand Avenue and at 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-5 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ~-- the Airport intersections with Grand Avenue and the U.S.101 southbound off-ramp did, however, receive a reduction in southbound off-ramp and then eastbound flow along East ~. Grand Avenue to reflect the impact of the recently opened southbound flyover off-ramp connecting to Oyster Point Boulevard. Figures 13-2 and 13-3 present existing AM and PM peak hour volumes at the 17 analysis intersections. INTERSECTION OPERATION Analysis Methodology SignuZized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, ~- are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a ,W grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also associated with an ~, average vehicle delay tabulation (1994 Highway Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The vehicle delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project Greater detail regarding the LOS/dela.y relationship is provided ._. in Appendix Table B-1. Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using ,.-. the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are determined using a methodology outlined in the 1994 update of the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB Circular 209). Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average vehicle delay values are also calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled are also evaluated using the LOS and delay scales using a methodology outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and delay designations pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed -.. for stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements rather than for the entire intersection. Appendix Table B-2 provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. Standards ~" The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections and LOS E to be the poorest acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has no standards for turn movements from private driveways. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT .... DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-6 .~ 365 a 't- 5 o E- 205 r 600 Miller SB i 0 i ramp 110 -~, 50 110 40o a '~ 80 6l ~ ~' 115 - Grand '` 275 155 ~ ~1 t (~ 225 --- 30 285 215 90 ~, 875 a L 140 0 I ~-- 320 ~ `- i ~ ,` 235 215 --- ~ 210 200 36i 130 '~, ~ °~' '~ 1~ 75 105 10 ~ '~' 120 m ~- r35 Mitchell 105 ~ ~ ~ '~ (~ 285 -- a470 235 330 465 '~. ~ ~ 475 ~- 15 105 25 .~ 1 4 ~-- 5 ,~ 25 US 101 Wonder- : NB Ramp Color 765 ,~ n ~ t ~- 50 -- 0 75 215 5 320 ~ ~ ~ ~ L 8 3 0 0 m f- 135 '~ ~. 1, °~' i"' S5 Forbes 16 ~ a~ t (~ 590 --- m 25 0 45 35 "i, ~ 30 ~ '~ 20 13 40 ? ~- 10 j ~- ,` 7 Cabot 3 ,' ~ t (~ g .-i 20 55 20 7 a ~~20 85 20 0 ,.1 1, ' ~- 280 E Grand 190 ~ 970 -- 80 1 '~ 45 ~ - 45 0 '~ 25 0 ~ ~ 'L 20 p L 0 ~ - 365 ~ 85 125 45 ~ ~ ~- a ~-- 310 y 35 45 11 m ~ ~ ~- ~. E- 280 -' 0 0 ~ 1 ~ <-- 270 E G ra d ,~ E Gr nd c 20 j E - ,` 100 E G ran rand 170 ~' * ~ `1 I ~ 630 ,' _ ~1 t (~ 165 ,' ~ '~ (~ 0 J'' <l t (~ 1620 -- ~ 70 105 285 m 1195 ~ 0 60 55 ~ 70 900 --- 50 0 5 850 --- ~ = 60 0 310 105 ~ 210 ~, 120 ~, 100 ~. a 249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study Figure 13-2 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes - - • `Pf t-- 390 ~ i 6 ~,.A 40 ~ ~-- 280 5 1 1 m 1010 ~ f 330 \ O sfer ornf ,~- 20 Oster ~ ' ~ m .- 150 20 ~ O st r '~ 0710 F 0 0 1235 --- m ~ ~ 9 Po 0 t0 ~ ~ ~1 t (~ 330 w 350 ~. 5 55 y 670 --- 30 ' 210 365 .i 10 ~,a ~ 01 e ~m Not To Scale r~ ay ~ . =Project ~o te=~esR~_ _. Slte NORTH ... 335 t 5 a _ o f- 300 ~ ,i' 360 Miller SB 101 ramp 140 -~, ~ t 110 240 505 a t- 170 2~ ~ ~-- 250 Grand ~ 790 150 ~ `1 ? (~ 75 -- 95 465 100 100 ~. 985 a '~ 295 4 ~ ~- 335 ,`' 635 130 ~ ~ `1 t (~ 180 --- ~ 125 225 1 80 205 -,. n ~ m !-' 20 135 390 15 ~ F 335 ' tJ ~. l., 75 °' j Mitchell 60 ~' cn'1 t (~ 95 ~ a540 55 355 "i. 130 ~ 490 ~ 25 255 25 ~- 15 ~- ,`" 25 US i0i Wonder NB Ramp Color 465 ~' a'1 t (~ 40 -- 0 265 305 20 II X200 'i, ~ _ 1 60 20 ~ ~' 80 ~J 4 ~ ~- 1650 ~ E r nd 40 ,' 355 --- O ~-- 1695 Sf~rA 300 t ~ 60 Oster 70 ~~ gt J o~nt ~ O ~ 155 ~ ~ ~ 970 55 ~ '~ 120 235 1175 0 ~ ~- ,~' 330 E rand 80 ~' ~ fl ~' (~ 465 --- ~ 70 90 70 95 ~. m i East Grand EIR Traffic Study Grand Ave ~ ~ '~ 7 11 1 2 ~ ~- 500 ~.1 1 ~- m ,` 45 Forbes 210 --- m 55 0 65 ~ 30 '~. ~ ~ 60 m i 30 5 40 0 ~- 10 ~J ~, ~- ~ i._, 25 Ca of 10 ~ ~ 1 f 10 -- 10 25 25 30 ~- a 170 20 0 ~" 15 ~ ~ ~ ~- 865 E Grand 80 ~ 250 ~ 80 0 '~- 30 p ~ ~ L 20 0 '~ 0 ~5 1 l- + fD ~- 920 y 80 125 ~1 30 ~ ~. ~ ~- 800 = 0 0 .~14 ~-- 755 270 ~ ~ r,0 r E Grand E Grand E Grand 185 ~ _ ~l t (~ 69 ,' `1 t (~ 0 ,' ~ t (~ 335 -- 0 200 50 25 l 300 -a 100 0 20 280 --~ ~ 75 0 55 75 ~. 10 ~, 90 ~ a Figure 13-3 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes '~ 1 ~-- 1095 75 0 3 m j- 40 ~ 4 ~ m ~-- 590 `` O ster ~ 15 om Oster 385 -- Po 5 t ~ ~.~ ~ f 110 '~. y 440 25 170 1 25 ° 315 215 -i 1 Not To Scale . =Project Site NORTH CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION '"` Existing Intersection Operating Conditions Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that all 17 analyzed intersections are operating at good to acceptable (LOS D or better) levels of service during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. Although the Allerton Avenue/East Grand Avenue intersection is projected to be operating at .-. an acceptable level of service, it has two existing operational and safety problems. The lack of a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach creates occasional extended queues behind a stopped vehicle waiting for a gap in the westbound traffic flow to make a left turn to Allerton "" Avenue. Drivers in the queue then begin pulling around the stopped vehicle and interrupt the flow of eastbound traffic in the curb (outside) travel lane. This is an existing safety and operational problem. Based upon Warrants for Provision of Left Turn Lanes in the Transportation Research Board Report #279 (November 1985-see Appendix Table B-3), the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach to Allerton Avenue now warrants provision of a left turn lane with existing peak hour volumes. In addition, the sight line from Allerton Avenue to/from the east along East Grand Avenue is limited to about 200 feet due to the curvature in East Grand Avenue just east of the intersection and a hillside on the northeast corner of the -~ intersection. Although East Grand Avenue has a posted speed limit of 35 mph, some westbound vehicles were observed to travel as high as 40 to 45 mph through the curve. At 45 miles per hour, a minimum safe stopping sight distance is 360 feet. (At the posted speed limit the "'- minimum stopping sight distance is 250 feet)' INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATiON REQUIREMENTS Traffic signals are used to provide an orderly flow of traffic through an intersection. Many times they are needed to offer side street traffic an opportunity to access a major road where high volumes and/or high vehicle speeds block crossing or turn movements. They do not, however, increase the capacity of an intersection (i.e., increase the overall intersection's ability to -~ accommodate additional vehicles) and, in fact, often slightly reduce the number of total vehicles that can pass through an intersection in a given period of time. Signals can also cause an increase in traffic accidents if installed at inappropriate locations. --~ There are eight possible tests for determining whether a traffic signal should be considered for installation. These tests, called "warrants", consider criteria such as actual traffic volume, .- pedestrian volume, presence of school children, and accident history. Usually, two or more warrants must be met before a signal is installed. In this report, the test for Peak Hour Volumes (Warrant #3) has been applied. When Warrant 3 is met there is a strong indication that a detailed t A Policy an Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004, Fifth Edition, American Association of State Highway and ..~ Transportation Officials. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-9 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13-1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020 Intersection Existin WIO Pro ect +Pm'ect WIO Pro' +Pro'ect AirportlMiller/95101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-15.21~> C-24.7 C-25.0 C-28.0 C-28.3 AirportlGrand (Signal) C-28.8111 D-48.8 D-51.7 D-38.5 D-39.7 Dubuque/E. Grand (Signal) A-5.711 A-5.7 A-5.7 A-6.3 A-6.3 Gateway/E.Grand/E.Grand Overcrossing (Signal) C-25.41~~ C-33.3 D-52.3 C-26.9 C-33.7 Harbor/E.Grand/Forbes (Signal) B-13.711 C-29.1 D-54.3 D-36.5 D-41.7 Project Driveway@ E.Grand (Signal) B-10.711 A-6.7 C-33.1 A-6.3 C-20.6 Littlefield/E.Grand (Signal) B-17.4t~1 F-87.2 F-106.4 D-45.1 D-53.0 S.Airport/U.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps (Signal) B-16.211 B-20.0 B-20.0 E-70.2 E-77.6 Utah/S.Airport (Signal) C-29.611 D-50.9 E-59.2 C-24.1 C-25.2 Oyster PointlGateway/Flyover (Signal) B-15.0111 C-25.2 C-29.2 C-25.8 C-29.8 Oyster Point/Eccles (Signal) A-8.61t> C-24,9 D-44.3 B-11.0 B-14.7 Oyster Point/Gull {Signal) B-12.5t~1 B-15.1 C-24.9 B-15.8 B-15.8 GatewaylS.Airport/Mitchell (Signal) B-16.411 C-20.0 C-20.1 C-34.5 D-35.6 Airport/San Mateo/Produce (Signal) C-20.9t~1 C-26.6 C-27.1 C-27.1 C-27.4 Allerton/E.Grand (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-15.61~> F-57.9 F-94.5 B-14.6 (1) B-15.8 (1) Cabot/Allerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) B-10.1/ A-9.9131 B-10.51 B-10.1 B-13.5/ B-11.9 B-10.7/ B-10.5 B-13.9/ 8-13.0 Forbes/Allerton (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-16.8141 C-18.6 E-49.7 C-23.6 F-90.9 h> Signalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds. (~ Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to E. Grand Ave. -- (31 Unsignalized level of service vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to Forbes Ave. (41 Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton/Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology. -- Source: Crane Transportation Group. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-10 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION "' TABLE 13.2 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE oee ere~r uni~e YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020 Intersection Existin WIO Pro'ect +Pro'ect W10 Pro'ect +pro'ect Airport/Miller/95101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-17.7 t>> C-21.0 C-21.1 C-27.9 C-28.0 AirportlGrand (Signal} D-36.511 D-38.9 D-39.6 C-34.2 C-34.6 Dubuque/E. Grand (Signal) A-4.21t> A-6.2 A-6.4 A-6.9 A-7.2 Gateway/E.GrandlE.Grand Overcrossing (Signal) B-19.711 C-24.8 C-28.4 C-28.6 C-29.4 Harbor/E.Grand/Forbes (Signal) C-22.111 C-29.9 D-53.4 D-40.1 D-45.5 Project Driveway@ E.Grand (Signal) B-16.0{~) A-8.5 D-46.5 A-7.6 D-54.3 Littlefield/E.Grand (Signal) B-11.51t> B-12.8 B-13.6 C-23.7 C-24.5 S.Airport/U.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps (Signal) B-18.411 C-22.7 C-22.7 C-24.8 C-24.8 Utah/S.Airport (Signal) B-17.911 C-20.4 C-20.9 C-23.3 C-23.7 Oyster PointlGateway/Flyover (Signal) C-26.8~~~ D-54.2 E-60.8 E-73.4 F-82.4 Oyster Point/Eccles (Signal) B-17.811 D-43.0 D-54,9 C-20.6 C-22.9 Oyster Point/Gull (Signal} B-17.211> C-28.7 D-35.6 C-24.5 C-25.7 GatewaylS.Airport/Mitchell (Signal) C-25.O1~1 F-81.1 F-133.8 C-28.0 C-31.4 Airport/San Mateo/Produce (Signal} C-24.611> D-37.8 D-52.1 D-36.8 D-43.0 Allerton/E.Grand (Allerton Stop Sign Control} C-20.41~~ F-522 F-835 B-15.1 (1) B-19.6 (1) Cabot/Allerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) A-9.81 B-10.113> A-9.9/ B-10.2 B-14.0/ B-10.8 A-10.01 B-10.3 B-14.61 B-11.0 Forbes/Allerton Allerton Stop Sign Control) B-14.31x1 B-14.4 C-19.3 C-16.6 C-24.2 1~) Signalized level ofservice-vehicle delay in seconds. {~ Unsignalized level of sen~ice-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to E. Grand Ave. "" 13> Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to Forbes Ave. {a~ Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to "" Allerton/Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology. !„ Source: Crane Transportation Group. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-11 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION signal warrant analysis covering all possible warrants is appropriate. These rigorous analyses are described in Chapter 4 of the year 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,2 while Warrant 3 is presented in Appendix Table B-4 of this report. It is possible that an unsignalized intersection will not meet signal warrants, but will have one or ~, more movements that experience LOS F operations. Level of service F can be indicated for a very low volume of vehicles at a stop sign. Although these stopped vehicles may experience long delays of one minute or more, there would not be an overall benefit if the higher numbers of -- vehicles on the major street are stopped in favor of the few vehicles on the minor street. The signal warrant considers a balance between major street and minor street delays, and may indicate that there is overall benefit if drivers fox some turn movements from the minor street "~' continue to experience long (LOS E or F) delays. Currently, the Allerton Avenue/East Grand Avenue, Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road and Allerton Avenue/Forties Boulevard intersections all have AM and PM peak hour volumes below signal warrant criteria levels, although both AM and particularly PM peak hour volumes at Allerton ® Avenue/East Grand Avenue are approaching warrant criteria levels. TRANSIT Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service and regional rail service. Figure 13-4 shows bus/shuttle service east of the U.S.101 freeway in the project --- vicinity. Bus Service The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco. However, currently there is no SamTrans service east of the U.S.101 freeway. Bus service n,nning just west of the freeway is as follows. Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center-Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This route operates during midday only on weekdays with headways of about two hours. Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART-South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Coltna BART station and Daly City. It operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 60-minute headways on Sundays. z Federal Highway Administration. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-12 ~ • • To C~le~ Park _ - ~ Ba statioy' - _ _. ~, . - _ /, • ;, - ,, S~ '' @ . ~ - - I . _ . d• onm. rr•c a~.a - __...._... _ • ~ -- _ - ~ - ~ ~~ Y • - Caftrairi ~'( = ~•~ - _~~ _ - _.' 8 ~ it I % '1 e '~ `i _ .~ ~ ' ~-y _- i : ~ .__ ~C. -. - ' ~ ~ l i - --__--- ,. r ~' 'r ,-. ~ ~ . -': -•• ~ San Bruno Cana! 11[_I ~;. ~ ~~ ~ ;c t ~~~ - +~_~ - } d 1 ~t~ i ~.^- ; .t; :._....,..i.~, _ _ I~~" SwN FRANCISCO INTER vA T(O NAL ~~-__~ `_ r5 lR P:JHT ••••••••••• Caltrain Shuttle BART Shuttle •••••••••• Bicyle Paths and Routes ~y Caltrain 249 East Grand EIR Traffic ' Existing CalTrain Station San Francisco Bay Figure 13- 4 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Bus and Shuttle ,Routes CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays. ._ Route 292: San Francisco-SF Airport-Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 30- to 60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays. Caltrain "-' Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue in South San Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday. . Caltrain/BART Shuttles Van shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S.101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service to/from the ,~„ Colma BART station. Shuttle stops are provided along East Grand Avenue in the project vicinity. ,,,,,, The Gateway Area/Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue. There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six ~-- morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. The Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers in the °-- Utah/Grand/Littlefield area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot Court, Grandview Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Haskin Way and Utah Avenue. There are six trips in the morning and six trips in the afternoon on the BART shuttle, with seven morning and seven afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. ® Shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute periods. The shuttles are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board QPB), SarnTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County ~„_ Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent). PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Sidewalks are in place along both sides of East Grand Avenue in the project vicinity. Allerton Avenue has a sidewalk along the west side of the street but not along the east side of the street. ~"" Cabot Road has sidewalks around its cul-de-sac adjacent to the project site. The sidewalk on the north side of the street extends to Allerton Avenue, while the sidewalk on the south side of the 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-14 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION street extends only half-way to Allerton Avenue. There are no bicycle lanes striped or posted along East Grand Avenue, Cabot Road or Allerton Avenue in the Project area. FREEWAY OPERATION Analysis Methodology Freeway segments are evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual as specified by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Planning level lane capacities -F have been determined based on a theoretical maximum of 2,350 vehicles per lane per hour along sections with no auxiliary lanes. Based upon a 2005 count of the U.S.101 freeway by Crane Transportation Group at the Oyster Point interchange, where peak hour factor and truck "" percentages were obtained, the capacity of a four-lane one-way segment of U.S.101 during peak commute hours in South San Francisco is considered to be 8,880 vehicles per hour (2,220 vehicles per lane per hour), with LOS E for volumes between 7,900 and 8,880 vehicles, LOS D for volumes between 6,340 and 7,899 vehicles, and LOS C for volumes below 6,340 vehicles. `The hourly capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 1,500-foot auxiliary lane is considered to be 9,750 vehicles, while the capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 2,000-foot auxiliary lane .~ is considered to be 10,170 vehicles. San Mateo CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street -~ network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county boarder, the LOS standard was set as E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing level of service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on aCMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using f LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not -~ feasible (due to financial, environmental or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions. """ A Deficiency Plan map not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic originating outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance. '°° 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-15 .. CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Existing Freeway Operation Existing levels of service on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based upon Crane Transportation Group's 2005 AM and PM peak period counts of the U.S.101 freeway at the Oyster Point interchange and from Caltrans' February and August 2004 counts of the U.S.101 freeway in South San Francisco. Year 2005 interchange ramp counts were used to ~- derive volumes for freeway segments lacking current counts. Tables 13-3 and 13-4 show existing freeway level of service results based on the 2004/2005 ._ traffic counts when compared to the standard capacity of a four-lane segment or segments with auxiliary lanes. Results are summarized below. °- AM PEAK HOUR Southbound LOSE North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp LOS D From Oyster Point Boulevard to south of the Produce/ Airport off-ramp Northbound LOSE South of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp ,~ LOS D From the East Grand Avenue off-ramp to north of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange ~-- PM PEAK HOUR Southbound LOS D All locations Northbound LOS D From south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp to the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange LOSE North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange 'The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2003 Monitoring Keport (Fehr and Peers, July 29, 2003), identified AM peak period LOS D operations in 2003 fox U.S.101 between the °- San Francisco County Line and I-380 based on travel time surveys. The 2001 LOS for this segment was measured at E and the 1999 LOS was F. This indicates that traffic congestion has lessened somewhat over the past several years, most likely due to employment reductions in San Francisco and the Peninsula.. FUTURE BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS The proposed project's traffic impacts have been evaluated in relation to year 2008 and pear ,,._. 2020 Base Case conditions. Year 2008 reflects the first year the 249 East Grand Avenue project could be completely constructed and fully occupied, while 2020 represents the City's General Plan horizon. This section details the process to determine Base Case traffic operating "- conditions for both horizon years. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT -... DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-16 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ~" TABLE 13-3 FREEWAY OPERATION ee~ eeev unnn YEAR 2008 Existin Base Case Base Case +pro ed Vol LOS Vol LOS Project Increment Percent Increase Total Vol LOS SOUTHBOUND North of SB Off-Ramp to 8350 E 9392 F 191 2.04% 9583 F Bayshore Blvd.l0yster Point Blvd. (San Mateo Origins Only) (188) (A) (192) (A) Between Oyster Point SB 7970 D 8683 D 20 0.2% 8703 E On-Ramp and Grand/Miller SB Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (174) {A) (174) (A) Between Grand/Miller SB 7160 D 7604 D 0 0% 7604 D Off-Ramp and Produce/Airport SB Off- Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (152) (A) (152) (A) South of Produce! 6460 D 6904 D 0 0% 6904 D Airport Off-Ramp {San Mateo Origins Only) {138) (A) (138) (A) NORTHBOUND South of East Grand Off- 9050 E 10,424 F 237 2.3% 10,661 F Ramp {p) (D) (San Mateo Origins Only) (7401) (7569) South of Grand Ave On- 7650 D 8761 E 0 0% 8761 E Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (6220) {C) (6220) (C) Between Grand Ave. On- 8195 D 9349 E 15 0.2% 9364 E Ramp and Oyster Point Off- Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (6638) (C) (6648) (C) North of Oyster Point On- 8065 D 8517 D 30 0.4% 8547 D Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (6047} (C) (6068) (C) Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-17 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13.4 FREEWAY OPERATION yea o~n~r undo YEAR 2008 Existin Base Case Base Case + Pro' ct Vol LOS Vol LOS Project Increment Percent Increase Total Vol LOS SOUTHBOUND North of SB Off-Ramp to 6965 D 7389 D 36 0.5% 7425 D Bayshore Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. (San Mateo Origins Only) (296) (A) {297) (A) Between Oyster Point SB 7990 D 8947 E 4 0.1 % 8951 E On-Ramp and Grand/Miller SB Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (358) (A) (358) (A) Between Grand/Miller SB 7320 D 8212 E 0 0% 8212 E Off-Ramp and Produce/Airport SB Off- Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (328) (A) (328) (A) South of Produce/ 6870 D 7762 D 0 0% 7762 D Airport Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (310) (A) (310) (A) NORTHBOUND South of East Grand Off- 8100 D 8936 D 44 0.5% 8980 D Ramp (7685) (D) (7723) (D) (San Mateo Origins Only) South of Grand Ave On- 7345 D 7825 D 0 0% 7825 D Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (6730) (D) (6730) (D) Between Grand Ave. On- 8280 D 9045 D 102 1.1 % 9147 E Ramp and Oyster Point Off- Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) (7779) (D) (7866) (D) North of Oyster Point On- 9060 E 10,071 E 204 2.03% 10 275 F Ramp , (San Mateo Origins Only) (8661) (D) (8837) (D) ,,,,,, Year 2000 Highway Capauty Manual Analysis Methodology. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-18 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ..~ Year 2008 Base Case The year 2008 baseline conditions include traffic generated by approved development in the ~~ study area, as well as traffic generated by projects that are under construction. Based on recent observed construction and occupancy schedules in South San Francisco, it may be assumed that these approved development projects will be completed and occupied within the next three "~ years. Committed Road Improvements (to be in place by 200 The City of South San Francisco is currently completing construction on the final ramp improvement project at the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. The "hook ramps" project is replacing the existing "scissors" off-ramp from southbound U.S.101 to Bayshore Boulevard with a more conventional hook ramp terminating at a signalized intersection. A new on-ramp is being ,~„ constructed from Bayshore Boulevard to southbound U.S.101 from the same intersection. The hook ramps will significantly improve access to and from southern Brisbane, and will divert additional traffic from Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. -~ Additionally, intersection improvements are committed by the approved Bay West Cove development project for the intersections of Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard ""` (change the existing second westbound left turn lane to a through lane and re-stripe the westbound through/right lane to a right turn lane), Veterans Road and Oyster Point Boulevard (widen southbound Veterans Road to add a right turn lane and re-stripe the optional ~. through/left lane to an optional right/through/left lane), and Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue (re-stripe the existing northbound Gateway Boulevard shared through/right turn lane to a right turn lane and re-stripe the existing eastbound Grand Avenue approach to provide a separate right turn lane). Based upon direction from the South San Francisco Public Works Department, these were the only improvements to be assumed in place at study intersections by 2008. Figure 13-5 presents year 2008 intersection geometrics and control. ~,„ Approved Development Trip Generation South San Francisco Trip generation was estimated for approved developments in the project area (see Table "- 13-5). Information on approved developments was obtained from City of South San Francisco staff. In addition, traffic from both Home Depot and Lowe's stores recently proposed along Dubuque Avenue just south of the Oyster Point interchange was also .. included in the analysis at direction of South San Francisco staff {see Table 13-6). 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-19 ~ a ~ ~~ Miller SB 101 ramp ~ a ~- ~~~ ~~ Grand `` ~ ~TT~~ '~. Oyster ~~ F- E-- y '`yster y o~n ~\ oJe~' ~ ~~`l~' ~' Not To Scale ~~ NORTH v~ ~-- F- ~ ~ ster '~ ~ ~' ~ om Oster Point ~ ~ y =Stop Sign . =Project =Signal Site e`~d ~ =Free Right Tum er Point °~- ^ ~ v~ T Forbes a 0 Grand Ave o- ~~~ ~ ~' Drivewa Utah ~ ~~TT~ ~o ~ -_\ ~ ,~® Cabot ~r ~i ~~ ~ o ~ ~- T E Grand o~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~m.~ y ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ E Grand '` E Gran E Grand ' ~~ ~ ~a CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Figure 13-5 Year 2008 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13.5 (PAGE 1 OF 2) TRIP GENERATION OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA EXPECTED TO BE BUILT AND OCCUPIED BY 2008 (See References on the following page for the List of Studies Providin Traffic Pro'ections for Each Pro"ecf Pro ect 1.333 Oyster Point Blvd. Size RESULTANT PEAK HOUR TRIPS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Office/R&D (replacing light industrial) 315,444 SQ.FT. (-94,990 SQ.FT.} 445 426 _ 46 - 52 Net 399 374 2 E t J i . as am e Court Office/R&D 133,000 SQ.FT. 188 180 3 B it i E . r ann a ast Grand Office/R&D Retail Child Care Fitness Center (replacing light industrial) 783,530 SQ.FT. 8,000 SQ.FT. 8,000 SQ.FT. 5,000 SQ.FT. (-354,880 SQ.FT)i 1,207 170 Net 1,037 1,201 191 1,010 4. Genentech Building 5 33 R&D and 37 garage 125,000 SQ.FT. 61 131 5 G t h . enen ec Building 31 OfficelR&D 150,972 SQ.FT. 234 225 6 B W C . ay est ove (part already constructed) Office Retail Restaurant Hotel 600,000 SQ.FT. 10,000 SQ.FT. 10,000 SQ.FT. 350 Rooms 1,623 1,636 7 180 O t P i . ys er o nt Office 105,000 SQ.FT. 100 90 8 200 O t P . ys er oint Office 155,000 SQ.FT. 147 133 9 345 E G . ast rand R&D (replacing warehouse uses) 210,560 SQ.FT. 124 - 31 Net 93 115 Net 70 10 285 E G . ast rand Ave.l 349 Allerton Ave. Office/R&D 122 111 (replacing existing site uses} - 38 Net 84 - 28 Net 83 Source: Crane Transportation Group. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-21 _,. CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 13.5 (PAGE 2 OF 2) REFERENCES 1. 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Project Draft EIR (Morehouse Associates) September 2004 Final EIR (Morehouse Associates) February 2005 2. East Jamie Court Office R&D Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Morehouse Associates) September 2002 3. Britannia East Grand Project (Fuller O'Brien Properly) Recirculation Draft EIR (Morehouse Associates) February 2002 4. Genentech Site Access-Buildings 33 & 37 Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus Parking Garage (Building 37) (Fehr & Peers) December 2003 5. Genentech Building 31-Administrative Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Lamphier-Gregory/Fehr & Peers) February 2005 `~ G. Bay West Cove Commercial Report Supplemental EIR (Morehouse Associates) October 2002 7., 8. 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Projects Draft Traffic Analysis Report (Hexagon Transportation Consultants) October 2001 9. Traffic Impact Report 345 East Grand Avenue R&D Office Replacing Warehouse Use (Crane Transportation Group) November 2001 10. Traffic Impact Report 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton Avenue R&D Office Replacing Existing Site Uses (Crane Transportation Group) July 2002 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-22 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .» TABLE 13-6 47r111AC r1GDAT TDte n~u~r~ ~r~r.u DAILY ,vn AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS 2-Wa Tri s Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Home Depot 125,794 SQ.FT. 29.8 (40) 3750 .65 82 .55 69 1.15 145 1.30 164 + 25% Safety Factor 940 21 17 36 41 TOTAL 4690 103 86 181 205 i np Kate source: 1 izp Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group. 1 1lWG~C DDA It!`T TDID /~C~IC~A'1'~/1~~ DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS 2-Wa Tri s Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Lowe's 148,749 29.8 4434 .65 97 .55 82 1.15 171 1.30 193 SQ.FT. West 6,590 44.3 292 .72 5 .48 3 1.8 12 1 8 12 Marine SQ.FT. . Bldg.- Notth Area Subtotal 4726 102 85 183 205 + 25% Safety Factor 1182 26 21 46 51 Existing West Marine - NA* 2 0 14 Store (No Change) 12 TOTAL 5908'" 130 106 243 268 -- --- --~ ----r b.»..._~...,._- ** Does not include existing West Marine store. Trip Rate Source: Lowe's: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003; Specialty retail: Traf&c Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 2002. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group LOWE'S SITE NET CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION I fIWG~C lt. 1AlCCT 6AADUlc Dew nun uuu,n .- _. ---_. ^•• --••-~ ~ ~.~.-..... ..,u.vv r.i~w111~V VII G VJ AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS GV PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS Use ' Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Lowe s and West Marine Bldg. 130 106 243 268 Existing Site Uses (including West Marine Bldg.) - 42 - 37 _108 - 86 Net Change in Site Trip Generation +8g +69 +135 +182 ~~u~..~. ~.,u.,~ ~iau~Punauon Uroup. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-23 "'° CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The traffic generation rates fox approved development are based on the analysis conducted for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco General Plan 14mendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (April 2001). Traffic counts were conducted at existing office, R&D and hotel uses in the East of 101 area. The resulting peak hour traffic generation rates were somewhat lower than the standard national averages reported in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation reference. In addition, all recently approved development in the East of 101 area is required to implement transportation demand management (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic. The analysis for the General Plan Amendment assumes that a moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 9.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates. Brisbane Traffic generated by development expected to be completed in Brisbane by the pear 2008 was projected using a two percent per year growth rate in traffic accessing South San Francisco via Bayshore Boulevard. Regional Tra~c Growth on US 101 ~` North and southbound AM and PM peak hour traffic on the U.S.101 freeway not associated with any on- or off-ramp in South San Francisco was projected to grow at a straight line rate of one percent per year from 2005 to 2008. Approved Development Trip Distribution "~'" The estimated distribution of approved development traffic was based upon employee surveys conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (Brady and Associates with Barton Aschman Associates, January 1994). Inbound and outbound traffic generation from each development was distributed according to the percentages shown in Table 13-7. Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2008 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 13-G and 13-7. Year 2008 Base Case Intersection Operation ~, Table 13-1 shows that during the AM peak hour all analyzed intersections would be operating at acceptable levels of service with pear 2008 Base Case volumes, with two exceptions. The stop sign controlled Allerton Avenue Approach to East Grand Avenue would be operating at LOS F -- conditions. In addition, the signalized East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Road intersection would be operating at LOS F conditions. Table 13-2 shows that during the PM peak hour all analyzed intersections would be operating acceptably, with two exceptions. The stop sign controlled Allerton Avenue approach to East Grand Avenue would be operating at LOS F conditions as would the signalized Airport/Gateway/Mitchell intersection. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-24 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ..~ TABLE 13-7 T176CCIf' ntcTO~o~ ~r~nu Direction South San Franasco Develo ment Year 2005 US 101 North/San Francisco 29 US 101 South 48 South San Francisco (central area} 3 Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. g Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway 0 Brisbane 7 Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 3 Local east of US 101 2 TOTAL 100% Year 2020+ US 101 NorthlSan Francisco 29 US 101 South 48 South San Francisco (central area) 2 Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 1 Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway 0 Daly City/Colma and South San Francisco (central area) g via Railroad Avenue Extension Brisbane 7 Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 2 San Bruno/south via San Mateo Avenue 1 Local east of US 101 2 TOTAL 100% Source: City of South San Francisco, Draft Sufiplemental Enrrimnmentallmpact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-25 to 9 2 0 ~-- 465 ~ j ~- ,` 120 E Grand 35 .,' r ~ t (~ 1755 -- ~ 45 5 560 90 '~, o. Figure 13-6 _ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 2008 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes 416 -~ a 't- 5 60 o <- 300 a ,~ 424 Miller SB 10 i amp 146 ~, ~ } 1 111 4 02 510 -~ a t 313 4 ~ ~- 334 Grand '` 801 165 ~ ~1 t 100 --- 95 470 106 100 ~. 985 ~ 295 150 95 1 4 i ~ ~ ~-- 380 j" 1120 135 ~' ~ `1 t (~ 185 --- Q125 225180 205 ~, ~ m ~- 20 155 535 15 m t" 715 ~ .~ 1 4 ° ' ~-- 75 Mitchel! 65 ~' cn'1 t (~ 100 --- X540 65 355 'i 140 ~ 510 t- 25 255 25 4 ~-- 15 ' ,~ 25 US 101 Wonder NB Ramp ~ Color 475 ,' ~ ~ 1 (~ 40 -- ~ 265 2C X220 ~, ~ 315 ~~.,,, 249 East Grand EIR ~py 360 50 5 '~ s ,. RJ ~ . 10 ~ 'O ~-- 2535 30 ~ j- 105 O ster 385 ~ oin F~ 0 240 a ~ 965 15 65 55 ~' ~ Grand AvF 30 11 1 '~ 0 ~-- 1745 1 t, ,` 350 E Grand 5 .~ ~ ~ 1 (~ 495 -.~ ~ 55 1 115 60 ~, Figure 13-7 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 2008 Base Case (Without Projec#) PM Peak Hour Volumes ~-- 1285 ,` 45 D ster om m ~ (~ 440 --- ~ 465 25 145 N ~ '~. 1 0 4 ~ ~-- 595 ~ 15 O ster Post ~ ~~1 ~' (~ 180 --> _ 465 25 250 -i 1 Not To Scale ~~ . =Project Site NORTH '~ 7 (1 I1 2 m ~- 525 1 4 °~' j- 50 Forbes 3 ~ n~ t (~ 215 -- m 55 0 95 30 'i ~ 65 m '~ 45 i `` 40 o f-- 10 i ~- ~ ,F' 25 Ca of 10~ •~ 1 (~ 10 -i 10 40 25 30 ~. n 1 20 0 ~ 15 ly ' ~- 1905 E Grand i 5 --- ~' CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The lack of a left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach to Allerton Avenue would result in frequent extended queues behind a stopped vehicle waiting for a gap in westbound traffic in order to make a left turn. Vehicles in the queue would then begin to pull around the stopped vehicle. This would be a significant safety concern. "' Year 2008 Base Case Intersection Sig-nalization Needs By 2008, both AM and PM peak hour Base Case volumes would be exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels at the Allerton Avenue/East Grand Avenue intersection. Year 2008 Base Case Freeway Operation Tables 13-3 and 13-4 show that by 2008 with Base Case traffic the following freeway segments would be experiencing LOS E or F operation. AM PEAK HOUR Southbound LOS F Northbound LOS F LOS E PM PEAK HOUR North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange South of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp North of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp to the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange Southbound LOSE South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange to the Produce/Airport off-ramp ~, Northbound LOSE North of Oyster Point Boulevard interchange Year 2008 Base Case (Without Projectl Intersection Improvement Needs East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Intersection • Prohibit left turns from Allerton Avenue to East Grand Avenue until the intersection is "" signalized -or- cut back the hillside on the northeast corner of the intersection to improve sight lines to/from the east to at least 400 feet. • Stripe a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach. This will require removal of parking on the south side of East Grand Avenue. • Signalize the intersection when warranted. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-28 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.1 seconds average vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B-17.9 seconds average vehicle delay East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue Intersection • Widen the northbound Littlefield Avenue approach to provide two intersection approach lanes. Stripe as one exclusive right turn lane and a combined left/through/right turn lane. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS C-33.1 seconds average vehicle delay South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue Intersection • Add a second through lane to the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach. Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour: LOS D-35.5 seconds average vehicle delay Year 2020 Base Case The year 2020 Base Case (without project) conditions include traffic generated by approved development in the study area, traffic generated by project which are completed or under construction and were not yet fully occupied, traffic generated by proposed projects, and traffic generated by potential development of vacant or underutilized land in the study area. This evaluation of year 2020 + conditions is based upon the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEII~) for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001 with updates to project descriptions and needed improvements based upon a series of EIRs and traffic studies conducted over the past four years (see Table 13-5 reference list). The proposed project in the SEIR consists of a General Plan Amendment and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, and it includes a set of physical street improvements as well as policies requiring TDM measures and traffic reduction at employment sites. The program of street improvements and TDM measures is referred to throughout this EIR chapter as the East o, f 101 Transportation Improvements Plan (ITP). General Plan Amendment Street Improvements The East of 101 Transportation Improvements Plan includes a series of physical improvements that would be implemented along with a TDM program approved by the City in order to mitigate traffic impacts of the potential development of the East of 101 area. General Plan Policy 4.2-1-6 is amended to read as follows: "4.2-1-6 Incorporate as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) needed intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in the East of 101 area." 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-29 .~ CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The following improvements are included in the East of 101 TIP and are therefore assumed for the year 2020+ baseline scenario (see Figure 13-8). In addition, supplemental mitigation needs have been determined through more recent EIRs (listed in Table 13-5). South San Francisco Planning staff have indicated that these supplemental measures have all been included as part of Street Improvement program. Those measures are shown in italics in the following lists and have ~, been assumed in place for the peat 2020 Base Case and Base Case + project evaluation. • Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue/U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp: Widen the off-ramp and reconstruct retaining wall to provide a second left turn lane. Re-stripe the existing off-ramp combined left/through/right turn lane as a through/right turn lane. Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue: Re-stripe the existing southbound Airport Boulevard right turn lane as a shared through-right lane and re-stripe the southbound shared through-left lane as a left turn lane. Widen eastbound Grand Avenue to add two left turn lanes, re-stripe the eastbound shared through-left lane as a through lane and the eastbound right turn lane as a shared through-right lane. Provide a third westbound left turn lane. • South Airport Boulevard and U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane: IP>iden the northbound o~ramp approach at South Airport Boulevard to provide a second right turn lane. • Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Add a second westbound left turn lane on East Grand Avenue and a separate right turn lane on eastbound East Grand Avenue. -°- Re-stripe northbound Gateway Boulevard to provide one left, one through and one right turn lane. I~iden northbound Gateway Boulevard to provide a second right turn lane. • Harbor Way/Forbes .Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Widen westbound Grand Avenue to provide one additional through lane and one additional left turn lane. Widen .~ eastbound Grand Avenue to provide one additional through lane. Widen southbound Forbes Boulevard to provide one additional through lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to a right turn only lane. Widen northbound Harbor-Way to provide ~~° one additional through lane, one right turn lane and change the existing shared through- right lane to a through lane. South Airport Boulevard and Utah Avenue: Widen southbound Airport Boulevard to provide a second left turn lane and re-stripe one northbound through lane to provide a shared through/right turn lane (in addition to the existing exclusive right turn lane). 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-30 a ~~ ~~ filler ~ SB i07 ramp o~ ~1 F a~ t ~ ~ ~ Not To Scale and `~ ~~ NORTH ~ TT~~ a ~~~°~ ~~~~,~ ° -~ n Mil/er, m Grandgv II ~~~y a~i E- ~~_ ~itchell ~ ~~~ ~~ < ~~ o ~ c ~~~~ US 101 B Ramp Wonder- Color ~~~~ -~' o ~ O~ a~ m ~- c ~- ~ E rand --~ -~ ---- 9 East Grand EIR Traffic ~F1~ F-- ~ <- Oster ~- VI '`Oyster orn Oster ~' m~~in ~ ~ ~~ ~ Point c ~~ ~~ ~ ~v ~ ~aa i 01 o~~ ®=Stop Sign 5r 'ster ea . =Project =Signal 'ties erv Site a a~,,d ~ =Free Right Turn AO star Point o A~ ~ ~~® T Forbes i a a~~ m '~ L Cabot P Grand Ave o- n 3 F T E Grand i ~ -i !- ~- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ° ` E Grand ~ ~ ~ E G d E Grand ' -~-- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,` ~ E Grand ~ ----s ran ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ - - ~ - ~ s Figure 13-8 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2020 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control ~1~~ ~ Drivewa Utah ~ ~~r~~ ~' 0 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue: Widen westbound South Airport Boulevard to provide one additional left turn lane, and re-stripe the existing shared ~" through-left lane as a left turn lane for a total of three left turn lanes, one through lane and one right turn lane. Be-str pe southbound Airport Boulevard to ~i~nnvide one l~ tom lane, t~vo through lanes and one shared through-right turn lane. • South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue: Widen ...~ eastbound South Airport Boulevard to provide one additional right turn lane and re- stripe the existing shared through right lane as a through lane. (total four-lane approach) Widen westbound Mitchell Avenue to provide two additional through lanes and a right `~" turn lane. Widen southbound Gateway Boulevard to provide one additional right turn lane, and change the existing shared through-right lane to a right turn lane. Ke-stripe the northbound approach on South Airport Boulevard to provide one shared right-through lane and one right turn lane. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp: Widen eastbound Oyster Point approach to provide one left turn lane, three through lanes and one right turn lane. • Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Signalise the intersection. Widen eastbound East Grand Avenue to provide a left turn lane in addition to the trvo through lanes. • Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue: Widen northbound Littlefield Avenue to provide one shared l~/through/right lane and one right turn lane. Widen East Grand Avenue to provide a third eastbound through lane. "~ • Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard: Remove the median and uriden the east side of Eccles Avenue to provide two l~ turn lanes and an exclusive right turn lane on the northbound approach. • Gull Drive and Oyster Point Boulevard: Widen northbound Gull Drive to provide ttvo left •~- turn lanes and one shared through-right turn lane. • Railroad Avenue: Construct afoot-lane road within the Union Pacific Railroad right- of-way between Linden Avenue and Gateway Boulevard. ~,_ • Harbor Way: Widen to four lanes between Grand Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. • Mitchell Avenue: Widen to four lanes between Gateway Boulevard and Harbor Way. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-32 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .. Potential Develobment South San Francisco The City of South San Francisco identified several projects east of U.S.101 that have been proposed, but are not yet approved for construction. Additionally, there are parcels that are known to have development potential for which no development applications have been filed. These projects are included in the Traffic Impact Fee Study for the East of 101 area as well as in this study for the Year 2020+ scenario. The East of 101 TIP would require developers to implement TDM policies in order to achieve the densities and development levels represented in the Year 2020+ scenario. The analysis in the SEIR for the East of 101 TIP assumes that the TDM program approved by the City will reduce peak hour traffic generation by 9.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates. Table 13-5 presents the list of future developments used in preparation of year 2020 traffic modeling projections as part of the 2001 traffic impact fee study. As previously detailed, these projections have been updated based upon changed development proposals evaluated in subsequent EIRs. Brisbane The current planning for the City of Brisbane assumes that the maximum level of Baylands development that could be accommodated without major transportation infrastructure improvements would range from one million square feet of high trip- generating uses to 4.2 million square feet of low trip-generating uses. This traffic operations analysis is based on the most conservative scenario considered in the Brisbane General Plan EIR, which would include 4.2 million square feet of development with high generating uses. This scenario would have higher traffic generation than any of the Baylands development scenarios currently assumed by the City of Brisbane. The specific land uses assumed for the Baylands subarea were not documented, so the land '" uses shown in Table 13-9 were assumed for this study. Year 2020 Base Case Volumes Year 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case (without project} volumes are presented in Figures 13-9 and 13-10. Year 2020 Base Case Intersection O eration Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that with Base Case volumes and all programmed improvements, all 17 analyzed intersections would experience acceptable operation during the AM peak hour, while only one of the 17 analyzed intersections would experience unacceptable operation during the PM peak hour. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-33 """ CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATI ON TABLE 13-8 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROPO SED AND POTENTIAL DEVEL OP MENT TRAFFIC GENERATION EAST OF 101 FREEWAY 2000-2020 Pro'ect Status Siz AM PEA K HOUR PM PEA K HOUR Gateway NE Potential e 315 710 SF Land Use Office Rate Tri s Rate Tri s -- Existing , -140,760 SF Lt. Industrial 0.95 0 48 300 -67 0.86 271 Trammel Crow Potential 273,580 SF Office . 0 95 0.54 -76 Potential 11,400 SF Commercial . 0.93 260 10 0.86 3 39 235 -- Potential Existin 65 Rooms 94 Hotel 0'27 18 ' 0.19 39 13 Oyster Point Marina 9 - ,990 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -46 0.54 -52 Potential 3,250 SF Commercial 0.93 3 3 39 .~ Potential Potential 78,090 SF 20 Roo Office 0.95 74 . p,gg 11 67 Pt. Grand Potential ms 2,110 SF Hotel Commercial 0.27 0 93 5 0.19 4 Potential 15 Rooms Hotel . 0 27 2 4 3.39 7 Pt. Grand Harbor Way Potential 400,000 SF Office . 019 3 Potential 23,750 SF Commercial 0.93 230 3 39 g~4 Potential Existin 135 Rooms 197 Hotel 0.27 36 . 0.19 26 Forbes Area g - ,880 SF Lt. Industrial 0 48 -95 0.54 -107 Potential Potential 750,690 SF 279 790 SF Office R&D 0.95 713 0.86 645 ® Potential , 10,590 SF Commercial 0.59 0 93 165 10 0.54 151 Potential 60 Rooms Hotel . 0.27 16 3.39 0 19 36 Existin 9 -366,300 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -176 . 0 54 11 _198 Eccles Area Potential 2,178,840 SF Office 0.95 2069 . 0 86 Potential Potential 90,790 SF Commercial 0.93 85 . 3.39 1874 308 ~. Existing 520 Rooms -799,410 SF Hotel Lt. Industrial 0.27 0 48 140 0.19 99 MRF Area Potential 35 130 SF R&D . _3~ 0•~ -432 Existing , -17,570 SF Lt. Industrial 0.59 0 48 21 8 0.54 19 Genentech Potential 686,630 SF R&D 0 59 - 0.54 -g Grandview Area Potential 737 900 SF Office . 405 0.54 371 Potential , 30,750 SF Commercial 0.95 0 93 701 29 0.86 634 -- Potential 175 Rooms .Hotel . 0 27 47 3.39 104 Existing -329,530 SF Lt. Industrial . 0.48 -158 . 0.19 0 54 34 -178 Dubuque Area Potential 794,580 SF Office 0 95 755 . .- Potential Potential 36,100 SF Commercial . 0.93 34 0.86 3.39 683 123 Existing 135 Rooms -21,830 SF Hotel Lt. Industrial 0.27 0 48 36 0.19 26 _,.. SUBTOTALS Proposed . -10 0.54 -11 Potential 0 0 Existing 6215 TOTAL 944 -1063 Note: Trip generation rates for proposed and potential projects were reduced by 19% presented in the East of 101 Area Plan (April 2001). to reflect a 45% 5397 alternative mode usage as 5152 W.. Sources: City of South San Francisco, Drafts:rpplementalEnvironmentallr~actKeport, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Trans ortation D d p eman Man agement Ordinanc e, April 2001. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-34 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION t TABLE 13.9 BRISBANE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC GENERATION (2000.20201 Plannin Subarea Size Land U AM PE AK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 1. Sierra Point 42,000 SF se Retail Rate Tri s Rate Tri s 1,646,990 SF Office 0.67 1.56 28 2 569 2.93 1 49 123 1,100 Rooms Hotel 0.67 , 737 . 0 76 2,454 836 8,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 26 . 4.78 39 2. Southeast Bayshore NIA NIA NIA 3. Southwest Bayshore 35,000 SF Retail 0 NIA 0 3,500 SF Office 0.67 1 40 23 5 2.93 102 66,500 SF Trade Comm. . 0.98 65 1.32 1 24 5 4. Brisbane Acres 210 Units SF Residential 0 74 156 . 82 . 1.01 213 5. Central Brisbane 139 Units SF Residential 0 74 102 16 Units Townhouse . 0 ~ 7 1.01 0 55 140 6.Owl/Buckeye Canyons NIA N/A . g NIA 0 NIA 0 7. Quarry NlA N/A NIA 0 NIA 0 8. Crocker Park 2,500 SF Health Club 0 12 0 2,500 SF Retail0utlet . 0.36 1 1.70 2 14 5 3,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 10 . 4 78 5 15 120,140 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 117 . 1.24 149 9. Northeast Ridge 87 Units SF Residential 0 74 65 268 Units Townhouse . 0.44 118 1.01 0 55 gg 147 214 Units Condo/Apts. 0.67 143 . 0.82 176 10. Northwest Bayshore 228,000 SF Trade Comm. 0 98 224 11. Northeast Bayshore N/A NIA . 1'24 283 12. Ba landsl~l Y 2,000 000 SF Retail NIA 0 N/A 0 , 500,000 SF Office 0.77 1 40 1,540 700 3.34 6,680 690,000 SF R&DlEduc. . 1.07 738 1.32 0 94 660 75,000 SF Restaurant 3,32 250 . 4 78 649 359 2,000 Rooms (app.1 mil. SF) Hotel 0.67 1,340 0.76 1,520 SUBTOTAL 4,200 000 SF 13. Candlestick Cove , NIA 4,568 9,868 TOTALS NIA NIA 0 NIA p N/A = No net additional deve lopment nlanner~ 8,964 14,739 (') Baylands land uses shown are estimated land uses to match maximum high generating traffic increment reported in General Plan EIR traffic analysis. The range of development currently considered feasible by the City of Brisbane would be one million SF of high traffic generating uses to 4.2 million SF of low traffic generating uses. ~` Sources: Ciry of Brisbane 1994 General Plan EIR; CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-35 r- ~ 555 a t- 5 1 0 .- 170 a ,~ 1514 Miller SB i 01 ramp ~i 103 ~, ~ 1 35 270 415 a '~ 106 0 I 1 ~- ~ ~- 151 Grand '` 276 530 ~ `1 t (' 395 --- 25 305 218 90 -~, 785 a '~ 255 ~5 ~ ~- ~ ~-- 238 ,~ 641 85 ~ v ~ t (~ 222 -- n195 40 66'. 135 ~, ~ ~ t- 40 99 85 135 ~ ~' 550 j 1. m ,` 40 Mitchell I 129 ~ cn ~ ~ (~ ~ 513 --- n485 1112,1 373 X420 ~. ~ J 605 t- 16 120 30 ~ 1 ~ f-- 5 - ,` 27 US 101 Wonder- ~NB Ramp ~ Color 1685 ,' a ~ t ~- 55 --- a 100 345 5 1304 '~, ~ 0 49 93 c ~ 65 fJ 4 m ~-- 887 ~ E Grand 101 ~ 2074 --- ~ Oysf 6~ 10 6 r'O 1 ~- .~ 20 ~-- 857 19415 55 ~O ster 340 ~, om ~ ~ t ~ vet ~ ~\ 0 1174 ° ' ~ 209 55 155 ~' 365 ~ m / 'L. 44 135 562 ~- ,~" 104 E Grand 215 ~ ~'1 t 2709 -+ ~ 85 280542 105 ~. m 249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study m '~ 6 ~-- 611 50 1 1 ~ 30 ~ 1 ` m .- 225 `` ~ ~ster - j- 22 o~n~' O ter X30 ~ m (~ n P335 ~ ~~ I ~ 570 ~. 171 65 y 710 --- _ 406 40 550 10 ~~ Not To Scale ~~ . = Project Slte NORTH . 0t~~ Grand Ave 510 '~. 115 144 ~- 5 i .` 204 Drivewa ~ Utah 7 ,' cn ~l t f 6 -~- a 10 636 335 5 '~, a. 255 ~ L 19 ~5 ~ 4 °. ~-- 425 `~' ~ 264 E rand 1385 ,' v !1 t (~ 1706 --- 0 70 940 299 225 ~. ~ ~ L 10 ~. 4 1 1 m f- 190 ~ l ~-~' j- s8 F e 20 ,' a~ t (- 710 -- m 27 1 50 42 ~ 3 50 ~ L 25 15 55 o f- 16 Cabot 7 ~ '1 t f 10 --- 19 60 20 10 '~, a 91 19 o i 20 EJ 4 ' F 508 E Grand 204 ~ 2610 --- p ~ ~ '~ 0 0 ~ 0 F ~. ~-- 625 ~-~ ^ ,` 20 E Gran o ,' `1 t (. 1860 -- 50 0 5 170 ~. 2 L 0 9 0 1 ~ F 608 - r 76 , E Grand 35 .,' r ~ t (~ 1700 --- ~ 12 51099 99 Z a Figure 13-9 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes 536 a ~ 5 55 o ~- 295 a ,` 930 Miller SB i0i ramp 136 ~, ~ t 105 401 505 a t-- 231 ~ 5l a ~-- 392 ~ , Grand 'ir 797 455 ~ ~l f 127 -- 95 480 100 100 -~, 1085 a '~ 410 1~ ~ 1. ~ <-- 233 j- 2083 165 ~ ~ ~l t (~ 233 -> a 90 40 195 n 245 '~. ~ 185 ~ t- 90 440 80 ~ f"' 1736 °7 80 ~ ~ Mitchel! 74 ~` cn ~ t (~ 159 --- n550 278 143 375 ~. ~ 5 50 ~ 2 27 145 1 I i 4 ,(' 27 US 101 Wonder- : NB Ramp Color 686 -~' a ~ t (~ 40 --> 0 315 400 22 547 ~. ~ 0 t- 115 145 40 4 ~ ~- 2270 ~ E rand 92 ,' 672 --- ~ pys 360 50 10 e ,~ 10 r'O ~ 4 ~- 3120 15 ~ ~ 140 O ster 545 y an F~ O~et530 ~ ~ 135315 75 68 ~' ~ Av ro 455 '~ 108 1685 5 ~ t- ,`' 480 E Grand 85 ,' ~ `1 t (~ 848 --- ~ 75 130142 110 'i. ~' 3 East Grand EIR Traffic Stud} ~ '~ 1 f- 1766 280 5 3 45 ~ 4 ~ E- 680 ~ ster '~ 25 ~ln Oster 10 -- Point 65 ,` ~ 1 (- 90 ~ m 559 0 y 230 ---> ~ 33 ' 741 345 -i 3 Not To Scale ~O . =Project Slte NORTH Grand Ave A~ 5 660 457 '~ 310 ~ 1 l., f- 5 ,` 859 Drivewa Utah 5 ,' cn ~1 1 (~ 1 ~ a 20 196 420 20 "i. ~ ~ ~ '~ 7 11 1 2 ~ <- 625 ~. ~- m .~- 55 Forbes 3 .~' a'1 t (~ 255 --- ~60 0 100 36 'i ~ ~ 65 m t- 50 6 45 o i-- 10 1 ~- ' ~ 25 Cabot 10 -- 11 45 25 34 "i a 190 14 o i 20 fJ 4 ' i- 1949 E Grand 91 ~' 1090 -- 1065 T L 24 ~ O ~ '~ 0 11 30 '~ 0 14 915 1 ~- a~ 1103 ~ 761 O m O ~ ~ ~-~ ° i-1820 `" ' 1 ~ ~ ~- ~--- 1719 370 ~ 15 ,` t F Grand Grand E Grand 370 .~ ~ t (~ te 0 ~' ~ t (~ 5 ~' ~ ~1 t f 574 -- a , 0 255 136 721 --- 100 0 25 686 --- ~ 59 1 495 80 ~ 280 15 'i. 49 ~ a n Figure 13-10 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PM Peak Hour .,. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off- Ramp-LOS E Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Signalization Needs By 2020 no remaining unsignalized intersections evaluated in this study would have AM or PM peak hour Base Case volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. Improvements to Offset Year 2020+ Base Case (Without Project) Unacceptable Operation "` No feasible physical improvements beyond those included in the East of 101 TIP and in subsequent EIRs in the East of 101 area have been identified for the one intersection exceeding the City's level of service standard. The following General Plan policies and their related programs would mitigate the Probable Future impacts at the intersection of .Gateway Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp: Accept LOS E or F after finding that: • There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and • The uses resulting in the poorer than acceptable level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. The East of 101 TTP will require all new development to implement a TDM and traffic monitoring program in order to achieve the maximum development densities. 13.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds fox measuring a Project's aesthetic impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: Project impacts would be significant if they result in any of the following conditions: 1. Would the project exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system? 2. Would signalized intersection operation change from LOS A, B, C or D to LOS E or F? 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ,~ DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-38 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION "" 3. Would movements or approaches at unsignalized intersections change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F? 4. Would Project traffic increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels? 5. Would the proposed Project increase traffic entering an intersection by two percent or more with a signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, ox when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and already operating at LOS F? 6. Would the proposed project increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding signal warrant criteria levels? 7. Would Project traffic degrade operation of the U.S.101 freeway from LOS E to LOS F, ox would it increase volumes by more than one percent on a freeway segment with Base Case LOS Foperation. -~ 8. Would the project worsen traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety? 9. Would the project not provide City code required parking? PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Table 13-10 shows that a total of 540,000 square feet of research and development ox office ,.. uses would be likely to generate 664 inbound and 92 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 124 inbound and 605 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This assumes a 9.5 percent reduction in peak hour trips due to a moderate TDM program and assumed office rather than R&D uses to provide a conservative analysis, as office trip generation has been found to be higher than from R&D uses. Table 13-11 presents the projected trip generation from the Georgia Pacific manufacturing plant that was associated with the 249 East Grand Avenue site up -~ to the middle of 2004. As shown in Table 13-12, after elimination of those trips associated with existing uses on the project site, the net increase in traffic due to total site redevelopment would be about 515 two-way trips during the AM peak hour and 485 two-way trips during the PM peak ~" hour. Impact 13-1 Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The project would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours (515 trips during the AM peak hour and 485 trips during the PM peak hour, if allowing for the reduction in traffic from the former Georgia Pacific manufacturing use) or 756 trips during the AM peak hour and 729 trips during the PM peak hour if assuming all site trip generation is new (see .~ Tables 13-10, 13-11 and 13-12). The San Mateo City/County Association of 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-39 ._ Z Q J m.,. v U Z ..~ Q Z O Q Z Q H M W a U Q a 0 f- Z W O ~ F- o ~z za W v C7 ~ oaw ~~z W F-C U H W 4 ~~z a oL wa Q Q' O ~ ~ ~ aC d LL n 0 v C 3 F 3 o ~ O CO ~ N N a ~ f6 ~ ~ ~~ 0 x Q ~ ~ ~ a .-. N ~ - c O N J ~ n ~ °-' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O II O w c a o ,d. c ~ ~ c~ i ¢ ~ i i l ~ ~ N ~ r- r c i ~ F o ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ .. ~ r •C i Q ~ F N ~ O ' N O LL ~ ~ Q ~ ~ U ~ a U d 0 m ai ~ ~ b ~ W o ~ ~ t~ ~ O o O ~ ~ a cd C ~' ~ ~ ski V o ~ av+ ~ ~ a H v E- z w a O J W w~ oa f- ~_ ~Q W = w3 ~ Q Z m Z ~ a~a F- ~ ~ w z ~' W N ~ N O W a o ~ > ~ a: r` d ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ F O O x Y a ~o ~ ~ ti ~ N c O ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ O O Y ~' c w ~ a ~ c ~ ~ ~ e i : .~ i ' G v j s g ~ ~ c ~ c ~' V N ~ > N N ~ 'C i J ~ I r Q m i ~ ~ a N ~ ~ c0 ~ ~-' CM N O LL N M M ~ rn d N .,-. ~ H ~ ~ W o ~ ~ r O C ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~"" C N U ~ ~ ~ '4a1 r~ a o V Z C7 O Z ~~ w iQ ('> ~aQ ~~~ N Z Q.' H Z j w~ lWi. ~ U W LWL Z Q ri. 7 O q .~ O a cad h U v 0 O d" M W v V w O W Z Q ~ Q W Z ~ Q to U v Q O w ~ ~ ~ N Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 13-1 Transportation Demand Management Program. The project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life !' of the development The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited fox each TDM measure. Appendix Table B-5 outlines ~,, TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the 515 total AM peak hour and 485 PM peak hour trips generated by the project. This would reduce the Project's impact to a Zess than significant level. -- PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Project traffic was distributed to the subregional roadway network based upon East of 101 development traffic patterns contained in the April 2001 Draft SEIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance (see Table 13-~. -- Overall, about 62 percent of project traffic should be destined to/from south and southwest of the site, with 38 percent destined to/from the north and northwest. However, it is likely that project drivers destined to/from the U.S.101 freeway either north or south would choose to ~"` access the freeway via several routes and interchanges. AM and PM peak hour project traffic is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Figures 13-11 and 13-12. Figures 13-13 and 13-14 present resultant year 2008 AM and PM peak bout Base Case + project volumes, while Figures 13-15 and 13-16 present resultant year 2020 AM and PM peak hoot Base Case + project volumes. ~,, FREEWAY IMPACTS Impact 13-2 Freeway Level of Service. Tables 13-3 and 13-4 show that the addition of traffic generated by approved development in South San Francisco (year 2008 Base Case without project conditions) would cause two freeway segments to operate at LOS F (both during the AM peak hour). The project would increase volumes by more than one percent on both of these segments (AM peak hour - southbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange and northbound: south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp). In addition, project traffic would result in one segment of the freeway changing from LOS E to LOS F operation (PM peak hour -northbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange). These would be signif t`cant impacts. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-41 22 -o l~ z ~-- 3 n 9 -- 6 ~--- 2 ,` 34 13 -- 36 F t~ ~' Mitchell s~ ~ t r' 7 -- ~'• 7 13 0 NB Ramp Color 20 -~' n 46 -i, ~ J 3 East Grand EIR Traffic ~ L 6 60 ~- 18 1. ~ 36 E Grand 276 ~ ~ 13 m tudy ~- 14 >ter n ~ p -. m n 4 0 ~. y ,i- 3 ster pint ~~ 170 ~, = 14 dot To Scale ~~ NORTH v r 177 Fo s 33 ~, a ~ (~ 3 15 0 a m 210 0 Cabot 18 ,' 10 "i. 46 a m 9 1 ~t-7 ~ l' E Grand 46 '~ '~ 1 ~ 7 Q. ~- 60 62 4 m o '~ 20 E r n E Grand 349 -- m (~ 362 ~ 0 26 20 -- ~- 7 4 E Grand 20 --- ~ 33 26 1 ~' m a Figure 13-11 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP AM Peak Hour Project Increment _- -_--- / ~ t-- 2 4 0 ~- 12 4 ~ ~ 4 Grand 3 -- 1 o f- 12 ~ • ,` 222 2 -- o ~ n Mr//er,e m Grandq~ _ m 160 ~ ~' ~- 74 Mitchell 1 ._.~' cn t (i c 1 -- n 2 2 a o ro NB Ramp Color 4 ,' ~ n 8 ~ o v _ ~-- 120 m ~ E Grand 8 --- 1 East Grand EIR Traffic ~ '~ 42 11 f'- 120 1, r 160 E Grand n~i 52 ~ ~ 3 m 3tud~ a m' 60 6 0 ~-- ~ t-- 1 E Grand 9 ~ ~ 6 ~ 1 ~ 0 a. F 322 ` ° 407 6 `m ~ o ~ 5 ~ - ~ ,~ 109 ~ ~-~ . +- 30 Grand E Grand (~ 67 ~ 66 --- o~ 4 4 -- f' f- 31 ,i' 30 E Grand 4 ~--- ~ 6 ~ m 6 5 'm`' 'a Figure 13-12 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP PM Peak Hour Project Increment ~-- 89 O ster o~n 30 -- 0 31 10 ~, m m ~~„~ '1 (' G7 30 ~ ~ 89 2 r Not To Scale . =Project ~~ Site NORTH ,`' 30 ~~ Forbes 9 ~' a fl (- 25 95 0 ~ n _ 39 0 . ~ abot 120 `l 66 ~, 9 Grand Ave 544 n t- 5 o ~-- 205 ~ ,` 889 Miller ~ S8101 ramp 112 ~, ~l t \ 50 185 J 410 a t-- 111 1 1 4 ~ ~--' 137 Grand ~ 281 195 ~ ~1 t (~ 308 --- 30 290 230 \ 90 ~' 875 a '~ 140 0 ~- 337 ~ 4 ~ 0 ~ ,`' 354 65 ~ •~'1 '~ (~ 273 --- ~ 210 200 36( X130 -i. `~° ~ ~ ~ 15 15680 10 l~ m ~' 205 w ,`- 35 Mitchell 146 ~ cn ~ t (~ 302 -- n470 268 0 367 465 -i. ~ 0 t 15 25 105 ~-- 5 I 1 4 ,` 25 US 101 Won er- NB Aamp Color 810 ~ n ~ t (~ 50 --- 75 240 5 566 ~. 0 ~ J 0 = t- 55 39 53 4 ~ F 733 ~ E Grand 81 ~ 1522 ~ Grand 6~ 10 5 y L sf 10 ~-- 334 ~'O 1 4 ~- 598 ,~ 25 ,~- 50 Oster ~ 188 50~ ti Oster 01 o~n 330 ~, ~ ~ t ~ 1570 --- ~ 3 0 ~ OJet 1341 ~ 145 ~ 216 395 ~ y 55 w 375 ~ ~ '~ 51 90 463 ~ 1 4 ~- 12s E ran 185 ,' c7 ~ t (~ 2691 m 70 308 ~ 160 105 ~. 249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study Grand Ave 0 ~ '~ 8 S 0 m ~-- 140 ~- m ,` 262 Forbes 16 ,' aE1 t (i 610 --- ~28 0 65 68 ~ ~ 45 m t- 25 tJ3 ~ l- o ~-- 7 0 ~~ Cabot 21 ,' •~ t (~ 8 -- 66 60 20 17 ~. a 99 21 0 ~" 20 4 ~ ~-- 497 E Grand 246 ,' 2115 -- 50 ~ 't_ 26 0 ~ ~ 't_ 20 2 '~ 0 130 f 52 1 ~ a. ~-- 450 y 62 4 m ~ 1 ~ ~ ° ~-- 495 ~ - 9 0 ~ 1 ~- ~-- 472 124 - r 126 - 20 ,~ ~ E Grand E Gran E Grand 660 .,' m ~ t (~ 362 ,' ~ t (~ 35 , ~ ~ t 2304 --- 0 60 70 101 ~ 1860 -- 50 0 5 1775 -- T 78 5 586 210 ~. 120 'i 91 ~ o, Figure 13-13 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 2008 Base Case + project AM Peak Hour Volumes / ~ '~ 6 1 4 ~~ 155 ,i- 23 O ter PoiOnOt ~ .~ ~ ~. 675 -- c ' 25410 30 655 ~ Not To Scale . =Project ~~ Site NORTH 60 416 a L 5 o ~-- 300 i ~ ,` 428 Mi!!er SB 10i ramp 146 ~, ~ t 112 403 510 a '~ 315 I 4 ~ ~- 346 Grand ~ 805 165 ~ ~l t (~ 103 ~ 95 470 107 100 ~, 9 ~ ~- ° ~' 392 ,i' 1342 135 ~ ~ `1 t (~ 187 -~ a1 25 225 1 80 n 205 'i, '~ r' 155 m i 20 695 15 ~ ~' 789 °' 75 ~ t- Mitchell 66 J'' cn ~ ~ (~ 101 -~ n540 87 142 355 ~. ~ J 5 L ~5 ~ 4 15 .` 25 US 1 1 Wonder- NB Ramp ~ Color 479 ,' ~ 40 --- 0 265 20 228 '~, 315 ~. D 120 25 ~ i 90 fJ 4 ~ F 2220 ~ E Grand 72 ,' 468 --- Grand ~ py 360 50 5 s ~ L 10 'O ~ ~ ~- 2655 30 ~ ~ 105 O ster 400 ~ ~ orn ~ `1 t (' Je F~ e 265 ~ ~ 100715 65 62 ~ ~ m ~-- 1374 ,` 45 O ster orn 470 ~ m ~ 496 25 155 ~ ;~ ~ ~ '~ 1 0 r-- 595 4 ~ ~ ,`- 15 O ster PoiSt ~ ~~ ~ ~ 180 --- 27 ' 554 280 ~ 1 Not To Scale . =Project Site NORTH r' o '~ 7 11 1 2 ~ E- 555 ~. 1. °' ,`' 80 Forbes 3 ~' afl '~ (' 215 --- ~ 80 0 190 39 "~. ~ 65 m t- 45 44 40 0 ~-- 10 ~ 1 ~- ~ ,` 25 C bot 130 ~ • ~ f (~ 10 --s 19 40 25 96 '~ Grand Ave 5 530 263 '!' 255 ~ 1 4 ~- 5 j- 936 Drivewa ~ Utah 5 .J'' cn''1 t (' 1 ~ n 16 194 335 16 ~. ~ ~ 285 't- 157 1735 5 ~ ~- j" 610 E Grand 687 --- ~ 70 105 73 95 '~, °i i East Grand EIR Traffic Stud a i 15 250 26 o 4 ~ E- 1906 E Grand ~i 94 ~ 525 --- ~~ J 115 ~ '~ 46 p ~ ~ '~ 5 11 '~ 0 ~ ~ 14 c F 1772 y ' 554 407 ~ ~. 6 `m L-~ S. ~- 1845 ~ 30 1 ~ ~ ~ <-- 1776 380 ,( ,` 10 - ,` E Gr nd E Grand E Grand 190 ~' ~ t (~ Z 67 ~' ~ t (~ 5 ~' r ~ ~' (~ 556 -- n , 0 200 55 39 l 524 -- 100 0 20 499 .-~ ~ 61 1 120 75 Z 1 p -~, 66 Z n Figure 13-14 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 2008 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 557 a t- 5 60 ~ o ~-- 170 . ~ ,`- 1534 Miller S8101 ramp 105 ~, ~ t 35 270 415 a 't- 106 160 1621 a i- 154 4 ~ ,~' 276 Grand 530 ~ ~1 t (~ 404 --- 25 305 224 90 ~, 785 n ~ 255 115 235 4 a ~-- 240 ~ ,` 675 85 ~ •~ ~ t (~ 235 -- a.195 40 66: 135 '~, m i 40 85 135 135 ~ ~' 550 ~ 4 °' 40 M itchell 135 ~ cn ~1 '~ (~ 520 -- a485 112! 380 420 Z ~ 605 t 16 120 30 ~- 5 ~- ,` 27 US i01 Wonder- : NB Ramp Color 1705 ,' a ~ t (~ 55 -- 5 0 100 1350 ~, 345 ~ Q 49 93 ~ 65 fJ 4 ~ ~- 905 ~ E Grand 101 ,' 2113 --- 9 East Grand EIR Ti Gi y 65 10 6 ~-- 625 1 O i 6 sf ~A 1 ~ L 8705 ~ 30 ~ ~ 4 ~ r 225 250 ~ 55 Oster Oster r 25 2020 ~ Oster oin Point 360 \~ oin 1900 --- m -~ ~~ t r ~ ~ t (' ~ 175 65 335 :420 40 ~ °Jet 1305 ~ ~ 215 ~~ 155 610 ~. y 7720 10 ~ ~ Jot To Scale ~~ NORTH 'L 50 135 580 1 ~- j- 140 E Grand 215 ~ ~ ~ t (~ 2985 -- ~ 85 280 555 105 ~. ~' 255 ~ 't- 20 215 50 Q. F 485 .~ 1 ~- y ,`' 270 E Gra d 1385 ~ ~ ~1 t (~ 2055 --- 0 70 940 325 225 ~ l Grand Aw 1 ~ t. 10 1 1 ~ ~- 190 ~- ~ ,` 265 Fort s 0 ~ n`1 t (. ~ ~ ~30 1 65 ,5 "'i. ~ i0 m i 25 55 o F 16 ~- ~~10 Cabot 0 -- 65 60 20 20 "~, J a 20 0 ~' 20 4 ' ~- 515 E Grand i0 .,' 0 -- 0 ~ ~ '~. 20 62 4 ~ ° E- 630 ~1~.~~r2o E rand 362 ~' ~1 1880 --- 50 0 5 170 ~. 2 '~ 0 9 0 ~--615 ~ j 4 ,` so E Grand 35 ,' r ~ t (~ 1720 -- ~ 45 51125 100 ~ a Figure 13-15 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2020 (With Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes 536 a '~ 5 55 o ~-- 295 ~ i j- 934 Miller SB 101 ramp 136 -i, ~ t \ 106 402 505 a t 233 5l, ~ ~- 404 1 Grand ~ 801 455 ~ '1 t (~ 130 -- 95 480 101 100 -i. 1085 a '~ 410 I~ ~ 1l ~ ~-- 245 - ~ 2305 i ' 165 ~ ~ `1 t (~ 235 -~ °°a 90 40 195 245 ~ ~ ~ i m ~- 90 185 600 80 m ~ 1810 ~ r8o ~ l ~, Mitchell 75 ~' m ~l I (~ 160 -- a550 280 145 375 ~ ~ J 550 L 27 145 27 ~ ~ ~ ~- 16 ,` 27 US 101 Wonder- : NB Ramp Cotor 690 ,' n ~ t (~ 40 -- 0 315 400 22 555 '~, ~ ~ o 145 40 ~ ~ 115 4 ~ ~--- 2390 ~ E Gran 92 ~' 680 --- Grand ~ 360 50 10 ys '~ p '~ f~rA ~ 4 10 ~-- 1855 280 5 3 . 1 ~ ~-- 3240 X 1 45 O t ~ 4 j ~ ~--- 680 ~ 30 ~ ster 0 er s O st er '~ 25 560 ~ 80~, orn p <l * (~ orn 670 --- ~ El (~ F 65t ~' e ~ ~ (~ ~ cJet 75 ~ 1395 300 'i ° 590 30 y 230 -~ ' 830 3 35 555 75 ~' 15 ~ 375 aa 101 ~~ ~ Not To Scale r° y ~~ ~ v ~ ^ =Project / Site NORTH ro 455 '~-- 150 5 1805 ` i ~- ,`' 640 E Gr nd 85 ~' G) ~ I (~ 900 -- ~ 75'30145 ~' 110 ~ 249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study Grand Ave '~ 7 7 1 2 `m ~- 625 ~ ~, ~- m ,` 85 Forbes 3 .~' a'1 I (~ 255 --- m 85 0 195 45 ~ ~ 65 ~ L 50 45 ~ 45 0 ~- 10 Ca t 130 ~' • ~ t (s 10 --- 20 45 25 100 ~ a 250 20 0 ~ 20 f} 4 ' ~-- 1950 E Grand 100 ~ 1090 -- 1065 0 '~ 30 0 ~ ~ '~ 5 915 I 15 1 L 0. ~-- 1425 y ' 4071I 6 m ~ ~ ~ ° ~-1850 °° - ,` 870 i - - . ,` 15 rnd E E rn 370 ~ * 2 ~ I ~ 67 ~' ~l t (~ 640 ~ m o~ 255 140 725 -~ 100 25 0 ° 280 80 '~ 15 ~. rte- t o 30 91 1 ~-- 1750 r~ 1 ~s ,` 400 E Grand 5 ~' ~ `1 1 (' 690 -i ~ 65 1 50i 55 ~, a Figure 13-16 ~~ CRANE TRANaPORTATION GROUP Year ~~ge (W~th Pro3eetj PM Peak Hour Volumes "" CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Mitigation Measure 13-2 Transportation Demand Management Plan. The project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to minimize potential increases in freeway traffic. The TDM plan shall contain all Required Measures and Additional Measures required by the City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance, Schedule 20.120.030-B, in order to achieve a minimum alternative mode use of 32 percent. The project applicant shall submit a .Preliminary TDM Plan containing checklists of Required and Additional Measures, along with a site plan indicating the locations of TDM elements such as preferential parking areas and bicycle facilities. The project applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan incorporating conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. The project shall coordinate with the City in an annual survey of compliance -~ with the TDM plan. The project shall also submit a Tri-Annual report of TDM effectiveness, and be subject to penalties for non-compliance in accordance with the City's TDM Ordinance. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. - Implementation of the TDM measures would reduce, but not fully mitigate impacts to a less than significant level, so that the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. In determining whether to approve the _. proposed project, decision-makers must balance its benefits against its unavoidable environmental risks. To approve a project despite its environmental risks, the lead agency must make a statement of overriding --- considerations, giving reasons in writing to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record [CEQA Section 15093(a)]. However, under certain circumstances it is not necessary to make a statement of overriding considerations, as described in the paragraph below. The City may take action on the 249 East Grand project based upon a statement of overriding considerations that was made by the City Council in the process of approving the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan. At that time, the lead agency determined that the City could not implement feasible mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on the U.S.101 freeway. Therefore, the agency adopted a statement of overriding considerations for -- freeway impacts, based on the identified benefits of projected development under the General Plan. Since the freeway impacts identified in this chapter were also identified in the General Plan FEIR, there is no need for the "_ agency to make a duplicate statement of overriding considerations for the 249 East Grand project in order to take action on the project. The 1999 statement of overriding considerations should be cited in the appropriate findings and the Notice of Determination for the proposed project. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-48 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION No Deficiency Plan would be required by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency based on exclusion of interregional traffic. Freeway operations were evaluated for Existing, 2008 Baseline without project and 2008 Baseline with project conditions (Tables 13-3 and 13-4). Each freeway segment has been evaluated based on the capacity of a four- lane freeway segment or a foot-lane segment with an auxiliary lane, as defined by the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. An impact is identified if the project would add traffic amounting to one percent or more of the capacity of a deficient CMP freeway segment (operating at LOS F), or if the addition of project traffic results in acceptable Base Case operations being degraded to unacceptable operation. The addition of traffic generated by approved development in South San .. Francisco and Brisbane as well as regional growth (year 2008 Baseline without project) would cause two freeway segments to operate at LOS F. .. • Northbound U.S.101 south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp during the AM peak hour. • Southbound U.S.101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard during the AM peak hour. Under the pear 2008 Baseline with project scenario, traffic added by the proposed 249 East Grand project would increase volumes by. more than one percent on these two segments. Project traffic would also change LOS E to LOS F operation on the following freeway segment. • Northbound U.S.101 north of Oyster Point interchange during the PM peak hour. Project traffic would also increase Base Case volumes by 2.03 percent on this segment. The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program indicates that a jurisdiction may be required to develop a Deficiency Plan for segments of the CMP roadway system that exceed LOS standards. For these purposes, it may be determined if the deficiency would still occur if traffic originating outside San Mateo County is excluded from the determination of conformance. .. U.S.101 southbound traffic originating in San Francisco, Alameda and Maria counties map be excluded. In the northbound direction, traffic originating in Santa Clara County may be excluded. !° 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-49 .- CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION In the 333 Oyster Point EIR traffic analysis,3 the C/CAG regional travel model for year 2000 was applied to determine the amounts of traffic on U.S.101 that originate in San Mateo County. A "select link analysis" was used to identify the origins and destinations of peak hour traffic on northbound and southbound U.S.101 in South San Francisco. The percentages are as follows: __ • AM peak hour, northbound U.S.101: 71% of trips originate in San Mateo County • AM peak hour, southbound U.S.101: 2% of trips originate in San Mateo ~` County • PM peak hour, northbound U.S.101: 86% of trips originate in San Mateo County • PM peak hour, southbound U.S.101: 4% of trips originate in San Mateo County Tables 13-3 and 13-4 indicate the freeway level of service that would result when considering only trips that originate in San Mateo County. In the "' northbound direction, the level of service would not exceed D on any segment during the AM or PM peak hours. In the southbound direction, level of service would be A, as nearly all traffic originates outside of San -. Mateo County, so San Mateo County vehicles do not contribute significantly to deficient conditions. Therefore, preparation of a Deficiency Plan would ._, not be required. INTERSECTION IMPACTS Impact 13-3 Year 2008 Intersection Impacts. Year 2008 Base Case conditions have assumed removal of the Georgia Pacific manufacturing activity on the project site. These activities were included in the "Existing Conditions" evaluation, as existing counts reflected the conservatively higher volume levels found in 1999/2000. Therefore, year 2008 Base Case + Project evaluation evaluates the full impact of the currently proposed project in relation to an empty site. Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that the proposed project would produce significant AM and/or PM peak hour impacts at the following intersections. s Dowling Associates. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT .~., DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-50 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue More than a two percent increase in traffic (2.1% AM peak hour and 2.9% PM peak hour) at a location with a) unacceptable LOS F operation on the stop sign controlled Allerton Avenue approach, b) both AM and PM peak hour volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels, c) volume warrant criteria being exceeded for the need of a left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach and d) less than acceptable sight lines between traffic fuming from Allerton Avenue and westbound drivers on East Grand Avenue. • East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue More than a two percent increase in traffic during the AM peak hour (2.9% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation. • South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue Change in AM peak hour operation from LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E. • Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Change in AM peak hour all-way-stop operation from LOS C to an unacceptable LOS E. • South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue Moxe than a two percent increase in traffic during the PM peak hour (8.6% increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp Change in PM peak hour operation from LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E. These would be significant im~iacts of the Project. Mitigation Measure 13-3 Intersection Modifications. Modifications are recommended for the following intersections. East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Intersection • Prohibit left turns from Allerton Avenue to East Grand Avenue until the intersection is signalized-or-Cut back the hillside on the northeast 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-51 ~„. ~` CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION corner of the intersection to improve sight lines to/from the east to at least 400 feet. • Stripe a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach. This will require removal of parking on the south side of East Grand Avenue. • Provide a fair share contribution towards having the intersection signalized by the time of project occupancy-or-provide signalization _ when construction is complete and receive paybacks from other local developments as they are constructed. (All needed fox Base Case operation.) Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS B-13.2 seconds average vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS C-25.6 seconds average vehicle delay East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue Intersection • Widen the northbound Littlefield Avenue approach to provide two intersection approach lanes. Stripe as one exclusive right turn lane and a ~- combined left/through/right turn lane (needed for Base Case operation). Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.4 seconds average vehicle delay South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue Intersection • Restripe one of the northbound South Airport Boulevard through lanes as a shared through/right turn lane. Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS C-32.1 seconds average vehicle delay Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Intersection • Sign the intersection as an all-way-stop. Resultant Operation AM Peak Hour: LOS B-14.1 seconds average vehicle delay 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ,.,,. DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-52 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Mitchell/Mitchell Avenue Intersection • Add a second through lane on the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach (needed for acceptable Base Case operation). • Add a second right turn lane on the southbound Gateway Boulevard approach. Resultant Operation PM Peak Hour: LOS C-28.2 seconds average vehicle delay Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp No feasible physical improvements beyond those included in the East of 101 TIP have been identified at this study intersection when it would exceed LOS standards. The impact at this intersection would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 13-4 Year 2020 Intersection Impacts. Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that project traffic would produce a significant impact at the following intersection: • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp Change in PM peak hour operation from an unacceptable LOSE to an i unacceptable LOS F and more than a two percent increase in traffic (a 4.4% increase) during this time period. This would be a significant impact. ~. No feasible physical improvements beyond those included in the East of 101 TIP have been identified at this study intersection when it would exceed LOS standards. This impact would '" remain significant and unavoidable. PROJECT DRIVEWAYS Impact 13-5 Long Queues in Driveway Lanes. The project will be served by two driveways on East Grand Avenue and by one driveway on the Cabot Road cul-de-sac. The Cabot Road driveway connection would connect to the cul- de-sac directly opposite the extension of Cabot Road to the east. Driveways from three other businesses also connect to the cul-de-sac, and based upon volume levels at Allerton Avenue, have low traffic volumes. Sight lines 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-53 -"' CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .,.. should be acceptable to/from all driveways connecting to the Cabot Road cul-de-sac (including to/from the project driveway) allowing a "see and be seen" flow of traffic through the cul-de-sac area. The project's easterly driveway connection to East Grand Avenue would be _, limited to right turns in and out only by the raised median along East Grand Avenue. It will be located about 140 feet west of the signalized Littlefield Avenue intersection and about 600 feet east of the signalized main project ~~- access intersection. East Grand Avenue is level and straight in the project area and sight lines are excellent at both driveway locations. °~° The westerly driveway intersection along East Grand Avenue is now signalized and also serves the Britannia. Point Grand parking lot on the south side of East Grand Avenue. A 100-foot-long left turn lane is provided in the ~~ median of East Grand Avenue on the eastbound approach to this project entrance. As shown in Tables 13-1 and 13-2, operation of this signalized intersection would be acceptable during the AM peak hours in 2008 or 2020 (at LOS C) and would be just acceptable during the PM peak hours in 2008 or 2020 (at LOS D). However, during the AM peak hour, the 95th percentile queue of inbound traffic using this left turn lane could extend about 275 feet in both 2008 and 2020 (i.e. 11 vehicles at 25 feet per vehicle). During the PM peak hour the 95th percentile queue would be five cars in 2008 and six -" cars in 2020. Inbound project vehicles frequently extending out of the existing 100-foot-long left turn pocket and blocking the flow of eastbound through traffic would be a significant operational and safety concern. This .~ would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 13-5 Turn Lane Extension. Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach to the project's signalized entrance by 200 feet. There are about 200 feet of landscaped median in which to make this improvement (to the east of the Roebling Road intersection). This would reduce the impact to a level of Less than significant. INTERNAL CIRCULATION Impact 13-6 Internal Traffic Flow. Atwo-lane loop road would circle the proposed campus of four buildings. It would connect to the two driveways providing "" access to East Grand Avenue as well as to the garage in the north section of the site. "' All internal surface lot driveways would accommodate two-way traffic flow as would parking aisles in the garage. All parking aisles would be 25 feet ._ wide, which would meet City code and good traffic engineering practice 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ,_ DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-54 CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ... criteria. Parking stalls would be 90-degree throughout the site. The Cabot Road cul-de-sac would access a different level of the parking garage than would the loop road circling the project office buildings. One area of concern with the internal circulation system layout is the eight parking aisle connections to the loop road that intersect at 45 to 60 degrees -~ rather than a preferred 90 degrees. In addition, parking and backing maneuvers to/from some of the parking stalls near many of these 45- to 60- degree connections could impact traffic flow on the loop road. This would '- be asignificant impact. Mitigation Measure 13-6 Eliminate Stalls and Channelize Aisle Connections. Parking stalls that will result in parking or backing maneuvers onto the project loop road shall be eliminated. In addition, 30 to 45 degree parking aisle connections with the loop road shall be channelized to 80 or 90 degree connections. This would reduce this impact to a Zess than significant level. ON-SITE PARKING The 540,000 square feet of office/R&D development would have a total of 1,529 parking spaces ~, provided (404 surface spaces and 1,125 garage spaces). This is 91.5% of the 1,670 spaces that would be required by City code. The City of South San Francisco promotes reduction in parking -- from City zoning standards as a way to support trip reduction goals required per -the City's TDM ordinance and supported by various policies in the General Plan {G.P. Policies 4.3-1-8, 11 and 12). No mitigation measures are required. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION ,,,, Impact 13-7 Lack of Sidewalk Connections. Sidewalks will be maintained along the project's East Grand Avenue and Cabot Road cul-de-sac frontages. .- Sidewalks will also be provided along the interior of the project's internal loop road as well as through the office campus. One sidewalk connection will be made from the office campus to the sidewalk along East Grand Avenue .- near the southeast corner of the site, while no sidewalk connection is proposed from 'the site to the Cabot Road sidewalk. Pedestrians accessing the Cabot Road sidewalk would need to use the garage driveway. The East '° Grand Avenue pedestrian access would be provided by both stairs and a ramp and would be a potential location for a shuttle stop. The lack of a defined sidewalk connection from the Project site to Cabot Road would produce safety concerns. This would be a significant impact of the project. Mirigation -° Measure 13-7 Provision of Sidewalk Connections. A sidewalk connecting Cabot Way with the internal campus sidewalk system, or to a garage elevator which will 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-55 -- CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION provide access to the internal campus sidewalk system shall be provided. This would reduce the project's impact to a less than significant level. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ..~ DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-56 14 I~TILITIES 14.1 SETTING WATER SUPPLY South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company Peninsula ~" District (CWSC) serves that portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which represents the majority of the city's area. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water allocation among these communities. The company's current contract with the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) entitles the city to 42.3 million gallons per day (mgd) per year. An additional 1.4 mgd can be pumped from groundwater. The Westborough County Water ... District serves the area west of I-280, an area not targeted for growth in the city's General Plan. Water use has increased steadily, and at a rate faster than increases in the number of users. Water .. use has rebounded significantly from the levels of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when an extended period of drought and resulting conservation measures brought water use levels down considerably. While residential users comprise approximately 90% of the water accounts in South San Francisco, less than half of the total consumption may be attributed to these users. On the other "` hand, industrial users comprise only 0.46% of the water accounts but use 11% of the total water. Part of the reason for the high industrial water usage in the city is the predominance of biotechnology firms in the city. Pharmaceutical manufacturing requires extremely pure water, and large quantities of water axe used to achieve necessary water purity levels. The CWSC bases its future water use projections on estimates of both the number of future water users and the amount of water each type of user will consume. The five pear average growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the utility's projections of the number of water users through 2020. Water use projections fox 2020 range from 5.9 million gallons per day (mgd) to 9.1 mgd. Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modified during the remaining contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand.' 1 Dyett and Bhatia, City of Sautb San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 194. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-1 .- "~` CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES Water lines in the East of 101 Area would generally be adequate to serve new development allowed under the East of 101 Area P1an.2 The water distribution system in the area was .. designed and constructed to meet industrial water demands. It consists of a network of 12-inch lines in relatively good condition, adequate to serve the 2,500 gallons per minute fire flow requirement and use demands for the land uses planned for the area. WASTEWATER South San Francisco Municipal Wastewater System The existing wastewater system serving the project site and surrounding community is operated ~' and maintained by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. The complete sewer network consists of approximately 90 miles of 6-inch through 36-inch diameter pipes, which convey flows from the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and portions of Daly City and Coltna to the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) located at the end of Belle Air Road in South San Fxancisco.3 Much of the existing South San Francisco sewer collection system is over sixty pears old, and portions of the system axe in need of repair. In the area east of Highway 101, subsidence of ~- sewer lines has resulted in reduced capacity. Pump Station #4, which serves the South San Francisco area north of Colma Creek and east of South Airport Boulevard, needs to be upgraded to improve reliability and handle increased flows from proposed new development. Since 1997, the City of South San Francisco has been under a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to upgrade its facilities in order to protect the environmental quality of the Bay. The required work at the WQCP has been completed; the remaining work within the sewer collection network must be accomplished by November 2005 to meet the time schedule specified in the CDO. Currently, the WQCP has the capacity to provide secondary treatment for 13 million gallons per day (MGD). Average dry weather flows to the plant are 10 MGD; peak wet weather flows approach 30 MGD a Wastewater treatment at the WQCP consists of screening, grit removal, primary settling, aeration, clarification, and chlorination. Excess chlorine is removed prior to discharge of the treated water into the adjacent San Francisco Bay. In an ongoing Recycled Water Feasibility Study conducted by the City of South San Francisco and other agencies, the WQCP is being considered as a potential source of recycled water to `°" serve portions of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Colrna. The aim of the study is to evaluate the feasibility of developing a recycled water treatment and distribution system to reduce the demand on the potable water supply in the San Francisco Peninsula area. The study ,,,_ z Brady and Associates, Eart of 101 Area Plan, 1994, p. 98. s City of South San Francisco, 2005 a Prudhel, 2005 PAGE 14-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES "~ has identified several potential providers of recycled water in addition to the South San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP, including the Burlingame/Millbrae wastewater treatment plants, the North Bayside System Unit Outfall, and the Shaw Road Pump Station (in conjunction with a _, membrane wastewater treatment facility); however, the San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP is being recognized as the most viable option at this point in the study. The 249 East Grand Avenue project site would be within the area serviceable by a recycled water facility at the -- WQCP. The Recycled Water Feasibility Study is currently half-complete; the City of South San Francisco is seeking a grant to continue the study. It has not been determined whether a recycled water system at the WQCP is economically feasible.s,6 Project Site Sewer System Figure 14-1 shows the portion of the South San Francisco municipal sewer system that serves the Project site and adjacent areas. The sewer along East Grand Avenue is an 18-inch pipe that runs westward to Harbor Way, where it connects to a 30-inch pipe running south on Harbor Way. The 30-inch pipe was installed in 2000 to replace an old, subsided 21-inch pipe.' It receives flows from all of the area north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of--way and all of the area ~... east of Littlefield Avenue; it is intended to serve most of the expected future development in the City's East of 101 Area. Flows through this pipe are conveyed to Pump Station #4 on Harbor Way (near the intersection with Mitchell Avenue}, from which they are pumped to the WQCP. "` Pump Station #4 is scheduled fox upgrade in the fiscal year 2005-06; four new pumps, new motor controls, and a new force main will be installed, giving the station a new firm capacity of 13 MGD.B '" The City's design wastewater flow criterion for commercial/industrial buildings is 0.4 gallons per day (gpd) per square foot of building space.9 The Georgia Pacific box manufacturing facility that previously occupied the project site had a total floor area of 379,320 square feet, which translates to a flow of approximately 151,730 gpd. However, the facility did not discharge the wastewater generated from its manufacturing processes into the municipal sewer system; instead, it treated and recycled its process water through aclosed-loop Beckart Water Treatment System.10 No information is available to know how much reduction in flow was achieved by the recycled water system. Therefore, it is assumed that the previous wastewater discharges from the Georgia Pacific facility into the City's sanitary sewers were equal to the 151,730 gpd determined from standard flow criteria. s Barrett, et al., 2005 e Luck, 2005 7 Munar, 2005 s Castagnola, 2005 ~ Prudhel, 2005 1° ENVIRON, 2004 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-3 ~, ZZ J O n- ~~ ~ w C3 !_ l- V ~ QO ~~ ~- U ©~ Q ~ d vQi W W p~ ~ ~ ~ryti 1~ r'~ ., D G 'G v v C .~ G W m v a a 0 v a~ 3 ~-, .~ ~; ~d d~ ~~ ~ .~ ~ o w~ CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES Regulatory Setting Wastewater treatment and disposal in the City of South San Francisco is governed by laws, ~~ regulatory programs and policies established by the Federal government, the State of California, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, and the City of South San Francisco. Most of the pertinent requirements affecting wastewater facilities for the proposed project axe contained in the following: Federal Laws and Regulations Clean Water Act (CWA) The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since its inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eluninate water pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum ,-w water quality standards for all waters of the United States. At the Federal level, the CWA is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board '" (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The State of California. has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations to assist in the implementation of the CWA and related Federally mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards, and the laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards are more restrictive, i.e. more protective of ,~, the environment. State Laws and Regulations Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water quality in California.. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCBs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth the state's water quality standards (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and the objectives or criteria. necessary to protect those beneficial uses. San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin 1'Zan) The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bap region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-5 ~. CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region and specifies effluent limitations, discharge prohibitions, and water quality objectives to maintain the ,~ existing potential beneficial uses of the waters. The proposed project is required to adhere to all applicable requirements of the Basin Plan. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Requirements The San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP operates under an NPDES permit issued by the State of --- California. One of the requirements of the permit is that the WQCP implement a Pretreatment Program to regulate the collection of toxic and hazardous wastes in municipal sewers. Under the Pretreatment Program, dischargers of industrial wastewater are required to abide by specific wastewater discharge limits and prohibitions. Industrial dischargers are also required to submit self-monitoring reports on the total volume and pollutant concentrations of their wastewater, and to allow for inspections by the City of South San Francisco. Local Programs and Regulations East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in 1994 in order to ~~ guide and regulate development in the City's East of 101 Area, which includes the Project site. The Plan provides detailed planning policies fox land use, circulation, public facilities, design, conservation, financing and other related elements. With respect to wastewater collection and treatment, the Plan outlines policies for the repair and reconstruction of East of 101 Area sewer collection lines, pump stations, and the WQCP. The Plan also addresses the issue of increasing m-- wastewater treatment demand, and recommends that new projects that will generate large wastewater quantities be required to lower their wastewater treatment needs through water recycling, on-site treatment, graywater irrigation, or other similar technologies wherever feasible. STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Thus, any redevelopment of existing development will generally not increase runoff. SOLID WASTE Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at the Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials that cannot ~' be recycled or composted axe transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the landfill, has a permit for forward expansion of the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill. PAGE 14-6 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER i4: UTILITIES r The Scavenger Company's facility is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 1,250 tons per day of wastes and recyclable materials. This facility gives the Company increased capability to recover valuable materials from wastes, reducing the amount of waste being sent to the landfill. ,,,, South San Francisco recycles both household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge. With an expected buildout population of 67,000 residents in South San Francisco, the city will ... generate approximately 38,000 tons of solid waste each pear, based on the assumed generation rates used by San Mateo County. 14.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds fox measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon _,,, CEQA Guidelines: • Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? • Would the Project require substantial expansion or alteration of the City's water or wastewater treatment and collection facilities? '~` • Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities? '" • Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? • Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected -~ demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? • Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? • Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES WASTEWATER The proposed project would contribute both domestic sewage and industrial wastewater to the City of South San Francisco's municipal sewer system. Each of the four new office/laboratory buildings proposed for the project site would have two separate waste disposal systems (a .~ domestic sewer system and an industrial waste system) that would combine into one sewer 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-7 ... ""' CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES ~` outside of each building. The domestic sewer system would be used for discharges from restrooms, break rooms and other similar areas, while the industrial waste system would collect wastewater from laboratory sinks, fume hoods, floor drains, autoclaves, glass washers and other similar equipment. An outdoor sampling port would be located in the industrial waste system before the connection to the combined sewer to enable monitoring by the City of South San ..- Francisco. The combined sewer would then connect to the City's existing 18-inch sewer pipeline on East Grand Avenue. Potential wastewater impacts would be primarily related to the increased flows that would be contributed by the project to the City's existing sewer facilities. Increase in Wastewater Flows ~' The four buildings proposed for the project site are intended to accommodate life science tenants and would consist of approximately 60% laboratory space and 40% office space." Together the buildings would have a combined gross area of 540,000 square feet. According to .._ the City's design wastewater flow criterion of 0.4 gallons per day (gpd) per square foot of building space, the projected wastewater flows for the proposed project would be 216,000 gpd. „_ This represents an increase of at least 42 percent over the wastewater flows generated by the former Georgia Pacific facility, which are estimated to have been no more than approximately 152,000 gpd (per City criteria). The proposed project does not include specific plans for -- graywater rerycling, on-site treatment, or any other method that would reduce its wastewater flows to the municipal system. ~- Impact 14-1 Increased Wastewater Flows. According to City of South San Francisco design wastewater flow estimates, the project would contribute 216,000 gpd of sewage and industrial wastewater to the City's sanitary sewer system, which amounts to an increase of 42 percent or more as compared with the former use of the site. The project does not include conservation or recycling technologies that would lessen its wastewater flows to the municipal system. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 14-1a Sanitary • Sewer Fees. The City of South San Francisco is currently upgrading its sanitary sewer facilities to handle increased flows from new development. In order to recover the costs of these upgrades, the City charges new development aflat-rate sewer connection fee and a monthly impact fee. The amount of the impact fee is based on both the quantity (flow) and the quality (pounds BOD and pounds solids) of wastewater generated. In addition, the City raised its sewer rates by twenty-five percent in fiscal year 2004-05 and plans to continue to raise rates by up to nine percent in each of the fiscal years 2005-06 through 2008-09 in order to ~~ Malcolmson, 2005 PAGE 14-8 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES .~ finance continuing sewer improvements. The occupants of the proposed project development shall pay the sanitary sewer fees imposed by the City of South San Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of the sewer system ~„ upgrades necessary to manage the wastewater flows generated by the project. Mitigation Measure 14-1b Wastewater Recycling. The proposed Project development is intended fox biotech uses. However, a particular occupant or occupants for the Project site have not yet been identified. Depending on the laboratory practices of "'" the future occupants, it may be possible to rerycle process and/or clean-up water at the Project site. The occupants of the proposed Project development shall evaluate the potential fox on-site wastewater recycling and shall implement wastewater recycling methods. The implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of the Project's wastewater flows to a level of less t~ian significant. The funding of South San Francisco's r ongoing pipeline improvements and the scheduled upgrade of Pump Station #4 would ensure that the City's wastewater system has sufficient capacity to handle the increased flows generated by the Project. Wastewater recycling at the Project site would also help by reducing the Project's ... flows to the municipal system. Effects on Groundwater, Water Quality, and Public Health Wastewater flows from the proposed project would include both domestic sewage and industrial wastes. The industrial wastewater at the project site would be collected separately from the "' domestic sewage, and a sampling port would be installed in the industrial sewer line in accordance with the San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP Pretreatment Program. After the monitoring point, both wastewaters would be combined and routed through the City's sanitary .- sewers to the WQCP. The WQCP treats wastewater to secondary levels and discharges effluent to the San Francisco Bay in accordance with RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements. The proposed Project would not have a negative effect on groundwater recharge, water quality, or public health. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY The proposed Project would not lead to an increase in demand for potable water that could not be fulfilled by the California Water Service Company, as stated in the South San Francisco General Plan. The wastewater treatment plant that serves the city and the trunk sewer system that would serve the Project site have recently been, or are in the process of being expanded and upgraded. This work will ensure adequate wastewater collection and treatment service over the city's buildout horizon. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-9 "~ CHAPTER 14: UTILITIES Because the existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed fox industrial development, it is capable of accommodating large amounts of storm ~, water from the large amount of impervious surfaces in the area. Thus, any redevelopment of existing development, including on the Project site, will generally not increase runoff. The proposed Project would have a less than signifacdnt impact on utility service and infrastructure in the City of South San Francisco and East of 101 Area. LANDFILL CAPACITY The City of South San Francisco's solid waste is transported to the Ox Mountain Landfill Facility, which has a permit to receive waste unti12016.'Z Upon expiration of the permit, either Coxinda Los Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill. Given the large amount of space still available at Ox Mountain, and the option of opening Apanolio Canyon after Ox Mountain is no longer available, the proposed Project would have a less than significclnt impact on solid waste service capacity. 1z Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francirco General Plan, 1999 PAGE 14-10 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 15 _ ALTERNATIVES 15.1 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines, 1970, as amended, Section 15126.6) requires an EIR to include a discussion of a reasonable range o~ alternatives to the preferred option. The CEQA Guidelines also require that the EIR explain why specific "° project alternatives that were considered at one time in developing the project proposal were rejected in favor of the preferred option. The selection of alternatives is to be guided by the provision of reasonable choices and the promotion of informed decision making and informed .. public participation. An EIR need not evaluate alternatives that would have effects that cannot be determined, or for which implementation would be remote and speculative. The Guidelines also require that the EIR specifically address a "no project" alternative within this discussion and that an "environmentally superior" alternative be identified (Section 15126.6 ,~„ [e]). Where the "no project" alternative is also identified as the "environmentally superior" alternative, another alternative which would represent the "environmentally superior" in the absence of the "no project" alternative should then be identified. The preferred option is the proposed Project, as fully described in Chapter 3 of this EIR (Project Description). The environmental consequences associated with this preferred option are fully addressed in Chapters 4 through 14 of this EIR. In addition to the proposed Project, this EIR includes a discussion of the following alternatives: • No Project Alternative, which would leave the Project site in its current state, • 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative, and • 0.39 Floor Area Ratio/Tree Preservation Alternative 15.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain as it is today, a vacant industrial site formerly occupied by the Georgia Pacific Company and used to produce various cardboard and paper products. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 15-1 ., "" CHAPTER 15: ALTERNATIVES This alternative would not fulfill the site's Business and Technology Park General Plan designation. It would prevent the establishment of the large amount of landscaping and public open space being proposed for the site by the Project applicant, as well as removal of the existing railroad spur on site formerly used by Georgia Pacific to receive raw materials. The No Project Altemative would not result in environmental impacts described in this EIR document, particularly those identified as significant and unavoidable. 0.50 FLOOR AREA RATIO ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the Project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be reduced from the -- currently proposed 0.78 FAR for the 540,000 square foot Project, to a square footage of 343,000, corresponding to a FAR of 0.50. 'This reduced development intensity would produce fewer vehicle trips and less air pollutant emissions. Fewer vehicle trips would result in better freeway Levels of Service and better Levels of Service on street intersections near the Project site This alternative would still provide extensive landscaping and public open space on the site, and would also require a smaller amount of vehicle parking facilities. 0.39 FLOOR AREA RATIO~TREE PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the Project's FAR would be reduced from the currently proposed 0.78 FAR to a square footage of 270,000, corresponding to a FAR of 0.39, while ensuring that the 14 ~- protected trees on the Project site are incorporated into the Project's landscaping plan. The reduced development intensity resulting from this altemative would produce fewer vehicle °-- trips and air pollutants than the proposed Project, and would have the added benefit of preserving existing trees considered protected under the City of South San Francisco Tree Ordinance. This alternative would provide extensive landscaping and would require less parking spaces than the proposed Project or the 0.50 FAR Alternative. 15.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Consideration of the alternatives to the proposed 249 East Grand Avenue Project reveals that ._.. the environmentally superior alternative would be the No Project Alternative, since it would result in no environmental impacts. a- However, in the absence of the No Project Alternative, the 0.39 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would be designated as environmentally superior because it would fulfill the City of South San Francisco's as well as the Project applicant's Project Objectives, as identified in Section 3.3 of `"°° this document. In addition, implementation of this reduced intensity alternative would lead to milder environmental impacts. PAGE 15-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR .~ 16 IMPACT OVERVIEW 16.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN .~ SIGNIFICANT The following Project related impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable: Impact 5-2 Cumulative A.ir Quality impacts. The proposed Project would exceed '~` emissions standards fox NOX, by producing 112 lbs./day, as well as producing 7421bs./day of CO. This would be a significant impact. .. Impact 13-2 Freeway Levei of Service. Tables 3 and 4 show that the addition of traffic generated by approved development in South San Francisco (year 2008 Base ... Case without project conditions) would cause two freeway segments to operate at LOS F (both during the AM peak hour). The project would increase volumes by more than one percent on both of these segments (AM -~ peak hour -southbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange and northbound: south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp). In addition, project traffic would result in one segment of the freeway changing from LOS E to LOS F operation (I'M peak hour -northbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange). These would be significant impacts. Impact 13-3 Year 2008 Intersection Impact. The Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp would experience a .,. change in PM Peak Hour operation from LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E. This would be a significant impact. Impact 13-4 Year 2020 Intersection Impact. The Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway _. Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp would experience a change in PM peak hour operation from an unacceptable LOSE to an !` unacceptable LOS F and more than a two percent increase in traffic (a 4.4% increase) during this time period. This would be a significant impact. _ 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 16-1 .. CHAPTER 16: IMPACT OVERVIEW 16.2 IMPACTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The following impact topic areas related to the 249 East Grand Avenue Project would be considered to have no impact or to be less than significant after mitigation: • Aesthetics • Biological Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazardous Materials • Hydrology • Land Use • Noise • Public Services • Utilities 1G.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could be caused by ~~- the proposed Project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current '~` consumption is justified. The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use which would commit future generations to specific ._ uses; 2) irreversible changes from environmental actions; and 3) consumption of non-renewable resources. -- Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations The Project would commit future generations to new development at the Project site. The property would be converted from a warehouse and heavy industrial use to a high technology - light industrial land use. w~ Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions Impact 5-2 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. The proposed Project would exceed emissions standards for NOa, by producing 112 lbs./day, as well as producing 7421bs./dap of CO. This would be a significant impact. PAGE 16-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 16: IMPACT OVERVIEW Impact 13-2 Freeway Level of Service. Tables 13-3 and 13-4 show that the addition of ~.. traffic generated by approved development in South San Francisco (year 2008 Base Case without project conditions) would cause two freeway .- segments to operate at LOS F (both during the AM peak hour). The project would increase volumes by more than one percent on 'both of these segments (AM peak hour - southbound: north of the Oyster Point "` interchange and northbound: south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp). In addition, project traffic would result in one segment of the freeway changing from LOS E to LOS F operation (PM peak hour -northbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange). These would be significant impacts. Impact 13-3 Year 2008 Intersection Impact. The Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp would experience a change in PM Peak Hour operation from LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E. This would be a significant impact. Impact 13-4 Year 2020 Intersection Impact. The Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp would experience a change in PM peak hour operation from an unacceptable LOSE to an unacceptable LOS F and more than a two percent increase in traffic (a 4.4% increase) during this time period. This would be a significant impact. Consumption of Nonrenewabie Resources Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. No agricultural lands would be converted and no access to mining reserves would be lost with implementation of the Project. The Project would result in the consumption of some nonrenewable resources during construction and operation, such as electricity and construction materials. 1G.4 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed project would not be expected to result in a direct increase in the local population, -` since it would not result in the construction of any new housing units. The proposed Project would not require any major increases in the capacity of local infrastructure which might later be used to support new housing development, and would not result in the extension of f infrastructure into areas which might ultimately support new housing. 1G.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. "Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 16-3 ~. "" CHAPTER 16: IMPACT OVERVIEW effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the Project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a ._. period of time. The development of the Project site as proposed would contribute to a permanent increase in regional emissions of air pollutants and reduced freeway Levels of Service, representing significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. PAGE 16-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 17 REFERENCES 17.1 REPORT PREPARERS Lamphier -Gregory 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, Ca. 94606 510-535-6690 Lamphier-Gregory Joan Lamphier, President Rudy Calderon, Associate Planner Questa Engineering Will Hopkins, Senior Engineering Geologist Crane Transportation Groun~ Mark Crane, Principal 17.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY Barrett, Colin (Carollo Engineers), et al, Feasibility of Recycled Water Treatment on the San Francisco Peninsula: Conference paper from the 2005 Conference of the California Section of the WateReuse AJSOCZatZOn, 2005. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay AreaAir~uality Summaries, 2001- 2oa3. Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Stormsvater~uality Protection, 1999. Bonilla, M.G., Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5'Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point 7.5'Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California: A digital database, USGS Open-file Report 98-354, 1998. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 17-1 ~, -" CHAPTER 17: REFERENCES "" Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, adopted July 1994. California Division of Mines and Geology, Earthquake Fault Zane Map of the South San Francisco Quadrangle, 1982. California Div. of Mines & Geology, FaultActivity Map of California andAdjacentAreas, 1994. California Division of Mines and Geology with U.S. Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic y`~' Hazard Assessment for the State of Calfornia, 2002. California Geological Survey, Fault Evaluation Reports Prepared Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, CGS CD 2002-01, 2002. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), New Development and Redevelopment Handbook, 2003. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Industrial and Commercial, January 2003. Carollo Engineers, City of San Francisco East of Highway 101 Sewer System Master Plan, September 2002. City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Municipal Code: Tree Preservation, adopted June 28, 2000. City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan, June 1994. -~ County of San Mateo Public Works, Letter correspondence from Ann Stillman, Principal Civil Engineer to Susy Kalkin of City of South San Francisco Planning Division. `Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmentallmpact Report- 249 East Grand Avenue/Rd~D Project, South San Francisco," 24 May 2005. County of San Mateo Public Works, Letter correspondence from Sandy Hesnard, Aviation Environmental Planner to Susy Kalkin of City of South San Francisco Planning Division. `Notice of Preparation for the 249 East Grand Avenue O~ice Draft Environmental Impact Report, South San --- Francisco," May 11, 2005. Crane Transportation Group, Tra~ic Impact Report.• 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton "~° Avenue, November, 2001. Crane Transportation Group, Tra~zc Impact Report.• 345 East Grand Avenue, November, 2001. PAGE 17-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 17: REFERENCES Department of Water Resources (DWR), California's Groundwater- Bulletin > 18. Updated 2004, 1975. Dowler-Gruman Architects, 249 East Grand Avenue Development Plan, June 3, 2005. Dyett &Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999. Dyett &Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, p.4-2, 4- 10, 4-15, 1997. '" Environ, Asbestos Roof Sampling Results: 249 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, April 5, 2005. Environ, Asbestos Survey: 249 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, February 27, 2004. -• Environ, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment.• Georgia Pacific Facility, 249 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California, April 2, 2004. -^~ Environ, Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment.• Georgia Pacific Facility, 249 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California, April 2, 2004. ~' Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Radius Map with Geocheck database, January 6, 2004 Environ International Corporation, Results of Phase II Site Investigation, 249 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, April 2, 2004 Environ International Corporation, Results of Phase I Site Investigation, 249 East Grand Avenue, "'~ South San Francisco, California, April 2, 2004 Environ International Corporation, Asbestos Roof Sampling Results, 249 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, Apri15, 2005 Environ International Corporation, Asbestos Survey, 249 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, February 27, 2004 Fehr & Peers /Lamphier-Gregory, Genentech Building 31 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, February 2005. Fehr & Peers, Genentech Site Access -Buildings 33 d~' 37, Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus Parking Garage (Building 37), December 2003. ... Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Oj~ice Projects Draft Traf ficAnalysis Report, October 2001. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 17-3 _, CHAPTER 1 7: REFERENCES KC Engineering Company, Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation on Proposed Office/Laboratory ~, BuildingsA.P.N.'.r 015-050.440, 450, 249 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, April 2, 2004. KC Engineering Company, Goetechnical Feasibility Investigation on Proposed OffzcelLaboratory Buildings, APN's 015-050-440 and 450, Apri12005. KC Engineering Company, Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation on Proposed Office/Laboratory Buildings, APNs 015-050-440 and 450, Apri12005. Knudsen, K.L., Noleer, J.S., Sowers, J.M., Lettis, W.R., Quaternary Geology and Liquefaction Susceptibility, San Francisco, California 1:100,000Quadrangle: ADigital Database, USGS Open-File Report 97-715, 1997. Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Rd~'D Project Draft EIR, September 2004. Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Kd~'D P»~ ject Final EIK, February 2005. Morehouse Associates, Bay West Cove Commercial Report Supplemental E1R, October 2002. Morehouse Associates, Britannia East Grand Project (Fuller O Brien Propery) Recirculation Draft EIR, February 2002. ,,_. Morehouse Associates, East Jamie Court Office Ad~'D Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, September 2002. Richardson, James, South San Francisco PlanningApplication form filled out by property owner, 3 June 2005. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites avith Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, 2003 Wentworth, C.M., Graham, S.E., Pike, R.J., Beukelman, G.S., Ramsey, D.W., Barron, A.D., San Francisco Bay Region Landslide Folio Part C -Summary Distribution of Slides and Earthflows in -~- the San Francisco Bay Region, California, USGS Open File Report 97-745 C, 1997. Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Period of Monthly Climate Summary for San Francisco "`"° WSO AP, California (047769). Period of Record.• 7/ 1 / 1948 to 12/31 /2004. Online. 14 June. 2005. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cIiMAIIV.pI?casfoa+~ PAGE 17-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 17: REFERENCES PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Castain, Don, Per telephone conversation between Joseph Farrow, Staff Geologist at Questa Engineering and Don Castain, City of South San Francisco Building Inspector, 27 June 2005. Castagnola, David, Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental Engineer at Questa Engineering and David Castagnola, Superintendent, South San Francisco- e„ San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, September 15, 2005. Dacanay Raul, Assistant Engineer, City of South San Francisco, personal communication, May 4, 2005. Kain, Robert, Vice President, Construction, Alexandria Real Estate Equities. `" Kalkin, Susy, Principal Planner, City of South San Francisco. Luck, Kirk, Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental Engineer at Questa Engineering and Kirk Luck, CSG Consultants, September 20, 2005. Malcolrnson, Niall, Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental Engineer at Questa Engineering and Niall Malcolmson, Project Architect, Dowler-Gruman ~" Architects, September 9, 2005. Munar, Kelvin. Per telephone conversation betlveen Kelly l,Vhite, Environmental Scientist at~uesta Engineering and Kelvin Munar, City of South San Francisco Public I~ork.r Department, 21 June 2005. Munar, Kelvin, Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental Engineer at Questa Engineering and Kelvin Munar, City of South San Francisco Public Works Department, September 13, 2005. Nakashima, Stevan, Per telephone conversation between Kelly White, Environmental Scientist at Questa Engineering and Stevan Nakashima, Consulting Civil Engineer, 15 June 2005. Prudhel, Cassandra, Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental Engineer at Questa Engineering, and Cassandra Prudhel, Environmental ~. Compliance Coordinator, South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, September 12, 2005. ,~,, Pryor, Pamela, Director of Asset Services, Alexandria Real Estate Equities. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1 7-5 18 _ APPENDICES APPENDIX A NOTICE OF PREPARATION RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION INITIAL STUDY APPENDIX B 'TRAFFIC TABLES APPEN D(X A Apri121, 2005 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC .AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT "-` PLANNING DIVISION (650) 877-8535 FAx (sso~ ezs-ss3s 7001-1140-0001-0465-0523 State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research -W- 1400 Tenth Street/P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: Agency Name: City of South San Francisco Firm Name: Lamphier-Gregory Plannin Division Street Address: 315 Maple Avenue Street Address: 1944 Embarcadero South San Francisco, CA Oakland, CA 94606 94080 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Contact: Susy Kalkin, Principal Contact: Joan Lamphier Planner Response to NOP: The City of South San Francisco will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an ~-- Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. An Initial Study is not attached. We need to lalow the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed prof ect. .~. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. .~. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your written response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send yonr response to Susy Kalkin at the address shown above. We will need the name of a contact person in your agency. Scoping Meeting: CEQA requires a Lead Agency to call at least one scoping meeting for a proposed project that may affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the Department of •--. Transportation, and for a prof ect of statewide, regional, or areawide significance. The Lead Agency 315 MAPLE AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 for the meeting from the Department of Transportation (Section 210$3.9 of the Public Resources Code). The Lead Agency shall provide notice of the scoping meeting to all of the following: any county or city that borders on a county or city within which the project is located; any responsible agency; any public agency that has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project; and any organization or individual who has filed a written request for the notice. The project description, location, and proposed development are summarized below. Project Title: 249 East Grand Avenue Office/ R&D Project Project Location: The 15.75 acre site is located east of Highway 101, on East Grand Avenue, in the -°~ City Qf South San Francisco, in the County of San Mateo. rroject liescription: Use Permit to construct a phased development consisting of four office/R&D buildings totaling approximately 500,000 sq. ft., including approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of ancillary retail/commercial space, surface parking and a 4-level parking structure. The site is located within an area designated by the General Plan for up to approximately 686,000 square feet of Business and Technology Park use. An existing 360,000 sq. ft. industrial building that occupies the site will be demolished along with all other site improvements and replaced by the proposed office/R&D buildings and garage. Impacts: The site is located within an area that has been used far various industrial uses since about 1910. The current warehouse was built in about 1966. Environmental investigations have been conducted on the property; the EIR will document the significance of any findings of these studies. Traffic generated by the project may cause significant regional transportation impacts and air quality impacts. Date: Apri121, 2005 Title: Principal-P~TTanner Telephone: (650) 877-8535 „- References: California Code of Regulations, Title 14, (CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15082(a), ISI03, 15375 Revised October 1989. AB 1108, February 2001, Environmental quality: scoping meetings: military areas. Section 21083 9 of the Public Resources Code. i F ~, TOWN OF COLMA 1190 EI Camino Real • Coima, California 94014 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: (850) 985-2590 • FAX: (650} 985-2578 -- April 27, 2005 R, F '"" Q CSI V ~~ Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner PR 2 -- City of South San Francisco F 8 ~~©~ Planning Division ~~fU1~G P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 RE: Notice of Preparation of a DEIR - 249 East Grand Avenue OfficelR&D Project Dear Ms. Kalkin, Thank you for. allowing the Town of Colma Planning Department to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the 249 East Grand Avenue OfficelR&D Project. The Town of Colma would strongly suggest that the Environmental Impact Report address potential impac#s brought about by projected increases in traffic, specifically in the vicinity of Lawndale Boulevard. The establishment of McLellan Drive and Lawndale Boulevard, leading from EI Camino Real east to Hillside Boulevard, provides an alternative access route to Sister Cities Boulevard from ""` Highway 280. This alternative access could see an increase in use with the development of the proposed project. Please keep the Town of Colma informed during the environmental review process. Feel free to call me at (650) 985-2590 if you have any questions of wish to discuss the project. Si cerely, rea J. use, AICP D putt' Ci Planner ~. STAT$ OF Cai RNLe, B SIIVESS TRa SPORTATTON AND HOUSIN A INCY aR?JO ~ ~~AR rC~ r l- overnor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO,_. `ATION ~~ ,-, DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S.#40 ' 1120NSTREET RECEIVED P. O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 ~~Y f Flex your power. ~} ~~~~ Be energy e,~cient! ~_ PHONE (916) 654-4959 FAX {916) 653-9531 PLi~~~((~(a TTY (916) 651-6827 `-' Ms. Susy Kalkin May 11, 2005 City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Kalldn Re: City of South San Francisco's Notice of Preparation for the 249 East Grand Avenue Office Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR); SCH# 2005042121 -' The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division), reviewed the above- referenced document with respect to a.uport-related noise and safety impacts and regional aviation land use planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Division has technical expertise in the areas of airport operations safety and airport land use compatibility. We are a funding agency for airport projects and we have permit authority for public use airports and heliports. We offer the following comments for your consideration. The proposal is for the construction of four office/research and development buildings and afour-level pazking structure. The project site is located approximately 9,000 feet northwest of San Francisco International Airport. --- Structures should not be at a height that will result in penetration of the approach imaginary surfaces. Public Utilities Code, Section 21659, `~Iazazds Near Airports Prohibited" prohibits structural hazards neaz airports. To ensure compliance with Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace," . _ submission of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may be required. For further technical information, please refer to the FAA's web site at httn://www.faa.~ov/ats/ata/ATA400/oeaaa html °-- Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code and Sections 1102.6, 1103..4, and 1353 of the Civil Code (http://www.leginfo ca Qovlcalaw htmI) address buyer notification requirements for lands around airports. Any person who intends to offer land for sale or Iease within an airport influence area is required to disclose that fact ._ to the person buying the property. These comments reflect the azeas of concern to the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics with respect to airport- .related noise and safety impacts and regional airport land use planning issues. We advise you to contact our district office concerning surface transportation issues. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. ff you have any questions, please call me ~- at (916) 654-5314. (J^ ~l._.~~~ CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVEP~NNIENTS of SAN MATEO COUNTY .4iherton • Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame. • Cobra • Dalj+ City • East Pdlo .4Ifo • Foster City • HalfMoon Bay • Kllsborough • Menlo Park • ~Ilbrae Pacifica • Portola YaIIey • Redwood City • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • San Mateo County • Sourh San Francisco • Wnnaside May 23, 2005 Susy Kalicin, Principal Planner City of South San_Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA Dear Susy: RECEIVED E~..~t~~I~kG RE: C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff Comments on a Notice of Preparation {NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIlt) for the 249 Eas_# Grand Avenue 4ffice/R& D Proi~ct_._._. _ .._... _._ .~ d4: li~ip Thank you or pportumty - mment on the e-refere ced doc _ = The cQ•`~ en that follow a~- ~ G Airport ~_ d Use Committ~~LUC) ~aff comm _~_, ~ regarding -~ airport/lan , ~ e~inpatibility ~ = es related to theosed p ~iject. ~ a- ~_ _~ _ ~ ~ - Backgr ~ d ~~` _ ~' ~~ ~~ ... The~~"~ct r~s a Use%~instruct a pl~velopment, cons`i~-~f four . officelR&D buildings that will total approximately 500,000 square feet, including approximately 5,500 square feet to ancillary retatllcommercial space, surface parking, and afour-level parking garage. An existing 360,000 square-foot industrial building, that currently occupies the site and all related site improvements, will be demolished to construct the proposed development. The existing general plan and zoning regulations allow the proposed use with a Use Permit. No land use policy change{s) are needed to accommodate the proposed project. CCAG/Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Review The existing land use and zoning regulations allow the proposed use with a Use Permit. Since no land use policy change(s) is required, the proposed project does not require formal reviewlaction by the ALUC and CCAG. Airport/Land Use Compatibility issues The proposed office/R&D/retail project is a compatible use with aircraft operations at nearby San Francisco International Airport. However, the ALUC artd CCAG routinely look at three .specific issues to address airport/land use compatibility regarding specific project characteristics. Each of these issues, related to theproposed project, is addressed, as follows: fi ~~. .. ti. ,~ ~.~-fi '_ ~ ..~`~~ ~ 'mss ~ €~€~-~~ ~~~_¢~~~~'. 555 COUNTY CBrITEx, SrxFioox, REDwoon CrrY, CA 94063 •650/599-1406.650/594-9980 (FxM00341.DOC) ~~ CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff Comment Letter, Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R& D Project ~- May 23, 2005 Page 2 Height of Structures/Airspace Protection. The 15.75 acres site is located east of U.S. ..~ Highway 101, within the Federal Aviation Regulations FAR Part 77 Conical Surface airspace protection area for San Francisco International Airport. CCAG, acting as the Airport Land Use Commission for San Mateo County, has adopted the FAR Part 77 regulations, as applicable to San Francisco International Airport, to protect the airspace for the unobstructed passage of aircraft in flight in the vicinity of the Airport. Since the project site is located within the FAR Part 77 Conical Surface, the project sponsor must file FAA Form 7460- 1, `'Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" with the FAA Western-Pacific Regional Office in Southern California. The FAA staff will then review the proposed project to determine if it has any impact on the airspace and/or local navigation aids and will identify other FAA concerns with the project, if any. Since the FAA staff at the Western-Pacific Regional Office receives many of these submittals, I strongly suggest that the project sponsor submit the required FAA ~;-:paperwork as soon as possible. The necessary FAA forms can be obtained from the FAA ,;:;, Airports District Office (ADO) in Burlingame, California, by calling 650/876-2805. "~' ~~ Aircraft Noise/Overflight. The project site is located east of U.S. Highway 101, under ;- the Shoreline Departure Route, for aircraft departing on Runways 28 at San Francisco ~: International Airport. When this departure procedure is used, under certain weather "-" -conditions, northbound and eastbound departing aircraft are required to turn right as soon as feasible, to avoid the populated areas in South San Francisco and Brisbane and remain east of the freeway. This procedure was designed as an aircraft noise mitigation •~~ procedure and when used, it is a very successful mitigation tool. The Shoreline Departure right turn will frequently take aircraft over the project site, under full take-off power. Therefore, there will be frequent occurrences of high single-event noise levels anal aircraft overIlight in the vicinity of the project site. To mitigate the above-referenced noise impact, the proposed inhabited structures should ~- be designed and built to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB, based on aircraft noise events. That noise level should en easily achievable with standard building construction fro office/R&D buildings. However, I strongly suggest that the City of w- South San Francisco carefully review the building plans for the proposed project to assure itself that the 45 dB interior noise level will be achieved, via the proposed construction design and selected building materials. CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff Comment Letter, Notice of Preparation ... (NOP} of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR} for the 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R& D Project May 23, 2005 Page 3 Safety Criteria. The most critical and restrictive airport/land use safety criteria are focused on the ends of the runways and along the extended runway centerlines. The project site is located north of the departure ends of Runways 28 Right at San Francisco International Airport. Any specific safety criteria that would be applicable to the runways at San Francisco International Airport would not be incompatible with the proposed use at the project location. Comments from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics The comments contained herein are consistent with and supportive of the comments in a letter to you, dated May 11, 2005, prepared and signed by Sandy Hesnard, Aviation Environmental Planner, at the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. "° If you,have any questions regarding these comments, please call me at 650/363-4417. Sincerely ~~ David.. Carbone, CCAG Airport Land Use Committee {ALUC) Staff cc: CCAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Members Richard Napier, CCAG Executive Director Nixon Lam, SFO Planning Sandy Hesnard, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics alucstaffcomletssf249eastgrandnop.doc w STATE OF CALIFORNIA-B rBIIVESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOIJSINC AGENCY ARI.IOr n SrHt~VAR~NEGG R C emir DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI®N lll GRAND AVENUE ..~ P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ E ~ .Flex your power! PHONE (510) 286-5505 Be energy ef/icient! FAX (510) 286-5659 -~- TTY (800) 735-2929 ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ May 23, 2005 ~" SM10I408 SM-101-22:14 SCH2O05042121 Ms. Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco _ ~- P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 °°~ Deal Ms. Kalkin: 249 East Grand Avenue Offce/R~D Project - Nohee of Preparation Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the „-. environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation for the 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D .Project draft Environmental Impact Report and have the following comments to offer: Our primary concern with.the project is the potentially significant impact it may have to traffic volume and congestion. We recommend a traffic impact analysis be prepared. The traffic impact analysis should include,- but not be limited to the following: 1. Information on the project's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution, ~~ and assignment. The assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this information should be addressed. -- 2. Average Daily Traffic. (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly - ~ affected streets and highways, including crossroads and-controlli.ng intersections. 3. ~SChematic illustration. of the traffic conditions for. 1) existing, 2) existing plus project, ._ _ . 3). cumulatye, and 4) cumulative plus project for the intersections and roadway segments in the project area. °Caltrans improves mobility across California' Ms. Susy Kalkin .. May 23, 2005 Page 2 4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating developments, both existing and future, that would affect the State highway facilities being evaluated. -~ 5. Mitigation measures should consider highway and non-highway improvements and services. Special attention should be given to the development of alternate solutions to circulation problems that do not rely on increased highway construction. 6. All mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, "~ scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring. We encourage the City of South San Francisco to coordinate preparation of the study with our office, and we would appreciate the opportunity to review the scope of work. Please see the Department's "guide for the Preparation of ~'raff~c Impact Studies" at the following website for more information: http://v~~vt~v.dot.ca.Qov/h /q traffops/developservloperationalsystems/re op rtS/tlsguide.pdf We look forward to reviewing the traffic impact analysis and draft Environmental Impact Report for this project. Please send two copies to: Alice Jackson Office of Transit and Community Planning Department of Transportation, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Alice Jackson of my staff at (S 10) 286-5988. Sincerely, TIMO .SABLE .District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) °`Cadtrans improves mobility across California" ;_-.:, ,_ STATE OF CALIFORNIA { ~ ~ - _ ,mold Schwarzenegger, Governor "` PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3296 ~ r ~~: t~ May 24, 2005 ~ File No.183-41 SCH# 2005042121 Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco _ PO Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 „~, RE: 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project Dear Ms. Kalkin: As the state agency responsible for rail safety within California, we recommend that any development projects planned adjacent to or near the rail corridor in the County be „~ planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. New developments may increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at intersections, but also at at-grade highway-rail crossings. This includes considering pedestrian circulation patterns/destinations with . ,_ respect to the Union Pacific Railroad right-of--way. If the spur track that leads to the site is no longer needed, it should be removed, with the ._ rail removed from East Grand Avenue as part of the project. The above-mentioned safety improvement should be considered when approval is sought for the new development. Working with Commission staff early in the conceptual design phase will help improve the safety to motorists and pedestrians in the County. If you have any questions in this matter, please call me at (415) 703-2795. Very truly yours, .~ ~ ~ j, Kevin Boles Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings Engineering Section Consumer Protection and Safety Division cc: Patrick Kerr, Union Pacific Raikoad J~epartment of g'ubfic V~orks NEIL R. CULLEN DIRECTOR 555 COUNTY CENTER, 5T" FLOOR • REDWOOD CITY • CALIFORNIA94063-1665 • PHONE (650) 363-4100 • FAX (650) 361-8220 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARK CHURCH RICHARD S. GORDON JERRY HILL ROSE JACOBS GIBBON ADRIENNE TISSIER Ms. Susy Kallcin City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue City Hall Annex South San Francisco, CA 94083 May 24, 2005 ~~A~~tlf~G -~ Dear Ms. Kalkin: Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report - 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project, South San Francisco We are in receipt of your letter dated April 21, 2005, regarding the subject project. The Sazi Mateo County Depai-hnent of Public Worlcs, in its capacity as the Administrator of the Cohna Creek Flood Control District (District), has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Enviromnental Impact Report. Our records show that the proposed project site is Located outside of the Colma Creels Flood Control Zone (Zone}. Since the project site is located outside of the Zone boundaries and does not contribute financially to the Zone's revenue and maintenance of the District's facilities, storm water runoff from this site must not be directed to drain into the District's flood control charuiel. We request that you provide us with a copy of the EIR when completed for our review and comment. ~' If you have any questions, please contact Mark Chow at (650) 599-1489, or myself at (650) 599-1417. ~ -° Very truly yours, "~ Ann M. Stillman, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection AMS:MC:JY:mmy F:\USERS\ADMINICITIESISSF\2005\249 E Grand Ave RB.D -Notice of Prep. Review.doc G:1U5ERS\UTILITY\Colma Creek FCD1wORD\Review External Project\2005\249 EGrand Ave RB.D -Notice of Prep. Review.doc File No: F-149 (9I~ cc: Mark Chow, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer, Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection ~.._.. ~ECE-VED ~~~~5 g' CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS J~+U ~ f ~~~J~ „„,,, OF SAN MATED COUNTY ~~~~~~~G Atherton ~ Belmont ~ Brisbane • Burlingame ~ Colma ~ Daly City ~ East Palo Alto ~ Foster City ~ HaljMoon Bay ~ Hillsborough ~ Menlo Park ~ Millbrae Pac~ca ~ Portola Valley ~ Redwood City ~ San Bruno ~ San Carlos ~ San Mateo ~ San Mateo County ~ South San Francisco ~ Woodside May 25, 2005 .~ Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division ®,,, P.O. B ox 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Kalkin: SUBJECT: 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project Thank. you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project. Under the Congestion ,_ Management Program, the review of the project must include the identification of the traffic impacts on the State Highway System. If that review reveals that the project will generate 100 or more peak hour trips, the C/CAG land use policy and implementation guidelines must be followed. This includes the mitigation of all of the trips through Transportation Demand Management measures. ,,,,, I look forward to seeing a copy of the Draft EIR for this project. Thank you for your continued efforts on the reduction of congestion in our County. ,,_ Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, ~.. Tom 1Vladalena Planner II -.., City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County ., -: .. 650-363-1867-direct tmadalena(a,co.satunateo.ca.us -- _.. TAM:kcd - TAMP0596 WKN.DOC 555 CovNTY CErrrsx, Szx FLOOR, REDWOOD CrrY, CA 94063 • 650/599-1406 • FAX: 650/361-8227 (FRM00345.DOC) 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ""` PREPARED BY LAMPHIER -GREGORY ~,. 1944 EMSARCADERO OAKLAND, CA 94606 MARCH 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INITIAL STUDY .................................................................................................................................................2 .r, GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................................2 Project Entidements ............................................................................................................................ .........2 ................................ Lead Agency ...................................................................................................................................................................................2 .~. Project Location .............................................................................................................................................................................2 Project Applicant ................................................................................................................................. ....2 ...................................... ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..............................................................................................................2 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................................................................3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST .......................................................................................................................... 4 AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 '.... AGRICULTURE RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................. ......6 .................. AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................................................................................................7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................................................9 ^w.. CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. ...................10 ......................................................... GEOLOGY AND SOII.S .........................................................................................................._.................................................................11 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..........................................................................................................................................13 ,,,,~ HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................... ...15 ..................................................................................................... LAND USE AND PLANNING ..................................................................................................................................................................17 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................................................18 NOISE ........................................................................................................................................................................................................19 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................................................................... ......21 ................... PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................................................................22 RECREATION ...........................................................................................................................................................................................23 "" TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................................................................24 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................................................26 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................................................................................................28 INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 1 INITIAL STUDY GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS The proposed Project would require a Use Permit to construct a phased development consisting of four office/Research & Development buildings totaling about 500,000 square feet, and a 4-level, 1,227 space car parking structure. LEAD AGENCY City of South San Francisco ... Department of Economic and Community Development 315 Maple Avenue P.O. Box 711 ""' South San Francisco, Ca. 94083 PROJECT LOCATION A site bounded by East Grand Avenue on the south, industrial buildings fronting Roebling Road on the west, and railroad rights-of--way on the north and east. PROJECT APPLICANT .W The Project applicant is Alexandria. Real Estate Equities, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Environmental factors which may be affected by the Project, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filled in block (~) were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that has been .,,w identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact", as indicated in the Environmental Evaluation Form Checklist and related discussion that follows. Unmarked factors (~) were determined to not be significantly affected by the Project, based on discussion provided in the Checklist ~' INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2 t Aesthetics ^ Agriculture Resources iAir Quality ^ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources Geology and Soils 1! Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality 1 Land Use and Planning ^ Mineral Resources iNoise ^ Population and Housing 1Public Services ^ Recreation ii Transportation and Circulation ~ Utilities and Service Systems LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: _ I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and "° a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _ I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. V I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on fhe environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IIvIPACT REPORT is required _ I find 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 ENVIlZONMEI~TTAL IMI~ACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. _ I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, an ._. EIR Addendum is required. .- ~ _-C c~C~ 2cy S Susy , Princtpal Planner Date INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ~. The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each CEQA issue topic. A "no impact" response indicates that no action that would have an adverse effect on the environment would occur due to the Project. A "less than significant" response indicates that while there map 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 with Significant No New Impact Mitigation Impact Impact ~,, I. AESTHETICS -Would the Project: a} Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic (/ vista? ~„ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a ~, state scenic highway? c} Substantially degrade the existing visual ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ~" d} Create a new source of substantal light or ~ / ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ j glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? '"` a) Scenic Vistas. The Project site is not located within a scenic vista. However, the Project's proposed buildings may block views of San Bruno Mountain as seen from areas east of the site. The EIR will evaluate the extent of this impact. "" b) Scenic Highways. The Project site is not located near a designated scenic highway. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 4 ,.. c) Visual Character. The proposed development would involve the demolition of an older vacant industrial building, and would replace it with new building structures as well as new landscaping. The development would enhance the visual character of the site. d) Light and Glare. The proposed Project, with its new buildings, would result in additional light emanating from structures, parking lots and other sources. New lighting would be required to conform to standards that limit the amount of light that can spill over to other properties, through the use of downcast lighting fixtures. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT ,,,,,, PAGE 5 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New Impact Miti ation Impact Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Cali#ornia 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 Califomia Resources Agency, to non- -~ agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ /~ 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? a) Prime Farmland. No designated agricultural land is located on the Project site. b) Williamson Act Contracts. No land on the Project site is under a Williamson Act contract. c) Farmland Conversion. No land on the Project site is used fox agricultural purposes. INITIAL STUDY 249 F~,ST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 6 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Sign cant with Significant No New `"" _ Impact Miti ation Impact Impact III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality ._ management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ~ / substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the ~°' Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ~ /~ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ substantial number of people? a) Air Qualify Plan Conflict. The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The District enforces Hiles and regulations regarding air pollution sources and is the primary agency preparing the regional air quality plans mandated under state and federal law. The San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan 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. 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 EIR will evaluate whether the project would conflict with applicable air quality plans. b) Air Quality Standards. Construction activity air quality impacts could be significant, due to airborne particulate matter and construction vehicle emissions. The EIR will evaluate the extent of this impact, and will recommend mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. In terms of mobile source emissions, and in the context of existing emissions in the ,~, area, the project's incremental increase would be evaluated in the EIR. c) Criteria Pollutants. The primary source of long term emissions associated with the proposed -- Project would be from motor vehicles. Although office uses would not emit significant amounts of air pollutants directly, the project would indirectly attract motor vehicles that would generate emissions. Mobile emissions associated with the project would incrementally increase regional INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 7 vehicular emissions. The EIR will determine whether project related vehicular emissions would .F exceed significance thresholds for regional emissions. d) Sensitive Receptors. For CEQA purposes, the BAAQMD defines a sensitive receptor as a .w location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons axe located and where there is reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure. Project construction. would -m result in temporary increases in diesel particulate emissions due to operation of heavy equipment. The Early Years Children's Center (a child care center) is located 400 feet east of the Project site. The EIR will evaluate the Project's potential impacts on this sensitive receptor. '"` e) Objectionable Odors. The EIR will evaluate whether the project would be a source of objectionable odors. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PRO,fECT PAGE 8 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New Impact Miti ation Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California . Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c} Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wifdlrfe nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ~ / .protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? m-- a) - b) Special Status Species and Habitat. The project site does not contain special status species habitat. The site has been developed and is in an urbanized state. c) - d) Wetlands and Wildlife Corridors. The proposed project site does not contain wetland areas. It is an area that is currently developed with urban land uses. e) - f) Tree Preservation Ordinance. The project site is predominantly covered with asphalt and a large industrial building. The existing vegetation consists of a line of approximately 20 trees of ._._ varying heights, low shrubs and a lawn located along the site's East Grand Avenue frontage. Several of the trees on site may be considered Protected Trees under the City of South San Francisco Tree Ordinance. The EIR will evaluate the extent of the Project's impact on these trees. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 9 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New Impact Mitigation Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ( ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ / significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ significance of an archaeological resource '"- pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ / paleontological resource orsite orunique -~ geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ interred outside of formal cemeteries? ..~ a) Historical Resources. The project site is developed with a large 1960s era industrial building, which is not eligible for designation on a Register of historic buildings. b) Archaeological Resources. According to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, South San Francisco's coastal location, and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the existence of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources likely. It is possible that buried prehistoric resources may be found in the City, although currently there is insufficient data to predict that they may be found at the project site, especially because the site has been previously disturbed. If archaeological resources are discovered on site, these resources shall be handled according to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This would be a condition of any project approval. c) Geologic/Paleontological Features. There are no unique geologic or paleontological features associated with the project site. d) Human Remains. There are no known human remains that would be disturbed by the proposed project. As mentioned before, most of the project site has already been disturbed by urban development. No formal cemeteries have been located on the project site. INITIAL STUDY 249 FJaST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 10 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Sign cant Significant with Significant No New Impact Miti ation Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential °~' substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ~ /~ { ~ { ~ { ~-- delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ..-., ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? { /~ { ~ { ~ { ~ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ~ /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ { liquefaction? .~ iv) Landslides? { ~ { ~ { / ~ { b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of (/ ~ ~ ~ { ] { topsoil? `"` c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is { / ~ { ~ { ~ { unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of roadway improvements, and potentially .._ result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in { /~ { ~ { ~ { Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting { ~ { j { ~ { / ~ the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not -- available for the disposal of waste water? a) Seismic Impacts. The Project site is located in a seismically active area and may be subject to strong ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project, similar to all development in the region. .~ Seismic shaking could induce settlement of loose, unconsolidated sediments, and differential seismic settlement could occur on the site. The EIR will identify potential seismic impacts that would affect the Project, and will recommend mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce impacts to °-" a level of less than significant. b) Erosion. The Project site is predominantly urbanized, with only a portion of the area's soils exposed, including small areas used for landscaping. However, impacts could occur due to construction activity that disturbs the soil and is not properly protected from wind and rain erosion. INITIAL STUDY 249 LliST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11 Best Management Practices could be used to mitigate the potential impacts of soil erosion on the site. The EIR will evaluate these impacts and provide detailed mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant. c) Unstable Soils. The Project would result in development that would require grading, excavation, or other modifications to the soil or geology which could increase the potential for soil s instability on the site. The EIR will provide additional description of the geologic and soils condition of the site and recommend mitigation measures for any potential impacts. d) Expansive Soils. A large portion of the city, primarily east of U.S. 101, is underlain by deposits of Bay mud up to 80 feet deep in some places. Associated development hazards include shrink- swell, settlement, and corrosivity. Seismic hazards include earthquake wave amplification and liquefaction. Development in the City's lowland zone where the project site is located often requires engineering solutions to address soil constraints and the increased risk of geologic and seismic hazard in this area. The EIR will evaluate in more detail the potential impacts associated with expansive soils at the project site, and will recommend measures to mitigate these impacts. e) Septic Tanks. The proposed Project would not involve the use of septic tanks. Proposed Project buildings would be connected to sanitary sewer infrastructure. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 12 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentialty Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Sign cant with Significant No New ®~ Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the Project: ~- a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ~ /~ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? .,.. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ~ /~ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the ~` environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or ~- waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list i / ~ j -- of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ~"` public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? ~~ f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? g) Impair implementafion of or physically interfere ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ / with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ~"" urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a) Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials. Land uses at the site under the ~-•- proposed Project would involve office/research and development related activities, which may be expected to involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The EIR will evaluate the extent of this potential impact and recommend mitigation measures. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PACe 13 b) Hazardous Materials Release. Land uses proposed fox the Project site may involve activities that would potentially lead to hazardous materials upset or accident conditions. In terms of past uses on the site, a records search investigation will be performed for the site to determine whether hazardous materials releases have occurred there and what that would portend for redevelopment of F the site. c) Hazardous Materials Near Schools. The proposed Project site is located near apre-school. The EIR will identify any potential hazardous materials impacts on this school. d) Hazardous Materials List. EIR preparation will include a records search to identify whether hazardous materials are located on the Project site. If there is evidence of hazardous materials presence, the EIR will evaluate its potential impacts and will recommend measures to mitigate these impacts. e) - g) Airport Land Use Plan, Emergency Response Plan. The Project site is located about 1.5 miles north of the San Francisco International Airport. The Project site is already developed, and the proposed Project would replace buildings that axe already on the site. Because the proposed buildings would not be more than four stories tall, there would be no impact associated with the Project. h) Wildland Fires. The Project site is already developed with urban land uses. Therefore, no wildland fire danger impacts would be associated with the proposed Project. INITIAL STUDY 248 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 14 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New Impact MRigation Impact 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 production ~' rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been ._ granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern [ ] [ ] { /] { ] of the site or area, including through the ~, alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern [ ] [ ] [ / ] { ] of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of ._ surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would [ ] [ ] [ / ] [ ] .~ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? - f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ] [ ] [ / ] [ ] g) Place housing within a 100-yearflood 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ / ] a) Water Quality Standards. It is possible that the Project would have an impact on water quality during its construction phase. Demolition of the existing building, grading, and Project construction INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 15 activities would disrupt the Project site and disrupt soils and demolition debris to storm water runoff. The EIR will evaluate the extent to which water quality would be affected, and would recommend measures to reduce the Project's impact. b) Groundwater Supply. The Project would not have a significant impact on groundwater recharge rates at the Project site, since a majority of the site's surface area is impervious, and is ~° paved over with concrete, asphalt, or covered with building structures. c) - f) Alteration of Drainage Patterns. Some localized changes in drainage patterns could occur ~. as a result of the Project, as a result of grading and excavation activities undertaken during construction. However, these drainage pattern changes would be considered minor in the context of drainage patterns in the area. g) - j) Flood Hazards, Seiche, Tsunami. The Project site is not located within a 100 year flood zone and would not be susceptible to tsunami damage. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 16 Environmental factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New ~-°• Impact Miti ation Impact Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an ~-- environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / plan or natural community conservation plan? _„ a) Divide Established Community. The Project would involve construction of an office/reseaxch and development facility located on an already urbanized site. The Project would not divide an established community. b), c) Conflict with Policies or Plans. The Project would require a Use Permit fora 500,000 square foot office development. The EIR will evaluate the Project's impacts on existing plans and policies. INITIAL STUDY 249 F~.ST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT W. PAGE 17 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New fm act Miti ation Im act Im act 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? a), b) Mineral Resources. 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. ..~~ INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 18 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New ,~ Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XI. NOI SE -Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise (/ ~ ( ~ ( - levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ~° b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ( ~ ( ~ (/ ~ ( excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? -- c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ( ~ ( ~ (/ ~ ( noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? -- d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ( ~ ( ~ (/ ~ ( ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use (/ ~ ( ~ ( ~ ( plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose ~- people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private ( ~ ( ~ ( ~ (/ ~-- airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? a), b) Excessive Noise or Vibration. During construction, noise levels at the Project site would - exceed current levels, due to the operation of construction equipment. The EIR will recommend noise attenuation measures to be implemented during construction, in order to reduce construction „_, noise impacts. It is not expected that the Project would produce excessive vibration, since pile driving is not proposed for the Project site. c), d) Ambient Noise Levels. Current ambient noise perceived at the Project site comes mainly from nearby automobile traffic. Ambient noise levels would increase during the Project's operation period, due to the increase in automobile traffic traveling to and away from the site. However, this increase is not expected to be substantial, and overall operational noise levels on the site would be less than those emitted during past site operations, which included substantial truck and railroad car traffic noise. e), fl Airport Land Use Plan. The Project site is located about 1.5 miles north of the San ._. Francisco International Airport. Flights leaving from and arriving at the airport can occasionally be heard at the Project site. However, this noise can be mitigated to a less than significant level INITIAL STUDY 249 C/~ST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 19 through adherence with State Noise Insulation Standards in Title 24 of the California, Code of Regulations. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 20 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Fotentialty Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New ,_ _ _ Impact MRigation Impact Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other ~. infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ / housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ~' a) Substantial Population Growth. The project would not lead to substantial population growth. Though it would be expected that some future users of the project site would decide to live within the City of South San Francisco, their numbers would be considered less than significant. b), c) Displace People and Housing. The project would not displace any residents or housing units. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 21 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New Im act Miti ation Im act Im act XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - a) Wauld the Projecf result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire rot ti ~ p ec on. [ ] [ ] [ /] [ ] ii) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ / ] [ ] -~ iii) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ / ] [ ] iv) Parks? [ ] [ ] [ / ] [ ] ,~ v) Other public facilities? [ ] [ ] [ / ] [ ] a)i) Fire Protection. The South San Francisco Fire Department provides residents and businesses fire suppression, emergency medical service, code enforcement, fire investigation and public education, with a staff of 85 and a minimum on duty daily staff of 20 persons. The EIR will evaluate what impact the project would have on the Department's ability to serve the City. a)ii) Police Protection. Police protection is provided by the City of South San Francisco Police Department, by a total of 122 employees, including 80 sworn officers. The Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes. These times are within the department's response time goals. The EIR will evaluate what impact the project would have on police protection services in the City. "" a)iii) Schools. The City of South San Francisco is served by the South San Francisco Unified School District. It is possible that some users of the project site would relocate to the City, thereby generating a small student population increase. However, because the project would not involve construction of new residences, it is not expected that the school district would experience a "'" significant growth in student population. a)iv) Parks. The proposed project would not place a significant demand on the City's public parks. Though some users of the project site would use the City's parks, this use would be considered less than significant. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 22 ~,,, Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental 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? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No New Impact Miti ation Impact Impact /~ /~ a), b) Recreational Facilities. The proposed project would not place a significant demand on the City's public parks. Though some users of the project site would use the City's parks, this use would be considered less than significant. in addition, Project implementation would include establishment of a public open space area, resulting in a beneficial recreational services impact. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 23 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Sign cant with Significant No New Im act Miti afion Im act Im act XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial ~ /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity ~ ~ of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion -° at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 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, ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ /~ ,., ncluding either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ /~ ~- eature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /, f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? j ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ /, g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ~ ~ ~ ~ ro rams ti ~ ~ ~ /] p g suppor ng alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ,~, a) Traffic Increase. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a traffic increase ... corresponding to 500,000 square feet of new office space. The level of traffic associated with the Project could be considered significant. The EIR will further evaluate this impact. -- b) Congestion Management Agency LOS Standards. Project related traffic could lead to a decrease in Level of Service standards for the area. The EIR will further evaluate potential Levels of Service impacts in the project area. c) Air Traffic Patterns. The project would not have an impact on air traffic patterns in the area. d) Design Hazards. The EIR will evaluate whether the project would lead to any hazards resulting from project design features. e) Inadequate Emergency Access. The proposed project would have to be designed in a manner '" that allows free and clear circulation fox emergency vehicles that would respond to an emergency on INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 24 .~. site. Proposed circulation patterns for the site will be evaluated in the EIR, in the context of the need for emergency access. fJ Parking Capacity. The EIR will evaluate whether the proposed project includes parking capacity commensurate with its demand for parking. g) Policy, Plan Conflicts. The traffic analysis for the EIR will determine whether the proposed Project would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative --- transportation. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 25 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Sign cant No New XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the lm act Miti ation Im act Im act Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ "'~ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ -° water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? "" c) Require or result in the construction of new ~ ~ j ~ j ~ ~ / storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which ""` could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ~ /~ the Project from existing entitlements and '~' resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e} Resultin a determination by the wastewater tr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ -~ eatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /] ` capacity to accommodate the Project's solid ` waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and focal statutes ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ and regulations related to solid waste? -° a), b) Wastewater. The Wastewater Treatment Plant is jointly owned and operated by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and recently underwent expansion designed specifically to provide the treatment capacity needed for growth. The sewage of both cities is treated, as is wastewater from Colma and the Serramonte portion of Daly City. The project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, since uses on the site would be office related and the wastewater produced by the project would not be of a quality that the plant could not treat. c) Storm Drainage. Periodic flooding occurs in South San Francisco, but is confined to certain areas along Colma Creek, Colma Creek handles much of the urban runoff generated in the city; since South San Francisco is highly urbanized, runoff levels are high and there is increased potential for flood conditions during periods of heavy rainfall. The principal flooding problem in the city is an inadequate culvert and channel system where Colma Creek runs under the Southern Pacific Railroad INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 26 (SPRR) line. Peak flood flows in Colma Creek back up and pond east of the tracks, and water moves away from the creek along city streets. However, the project site is not located in the vicinity of the creek and would not be susceptible to flooding during a 100-year storm. d) Water Supply. South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service _ Company Peninsula District (CWSC) serves that portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which represents the majority of South San Francisco's area. The Company's current contract with the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) entitles the City to 42.3 MGD per year. An additional 1.4 ~- MGD can be pumped from groundwater. Water use in the City has increased steadily, and at a rate faster than increases in the number of users. The EIR will evaluate the project's impact on South San Francisco's water supply. e) Wastewater Capacity. Though not expected to occur, the EIR will evaluate whether the project would cause the wastewater treatment plant to exceed its capacity. f), g) Solid Waste. Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and -~ then processed at the Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the Ox Mountain Landfill, has a permit for `"' forward expansion to the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos Canyon will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill. The project would place a less than significant impact on landfill capacity. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 27 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No New Im act Miti ation lm act Im act XVII, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade ~ /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to ~° eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the Project have impacts that are ~ /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ { individually limited, but cumulatively 'w considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection -~ with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.) c) Does the Project have environmental effects, ~ ~ j /~ ~ 3 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectiy? a) Environmental Quality. Project implementation could lead to development that adversely "~ affects the environment in terms of impacts to various CEQA issue topics, as discussed in this Initial Study. Mitigation measures, including existing permit requirements, policies, and development practices will be described in the EIR. Nonetheless, the Project cannot guarantee that impacts will be completely avoided or mitigated. b) Cumulative Impacts. It is possible that the Project could have cumulative impacts related to air qua&ty and traffic. These potential impacts will be described in the EIR, and mitigated to the extent feasible. c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings. Human beings could be affected by a variety of impacts described above. The expectation is that most, but perhaps not all impacts will be mitigated through ._ the implementation of mitigation measures and adherence to applicable policies and plans. Policy makers and decision makers will have to balance the potential benefits of the Project against potential impacts as they consider whether to approve, modify, or reject the Project, following EIR preparation and full public disclosure of impacts. INITIAL STUDY 249 EAST GRANDAVENUE PROJECT PAGE 28 ~. ~.. APPENDIX TABLE B-1 .~ LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service A B ~~ C D E F Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (in secondsl 0-10 > 10 -15 > 15-25 >25-35 >35-50 > 50 Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection, stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay. Source: Highway Capacity Manual2000, Transportation Research Board. ..~ APPENDIX TABLE B-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL (SIDE STREET STOP SIGN CONTROL) INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds A 0-10 B > 10 -15 C > 15-25 D > 25 - 35 E >35-50 F > 50 Control delay includes initial deceleration dela.p, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection, stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay. Source: Highzvay Capacity Manual2000, Transportation Research Board. APPENDIX TABLE 6-3 WARRAN_ TS FOR PROVISION OF LEFT TURN LANES Intersection Channelizadon Guide Highway Research Program, Report #279. TRB, November 1985. _- 2~1 lANE ROAD ~ Iflf t i I t[fT •TVRw tREwriEMT wwMwNTED 1brn1 m I Es LEFT tN11nt~IN Vw AO IOi hs I00 Asti ttFT nywn iRCAFYENt /~,wDT wMMNTEIS~ m ~~ // ,. X00 700 ]00 a00 Oro un YA AOVANCiN('. VOLUME (VPHI N R I ~ ,~ r Ap 2 LA E ~ lfFi-TURn TREATYFNt / ~ wAwR ~TEO LEO YfM 1 ,,, 1 ~ ~i 1{ fs iEFT TURNS IN vA 1 ~• soo los ~ j 700 Iss s / tl s 700 / / IEfT.T57RN TwEATYENi NDT wARRAMEDy wo /.y .oo ~ ]m wa SoD Eoo laa VA ADVANCING VOLUME (V-HI 700 [00 > ~ J 1• a~ '.7 2 i J ]00 7 i 7aD 10D 2-LANE ROAD 1 IFfT-TUwn TREATYENf wwMwlnED I stl awlt I fS ` LEFT TURNS IN VA ~~j~.~~% //% /// %~% ~~ ,,,. 'Jf % / / ~ 1 L.1 100 ]W 70D Mp 500 f00 /'JO VA AOVANI:tNG VOLUME (VPH) NOTE WHEN Yo < t00 VPH (tlaSAetl hntl. A LEFT-TURN LANE t$ NOT NORMALLY WARRANTED UNLESS THE ADVANCING YOLUME IV+) iN 7HE SAME DIRECTION AS THE LEFT-TURNING TRAFFIC EXC£EOS •00 VPH /Ya>• SOD YPH) 2000 1500 f 1000 V 2 ut O O 500 J I ~ ' - ~ ~ a-LANE UNDIVIDED RttOAD ~ 1 LEFT -TURN LANE WARRANTED LEFT•TURN LANE NOT WARRANTED ~ t0 15 20 25 VL LEFT~TURNtNG VOLUME IVPNI .~ APPENDIX TABLE B-4 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT #3 (Urban Area) 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) OR 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 600 nz. 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) ~ 500 OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) w x a w o 400 y a o w 300 z ~ ~ ~ J ~ 200 t~ = 100 0 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH * NOTE 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE Source: Year 2003 Manual or Un'rform Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highway Administration i Caltrans Urban Area Peak Hour Volume Warrant #3 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP APPENDIX TABLE B-5 Accounting of C/CAG Off-Peak Trip Credits Re uired.TDM Pro am Measures - SSF Ordinance Qu.anti. Credit Ratio: Credif Bic cle Parkin - lon -Term {Class I) Bic cle Parkin -Short-Term (Class II) Total Bic cle Stora e 45 0.33 15 C ool and Van ooI Ridematchin Service 1 0 0 Desi ated Em to er Contact 1 5 5 Direct Route to Transit 1 0 0 Free Parkin for Car ool and Van ools 100% 0 0 Guaranteed Ride Home (assumes 4 tenants) 4 1 4 Information Boards /Kiosks 4 5 20 Passen er Loadin Zones 1 5 5 Pedestrian Connections 1 5 5 Preferential C ooI Parkin 150 2 300 Preferential Van ool Parkin 3 7 21 Promotional Pro ams 1 0 0 Showers /Clothes Lockers 8 10 80 Additional Credit for combination with bi cle Ioclcers 1 5 5 Shuttle Pro am (assumes 8% ridershi -108 em to ees) 108 1 108 Additional Credit for Guaranteed Ride Home ro am 108 1 108 Trans ortation Mana ement Association Partici ation 1 5 5 ,, .r:Sub#otal'`of:C/CAG°PeakTr~. s Credited . '; _ .::681 :~ .... . Additional TDM Measures Bic cle Connections 1 5 5 Future Transit Facilities/Bus Shelter 1 0 0 Ch1-site amenities (Exercise facili ,restaurant) 3 1 3 Additional Credit for combination of an 10 elements 1 5 5 Annual Em Io ee Commute Surve 1 1.5 1.5 Cam us Trans ortation Coordinator 1 20 20 Trans ortafion Fair 1 5 5 .., Subtotal of Addxti:onal~lVieasuires _ `>34 5 Total C/CAG Peak Trips Credited _ 715 4 FINAL FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-042121 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PREPARED BY LAMPHIER -GREGORY )uNE 2006 CONTENTS Page 1. PREFACE ..............................................................................................................................1-1 --- Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report ..........................................................................................1-1 Organization of the Final EIR ...............................................................................................................................1-2 Scope of the EIR ......................................................................................................................................................1-2 Public Review Process .............................................................................................................................................1-3 2. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR .......................................................................................... 2-1 3. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .............................................................................................. 3-1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................3-1 List of Letters ............................................................................................................................................................3-2 _. A. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research ..........................................................3-3 B. California Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................3-7 C. Bay Area Air Quality Management District ..............................................................................................3-11 D. County of San Mateo, Department of Public Works .............................................................................3-17 E. San Francisco International Airport ..........................................................................................................3-21 F. Alexandria Real Estate Equities ..................................................................................................................3-25 .............................................3-2 G. California Department of Transportation ................................................... ~- H. California Department ofTransportation ................................................................................................3-33 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 4-1 --- Appendix A - CO Screening Analysis ......................................................................................................................... Appendix B - URBEMIS 2002 Modeling Output .................................................................................................... Appendix C -Excerpts from South .San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft .Supplemental Environmental Impact Keport .............................................................. Appendix D - Ciry of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance ...................... PREFACE 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides responses to comments submitted by •-~ government agencies, organizations and individuals on the Draft EIR, including the Partial Revision to the Draft EIR, for the 249 East Grand Avenue Project. The EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (commencing with °~- Section 21000 of the California Public Resources Code), and the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency for the Project, as defined by CEQA, is the City of South San Francisco. In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Final EIR consists of the responses to comments and revisions of those portions of the Draft EIR which have been modified in response to comments received during the public review °` period on the Draft EIR. This Final EIR includes copies of all written comments received within the 45-day public review periods following the initial publication of the Draft EIR, as well as the recirculation period for the Partial Revision to the Draft EIR, and provides responses to those comments. In some cases, the responses have also resulted in revisions to the Draft EIR, and all such changes are reflected in this document. As required by CEQA, this document addresses those comments received during the public review period that raise environmental issues. The EIR (which is comprised of the Draft EIR, Partial Revision to the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR) is intended to be certified as a complete and thorough record of the environmental impacts of the proposed Project by the Ciry of South San Francisco. Certification of the EIR as adequate and complete must take place prior to any formal Ciry action on the proposed Project itself, and EIR certification does not equate to approval of the Project. The EIR is meant to provide an objective, impartial source of information to be used by the lead and responsible agencies, as well as the public, in their consideration of the Project. The basic purposes of CEQA are to: • inform governmental decision makers and the public about the environmental effects of proposed activities; _ • involve the public in the decision making process; • identify ways that damage to the environment can be avoided or significantly reduced; and 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1-1 CHAPTER 1: PREFACE ..~ • prevent environmental damage by requiring changes in the project through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures.' ~.. The analysis in the EIR concentrates on those aspects of the Project that are likely to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The EIR identifies reasonable and feasible '"` measures to mitigate (i.e., reduce or avoid) these effects. The CEQA Guidelines define "significant effect on the environment" as "a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project ....i2 The determination of significance of potential environmental effects is based, in part, on the discussion of environmental effects which are normally considered to be significant found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. "' This EIR does not address those environmental factors and effects that have already been determined to be "less than significant", except as necessary to establish a background for the `~ Project. The social or economic issues associated with the proposed Project are not evaluated in the EIR, as these are not considered "environmental" effects. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this environmental review document. 1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR The Final EIR consists of the following major sections: • Preface -outlines the objectives of the EIR and important preliminary information, • Revisions to the Draft EIR -contains revisions to the Draft EIR text, ..,. • Comments and Responses -contains letters of comment on the Draft EIR along with responses to these comments. In response to some comments, the text of the Draft EIR has been modified, with changes indicated as described in the previous paragraph. -~ This EIR has been prepared for the City of South San Francisco (the Lead Agency) by Lamphier-Gregory. The information in the EIR was compiled from a variety of sources, ~- including published studies, applicable maps and independent field investigations. Unless otherwise noted, all background documents are available for inspection at the City of South San Francisco Planning Department. ~. 1.3 SCOPE OF THE FINAL EIR An initial evaluation of the proposed Project by City staff indicated that the development of the project site area as proposed might have several potentially significant environmental impacts 1 State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Ca/ifo»tza Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines, 1995, Section 15002(a). 2 Ibid, Section 15382. PAGE 1-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 : PREFACE (see Executive Summary Chapter of the Draft EIR). The potentially significant project related impacts identified relate to those areas that are listed below: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazardous Materials • Hydrology • Land Use • Noise • Public Services • Transportation and Circulation and • Utilities Each of these topic areas is addressed in the DEIR in its respective chapter. 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was released on April 21, 2005. It is included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, along with responses to comments on the Notice of Preparation. The Draft EIR was circulated fora 45-day period. During this time, the public and responsible agencies and organizations submitted comments on the sufficiency or adequacy of the EIR in r, evaluating the environmental effects of the proposed project. Based on comments received from the California Department of Transportation during this 45-day period, the Transportation and Circulation chapter of the Draft EIR was recirculated for an additional 45-day period as a ...~ Partial Revision to the Draft EIR. Responses to written comments received on the Draft EIR (including the Partial Revision to the ._. Draft EIR) have been prepared, and are presented in this document. The Draft EIR, with the responses to comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review periods, comprise the Final EIR. The Final EIR will be presented to the City Council of the Ciry of South San --- Francisco for review and certification, in accordance with Section 15080 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, certification of the EIR does not constitute approval of the proposed Project. This action only indicates that the record of potential environmental impacts and the ~'- available means of reducing or avoiding these impacts provided in the EIR is adequate and complete. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1-3 .~ CHAPTER 1: PREFACE Upon certification of the EIR, the Ciry Council will make a separate decision on the approval, denial or modification of the Project as proposed. Certification of the EIR as adequate and '•' complete does not imply that the proposed Project has to be approved. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, where there remain significant environmental effects that cannot be reduced to a level of "less than significant", the Project may be approved only where a statement of overriding considerations of social, economic or other benefit can be made and supported with substantial evidence.3 ... s California Public Resources Code Section 21080(e) "...substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. Substantial evidence is not ar~nxment, speculation, ~^ unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment." ..~ PAGE 1-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR 2 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EI R ,_, In response to comments received on the Draft EIR and Partial Revision to the Draft EIR during their 45-day public review periods, the following revisions in the text of the Draft EIR have been made: On DEIR page 5-2, the following text has been revised as follows: In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to address the State requirements of the California Clean Air Act. The Plan has been updated-t-l~r~e several times, in 1994, 1997, 2000, and 2005. with the continued goal of improving air quality through tighter industry _, controls, cleaner fuels and combustion in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives. On DEIR page 5-4, the following text has been revised as follows: The city's General Plan designations, and future land use types and intensities, would have been taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD's 2000 Clean Air Plan and the most „_ recent Clean Air Plan Ba~Area Ozone Strateey), released in early 2006999. The Project would therefore be consistent with population projections used to develop the latest, ~ air, t-I~Clean Air Plan. Projects should reasonably implement applicable TCMs to be considered ._._ consistent with regional clean air planning efforts. Most of the TCMs listed in the latest clean air plans are not directly applicable to the project. ,r„ Under the General Plan~olicies the project would be required to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM plan to reduce project trips The City of South San Francisco promotes reduction in parking from City zoning standards as a way to support trip reduction .._ goals rewired per the City's TDM ordinance and sported by various policies in the General Plan The TDM plan along with General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures identified in the Transportation and Circulation Chapter itigation Measures 13-1 13-2 13-3, 13-5. 13-6, and -°- 13-9) would reasonabl~~lement TCMs consistent with those contained in the latest approved Clean Air Plan. On DEIR page 5-4, the following text has been added as follows: Impact 5-1 Construction Dust and Exhaust. Construction activity involves a high .~~. potential for the emission of air pollutants. Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-1 .. CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR .«~ matter emissions that would affect local air quality. This would be a potentially significant impact. •- On DEIR page 5-4, the following text has been added as follows: ... Construction activities from on-site equipment and truck deliveries would emit toxic air contaminants and air pollutants that are not regulated by the BAAOMD These emissions, altho~ temporary, could affect nearby land uses as well as the Early Years Children's Center '- It is unlikely that significant health risks would occur due to• 1 the temporary nature of construction activity 2 the separation distances between sensitive receptors and the project and 3) the relativel~gh occurrence of moderate to strong winds during the construction season In "" order to be protective of the health of nearby sensitive receptors as well as reduce emissions that could affect regional air quality the project should implement additional construction period mitigation measures. These would be measures beyond those normally recommended by `"~ the BAAOMD to ensure air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. On DEIR page 5-5, the following text has been added as follows: Optional Measures Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. `'"" Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts} exceed 25 mph. ~"' Measures to Reduce Exhaust Emissions The mitigation measures listed below should be implemented to reduce diesel particulate matter and NOx emissions from on-site construction equipment• ..R r • At least 50 percent of the heavy-duty off-road equipment used for construction shall be CARB-certified off-road engines or equivalent, or use alternative fuels (such as biodiesel or water emulsion fuel} that result ~` in lower emissions. • Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or ..a particulate filters. • Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate emissions from off-road diesel powered equipment The project shall ensure that emissions from all construction diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not ,~„ exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour PAGE 2-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT r-i FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Any eduipment found to exceed 40 percent opacit~(or Ringelmann 2.01 ~" shall be prohibited from use on the site until repaired. • The contractor shall install temporaryelectrical service whenever possible ~' to avoid the need for independently powered eduipment (e.~., compressorsl. • Diesel ec~uiament standing idle for more than two minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, ~aregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site. ® • Properly tune and maintain ecluipment for low emissions. On DEIR page 5-6, the following revisions were made as follows: The screening_computations were made .,..~a,.' ---~~ °~-~ for each intersection for the PM Peak Hour for existing CO concentrations, as well as CO levels in 2008 with and without the Project and 2020 Cumulative Conditions. The following table details the results of the ~'~'~--~^ r,r~a,.' NCO analysis. ..~ On DEIR page 5-7, Table 5-2 was revised as follows: TABLE 5-2 -- LOCALIZED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS (parts per million) Model Scenario Allerton/East Grand CO Concentration Oyster Point/Gateway CO Concentration 1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour Existing ~A8 5_9 X4-5 4_1 ~ 7_2 X18 5_0 2008 no Project ~ 7_1 ~ 5_0 ~ 9_6 ~ 6_7 2008 with Project ~:~-9 7_1 ~e 5_0 ~8 9_9 X1-9 6_9 2020 Cumulative 4.9 3.4 6.1 4.3 Includes background CO level of 5 ppm for 1-hour and 2.8 ppm for 8-hour levels ON DEIR page 5-7, the following text has been revised as follows: ~~ In any scenario, CO emissions would not reach the thresholds established by the BAAQMD of 20 parts per million over a 1-hour period, or 9 parts per million over an 8-hour period. As 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-3 .~ CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR shown in the above table, CO emissions in the area would increase by 2008 with the proposed Project. However, because ~99~ CO concentrations associated with project emissions levels in "^` the area would remain below B ambient air quality standards, this impact would be less than significant. On DEIR page 5-7, the following text has been revised as follows: CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE IMPACTS The Project would 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. ... The DEIR used an out of date model URBEMIS 7G which over estimated the emissions from direct (areal and indirect (vehicles) emissions The FEIR includes an updated analysis of project emissions using the URBEMIS 2002 (version 8 ~ model The project size along with the trip ~""' generation rate forecasted by CTG was input to the mode) The modeling assumed that the project would be fully constructed and occupied in 2008 Default assumptions for the San Francisco Bay Area were used. The URBEMIS 2002 ~ «~ ~s-~e-~i fre~rr~e-~e7ce~t , TTDR~",rTC~r' "~ -' 'calculations were performed in order to determine whether the Project would exceed air emissions thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), e~ Nitrogen Oxides (NOJ and Carbon Monoxide (CO). Emissions thresholds are 80 pounds per day for ROG and NOx and 550 pounds per day for CO (if the project is a source of stationary emissions The Project's total emissions are estimated at ,,,. 63 pounds per day_(lbs/da~ for ROG, 641bs/day for NOx and are ~~~~-~-~~~~-' ~~ ~^ 631bs./day for PM,o. These emissions are below the significance thresholds established by thethe BAAOMD, thus this impact would be less than significant. .. On DEIR page 5-7, Impact 5-2 has been revised as follows: ..~ Impact 5-2 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. The proposed Project would not exceed BAA MD emissions thresholds ~`~-for ROG, NOx bed~~ ,and PM~~. This would be a .. less than significant im~iact. However. mitigation is proposed to further reduce these impacts. On DEIR page 5-7, Mitigation Measure 5-2 has been revised as follows: Mitigation Measure 5-2 Transportation Demand Management Program. Implementation of a .. Transportation Demand Management Program is required, as described in Mitigation Measure 13-1 of the Transportation and Circulation chapter. This ..R lan would reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from the Project site.; ~..,~ ~t-„ t- rTn ~a ~~, is r.- , , ~__.. ~„ PAGE 2-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ~l~-The following components should be included in the plan to further reduce project impacts to air quality: _- • Sugport shuttle service to BART and Caltrain. There are currently shuttles that serve employers in the area. The project could become a sponsoring employer so that shuttles would serve the site providing -°- employees an alternative mode of commuting. • Provide bicycle amenities so that employees could bicvcle to the project. °" Such amenities could include safe onsite bicvcle access and convenient storag~bike racks). Amenities for employees could include secure bicycle parking, lockers, and shower facilities • The project should include sidewalks with shade trees that provide safe and convenient access to the project and any shuttle or future bus stows that serve the Project. • Impact 13-9 of the Transportation and Circulation Section discusses the on-site pedestrian and bicvcle circulation incorporated into the project. Mitigation Measure 13-9 would require an internal sidewalk to ensure adequate pedestrian circulation. • For all buildings. provide outdoor electrical outlets and encourage the use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment. Also provide electrical outlets for recharging electrical vehicles in commercial and industrial parking lots Provide 110 and 220 Volt outlets at all loading docks and ~._ prohibit trucks from usin_,g their auxiliary equipment powered by diesel engines for more than 5 minutes. ...._ • Provide new trees that would shade buildings and walkways in summer to reduce the cooling loads on buildings. .,., On DEIR page 5-8, the following deletion has been made as follows: The proposed Project could expose the Earle Years Children's Center to on-site emissions __ during ~~~~~°~---`~~~ ~~a operation of the Project. On DEIR page 5-8, the following addition has been made as follows: Issues of toxic air contaminants are discussed in Chapter 8 of this document. The project could include laboratory facilities or stationary equipment that emits air pollution _.._ hP ¢~, standby emergenc~9enerators) These sources could emit small amounts of toxic air contaminants The BAAOMD requires Permits for stationary combustion equipment and largY 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-5 f-- ^w CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR laboratory facilities. Small laboratories are exempt since their emissions would not likelypose an adverse impact to the public Stationary equipment or laboratories that subject to permitting '""^ requirements must show that impacts to the public would be negligible (e g cancer risks would be less than 10 in one million}. As a result these facilities would pose aless-than-significant im act. *~ ODORS During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. On DEIR page 9-3, the following text has been deleted as follows: On DEIR page 9-10, the following text has been deleted as follows: On DEIR page 9-10, the following text has been added as follows, replacing the sentence deleted on the same page as shown above: .,,p 1) The period between November 1 and May 1 is hereby determined to be the period in which heave rainfall normally occurs in the city ,~,,, During this period no grading work in excess of 200 cubic yards will be authorized on any single grading site under permit where the Cit~Engineer determines that such work ,,,,, will adversel~mpact the public health, safety or welfare Previously authorized rg ading work. which extends into the rainy season shall be protected by incorporating temporary erosion control devices. Plans of erosion control devices shall be submitted to the Citv •-~ Engineer no later than September 1 and design approval obtained not later than October 1_ prior to the rainy season. The design of desilting basins which discharge into city streets or natural water courses shall be under the control of the City Engineer. ... Temporary erosion controls and devices including desilting basins shall be installed no later than November 1. The Ci En ineer in the erformance of his duties ma add: 1. Regulations as to the use of public streets and places in the course of the work .-• 2. Requirements for safe and adequate drainage of the site ~. 3. A requirement that approval of the city engineer be secured before an~work, which has been commenced may be discontinued PAGE 2-6 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT 0 FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 4 A requirement that men and eduipment be provided at the site during storms to -- prevent incomplete work from endangering.life or property. 5 Requirements for fencing of excavation or fills which would be hazardous °- without such fencing. On DEIR page 9-14, the following text has been deleted as follows: The Project applicant shall implement ene-e€ the following tie mitigation measure sEe~ies for Impact 9-4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that the Project design -- has mitigated the potential impact to a level of less than significant. Implementation of this ewe ~~ mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than significant. On DEIR page 11-6, the following text has been added as follows: AIRPORTS The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and future (2006) airport noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. The broposed aroiect site is located about one _an a half miles north of the SFO. and is subiect to flights using the Shoreline charted visual departure procedure and overflown on a daily basis, which `+ defending on weather conditions can comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SFO departures. However these contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future airport noise contours. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-7 CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR On DEIR page 13-10, the following table has been revised as follows: TABLE 13-1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DM PFeK N(111R YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020 Intersection Existin W10 Pro ect + Pro'ect W10 Pro'ect + Pro'ect AirporllMiller195 101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-15.21~~ C-24.7 C-25.0 C-28.0 C-28.3 AirporUGrand (Signal) C-28.811 D-48.8 D-51.7 D-38.5 D-39.7 DubuquelE. Grand (Signal) A-5.711 A-5.7 A-5.7 A-6.3 A-6.3 GatewaylE.Grand/E.Grand Overcrossing (Signal) C-25.41~> C-33:3 28.1 D-02:3 37.4 C-26.9 C-33.7 HarborlE.Grand/Forbes (Signal) B-13.710 C-29.1 D-54:3 50.2 D-36.5 D-41.7 Project Driveway@ E.Grand (Signal) B-10.711 A-6.7 5-33:I B- 17.2 A-4.5 5-~6 B- 14.2 Littlefield/E.Grand (Signal) B-17.411 F-87.2 F-106.4 8-4~ C- 28.4 8-53:8 C- 30.1 S.AirporUU.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps (Signal) B-16.211 B-2A:918.9 B-2019.0 €-7&2 C- 24.6 E-77:6 C- 25.0 Utah/S.Airport (Signal) C-29.611 D-50.9 E-59.2 C-24.1 C-25.2 Oyster Point/GatewaylFlyover (Signal) B-15.01~> C-~-2 29.4 C-2~ 36.9 C-25.8 C-29.8 Oyster Point/Eccles (Signal) A-8.0111 6-24.9 B- 10.5 8-44-3 B- 12.1 B-11.0 B-14.7 Oyster Point/Gull (Signal) B_1~ 14.911 B-1-5-~ 15.2 5-24.9 B- 15.2 B-15.8 B-15.8 Gateway/S.AirportlMitchell (Signal) B-16.411 C-20.0 8-~0-1~ C- 20.2 C-34.5 D-35.6 AirporUSan MateolProduce (Signal) C-20.911 C-26.6 C-27.1 C-27.1 C-27.4 Allerton/E.Grand (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-15.61~~ F-57.9 F-94.5 B-14.6 (1) B-15.8 (1) Cabot/Allerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) B-10.11 A-9.9131 B-10.51 B-10.1 B-13.51 B-11.9 B-10.71 B-10.5 B-13.91 B-13.0 Forbes/Allerton (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-16.8141 C-18.6 E-49.7 C-23.6 F-90.9 0 i'1 Signalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds. ~ (z) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to E. Grand Ave. ~3> Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to Forbes Ave. ^*^ ~^> Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton/Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton. .~ Year 2000 Highway Capacity tlilanual Analysis b4ethodology. Source: Crane Transportation Group ~.,~ PAGE 2-8 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR ~,~ CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR On DEIR page 13-10, the following table has been revised as follows: TABLE 13-2 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE PM PEAK HntJR YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020 Intersection Existin W/0 Pro'ect + Pro'ect W/O Pro ect + Pro'ect Airport/Millerl95101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-17.7 l~l C-21.0 C-21.1 C-27.9 C-28.0 Airport/Grand (Signal) D-36.511 D-38.9 D-39.6 C-34.2 C-34.6 DubuquelE. Grand (Signal) A-4.211 A-6.2 A-6.4 A-6.9 A-7.2 Gateway/E.GrandlE.Grand Overcrossing (Signal) B-19.711 C-24.3 0 C-28-.4 26.7 C-28.6 C-29.4 HarborlE.Grand/Forbes (Signal) C-22.11'1 ~8 D- 37.0 D-53.4 D-40.1 D-45.5 Project Driveway@ E.Grand (Signal) B-16.01'> A-8.5 9-45•:5 D- 49.4 A-7.6 8 D-54-3 47.8 Littlefield/E.Grand (Signal) B-11.511 B-12.8 B-13.6 C-23.7 4 C-24.5 0 S.AirportlU.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps (Signal) B-a-8-418.3t~1 C-2~:7 21.1 C-~?7 21.1 C-24.5 2 C-24.5 2 UtahlS.Airport (Signal) B-17.91'1 C-20.4 C-20.9 C-23.3 C-23.7 Oyster PointlGatewaylFlyover (Signal) C-26.81'1 D-54.2 9 E-5A~ 61.9 E-7~4 73.2 F-32:4 82.9 Oyster PointlEccles (Signal) B-17.5 711 8-40 C- 23.7 9-59 C- 26.0 C-20.6 C-22.9 Oyster PointlGull (Signal) B-1-7-216_71'1 S-~$:7 B- 19.8 t~6 C- 21.0 C-24.5 C-25.7 GatewaylS.Airpod/Mitchell (Signal) C-25.01'1 F-81.1 F-133.5 0 C-28.0 C-31.4 Airport/San MateolProduce (Signal) C-24.61~> D-37.8 D-52.1 D-36.51 D-43:8 42.1 AllertonlE.Grand (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-20.4121 F-522 F-835 B-15.1 (1) B-19.6 (1) CabotlAllerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) A-9.8/ B-10.1131 A-9.9/ B-10.2 B-14.01 B-10.8 A-10.01 B-10.3 B-14.61 B-11.0 ForbeslAllerton Allerton Stop Sign Control) B-14.3141 B-14.4 C-19.3 8 C-16.6 C-24.2 .~. 1'~ Signalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds. ~z> Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to E. Grand Ave. .,,_ ~3> Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to Forbes Ave. ~°> Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton/Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-9 r- CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR On DEIR page 16-4, the following text has been revised as follows: The development of the Project site as proposed would contribute to a permanent increase in reduced freeway Levels of Service, representing significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. Cumulative traffic impacts resulting from other anticipated projects in the East of 101 Area are identified in Tables 13-5 and 13-6 of this document. .. ..~. .~ PAGE 2-10 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR 3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter contains comments on the Draft EIR (including the Partial Revision to the Draft -- EIR) for the 249 East Grand Avenue Project. Letters received during the 45-day public review periods are listed in Section 3.2. Each letter is marked to identify distinct comments on the Draft EIR. Responses to these comments are provided following each letter. Throughout the responses to comments, where a specific comment has been addressed previously, a reference to the response in which the comment is discussed may be provided in order to reduce repetition. -- As noted in the PREFACE, in several instances responding to a comment received on the Draft EIR has resulted in a revision to the text of the Draft EIR. In other cases, the information provided in the responses is deemed adequate in itself, and modification of the Draft EIR text '"" was not necessary. Responses presented in this document focus only on those comments which bear a direct °' relationship to the Draft EIR and raise environmental issues, as required under CEQA. While other comments that are not directly related to the Draft EIR or do not raise environmental issues are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers, it is beyond the scope of the Final EIR to provide responses to Project merits. The letters received on the Draft EIR are listed below. Each letter has been marked to identify ` each specific comment in the right-hand margin (i.e., A-1, B-2, etc.). Following each letter, the response to each identified comment in that letter is presented sequentially (for example, the first comment on the Draft EIR identified in LETTER A is identified as A-1 in the right-hand margin of the letter, and the corresponding response immediately following LETTER A is coded as RESPONSE A-1). In order to avoid repetition, where individual comments focus on the same issues raised in a previous comment or comments, the response to those comments may make reference to a previous response or responses. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-1 CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3.2 LIST OF LETTERS The following comment letters were received by the City of South San Francisco during the Focused EIR's public review period: .,~ A. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, November 22, 2005. B. California Department of Transportation, November 22, 2005. ^- C. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, November 22, 2005. D. County of San Mateo, Department of Public Works, November 22, 2005. E. San Francisco International Airport, November 21, 2005. .. F. Alexandria Real Estate Equities, November 18, 2005. G. California Department of Transportation, December 23, 2005. H. California Department of Transportation, May 11, 2006. ... r-~ .., PAGE 3-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR pl F ': - m STATE OF CALIFORNIA m o ~ ~ Governor's Office of Plannin and Research °~ ~_. .~ ~~:: ~ g °~tiFOnN~p ~ - ,~rATEOFCAIIf~~a`4 State Clearinghouse .and. Planning. Unit Sean Walsh ~.., Arnold . Director Schwarzenegger Governor ,W„ November 22, 2005 e tte r Susy Kalldn ~ ~ C E ~ ~ E [~ City of South San Francisco ~~ ~ 2 P.O.-Box 71:1 ~(~®J~ 315. Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 P~~~6~1p~G Subject: 249 East Grand Avenue Office / R&D Project ._._ SCH#: 2005042121 - Dear Susy Kallcin: w The State Clearinghouse submitted the. above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on November 21, 2005, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft A' 1 _._. environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review;process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the r.- ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, - -- Terry Ro s_ Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3Q44 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 ,_ TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2005042121 '" Project Title 249 East Grand Avenue Office / R&D Project Lead Agency South San Francisco, City of ... Type EIR Draft EIR Description Construction of a phased development consisting of four office/ R&D buildings totaling approximately 534,500 sq. ft., including approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of ancillary retail/commercial space, surface ,~, parking and a 4-level parking structure. Lead Agency Contact Name Susy Kalkin Agency City of South San Francisco Phone (650) 877-8535 Fax email "" Address P.O. Box 711 315 Maple Avenue City South San Francisco Sfafe CA Zip 94083 ,~,,, Project Location County San Mateo .~ City South San Francisco Region Cross Streets East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Ave. Parcel No. 015-050-440, 015-050-450 -- Township Range Section Base Proximity to: .,. Highways Hwy. 101, I-380 Airports San Francisco International Railways Union Pacific ,~ Waterways San Francisco Bay, Colma Creek Schools Land Use GP: Business and Technology Park .~ Project Issues Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; *~ Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; Caiifornia Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Department of Health Services; Native American Heritage Commission; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Regional Water Quality .. Control Board, Region 2; Integrated Waste Management Board Date Received 1 010 712 0 0 5 SfartofReview 10/07/2005 End of Review 11/21/2005 "~~" .,~ ..i...,.. o~.,.,i... ;,, a.,+„ f;~ia~ rociJ4frnm inmiffiriant infnrmatinn nrnvirlarl by lead aClenCV. CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter A: State of California Governor's Office of Planning & Research, Nov. 22, 2005. Response to Comment A-1: Comment noted. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY _ ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE „~'. O. BOX 23660 JAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 Flex your power! ?HONE (510) 286-5505 Be energy efficient! --QTY (800) 735-2929 November 22, 2005 P~~~NI~G SM101408 SM-101-22.14 SCH2O05042121 Ms. Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Letter B Dear Ms. Kalkin: ~- 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project -Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) -' Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. Our primary concern with the project is the potentially significant impact it may have to traffic volume and congestion. Although Section 13, Transportation and Circulation B_ 1 ,,.., addressed most of our concerns, the Department needs to review the traffic operational analysis input data to be more thorough in our review. Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988. Sincerely, ' ~ p tee TIMOTH~„~C. SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) "Caltr¢ns improves mobility ¢cross C¢liforni¢" CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter B: California Department of Transportation, November 22, 2005. Response to Comment B-1: The data requested by the California Department of Transportation was submitted to the Department upon receipt of their comment letter. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-9 BAY 1~REA --1~I RCZUAL ITY MANAGEMENT ;- D I S T R 1 C T ePe~ rHF~f 'r ~~ 19SS-2005 ~ w O J J ~yF'I LT H IE~F ALAMEDA COUNTY Roberta Cooper ~-- Scott Haggerty Nate Miley Shelia Yaung `:ONTRA COSTA COUNTY Mark DeSaulnier Mark Ross (Secretary) ,.... Michael Shimansky Gayle B. Uilkema (Vice-Chairperson) MARIN COUNTY Harold C. Brown, Jr NAPA COUNTY ---- Brad Wagenknecht SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY Chris Daly -- Jake McGoldrick Gavin Newsom SAN MATED COUNTY Jerry Hill Marland Townsend (Chairperson) '"SANTA CLARA COUNTY Erin Garner Liz Kniss Patrick Kwok ..-, Julia Miller SOLANO COUNTY John F. Silva ^"- SONOMA COUNTY Tim Smith Pamela Torliatt "-' Jack P. Broadbent {ECUTIVE OFFICER/APCO November 22, 2005 Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 ette r South San Francisco, CA 94083 ~ C ~' ~ ~ E ~ Subject: 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~5 Dear Ms. Kalkin: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) staff have reviewed your agency's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project (project). The project consists of approximately 534,500 square feet of commercial space for business and technology park use, as well as approximately 5,500 square feet of ancillary retaiUcommercial space. District staff recommend that the Final Environmental hnpact Report (FEIR} include additional information"and analysis to provide a clearer understanding of the project's potential impacts. For example, the FEIR should include the URBEMIS assumptions that were used to quantify the emission estimates provided in the DEIR and to determine the air quality impacts of this project. We also recommend that the FEIR provide the estimate of area source emissions that the URBEMIS model .calculated. for this project.. Finally, the DEIR states on page 5-8 in regard to toxic-.air contaminants. (TACs} that "the District estimates how much of a contaminant would be found in the air at a specific location." We would like to clarify that all TACs may not be accounted for in our analyses of a permit application. A comprehensive analysis should be completed as part of this environmental review process that takes into consideration those sources not subject to District pennit regulations. For instance, the District's pennit review and toxics analysis does not look at the emissions from diesel trucks from the project area and has no authority to regulate these mobile sources of TACs. We recommend that the FEIR inchide an analysis of the cumulative impacts from TACs, including diesel emissions, in the project area. Based on the analysis contained in the DEIR, the proposed project will result in significant air quality impacts from the project individually and cumulatively. The DEIR includes Mitigation Measure 13-1 that proposes iinplementulg a transportation demand management (TDM) plan to reduce single occupant vehicle trips by promoting non-auto travel to employees. We support requiring the applicant to implement a TDM plan and also recommend including additional feasible mitigation measures to further reduce the project's significant air quality impacts. These include, but are not limited to: requiring employers to participate in Caltrain's GoPass program that provides -all employees with a transit pass; providing employees with a parking cash-out incentive. to reduce the C-1 C-2 C-3 939 ELLIS STREET ® SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94109 ®415.771.6000 ° WWW.BAAQMD.GOV Ms. Susy Kalkin -2- November 22, 2005 likelihood of driving alone; and charging employees to park on site. In addition to such trip reduction measures, additional mitigation measures that can reduce operational emissions from the project include: utilizing only electric forklifts and landscaping equipment in the project operations and the operations of tenants; providing 110 and 220 volt outlets at all loading docks and requiring all trucks to connect with these outlets to power their auxiliary equipment; and posting signs at all loading zones and loading docks limiting the idling of trucks in these locations to three minutes. These measures are readily available, cost-effective, and reduce criteria pollutants and TACs. We recommend that the FEIR evaluate the effectiveness of each of the recommended measures both qualitatively and quantitatively (when possible) to determine if the project's air quality impacts are reduced below the District's significance thresholds. Any mitigation measures considered infeasible should be identified in the FEIR as well as the justification for that determination. We recommend that the FEIR address the project's potential to increase the demand for energy acid generate area source emissions from project operations. Increasing the demand for electricity, natural gas, and gasoline may result in an increase of criteria air pollutant emissions from generation of energy, as well as an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which can impact regional air quality. We recommend that the FEIR discuss energy demand of the project at build-out, including any cumulative impacts on energy use from this project and other planned projects in the area, such as the need to build "peaker power plants" to provide power during peak demand. We recommend including all feasible strategies that will reduce energy consumption and the severity of air quality impacts, including but not limited to the use of: super-efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC} systems; light-colored and reflective roofing materials, pavement treatments and other energy efficient building materials; the most mature, viable shade trees adjacent to buildings and in parking lots; photovoltaic panels on buildings; and natural light and energy-eff dent lighting. We commend the City for implementing all feasible control measures in Mitigation Measure 5-1 for fiigitive dust emissions from grading and construction. The District does not typically recommend quantification of construction emissions associated with construction activities, but instead bases its threshold of significance for fugitive dust on implementation of all feasible control measures listed in Table 2 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Further, the kinds of construction equipment commonly used in development projects are primarily diesel- powered, and with continuous use, can lead to significant diesel particulate matter and ozone precursor emissions. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has identified diesel engine particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant and known carcinogen. Diesel emissions have also been shown to cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. Acrolein, an air pollutant found in diesel exhaust, has been shown to cause irritation to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, thereby exacerbating asthma symptoms. Diesel particulate matter could therefore have acute short-term impacts and a disproportionate effect on sensitive receptors (such as the elderly, children, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants}. Impacts from diesel exhaust are of particular concern because the project is located approximately 400 feet west of the Early Years Children's Center. ..~ .. ..,. C-3 ..~ ..~ ... C-4 ~' ... .... C-5 ._ ~:~ Ms. Susy Kalkin -3- November 22, 2005 To minimize exposure to TACs from diesel emissions on adjacent sensitive receptors during constriction, we recommend that the project implement the following measures: ensure constriction equipment engines are tuned to manufacturer's specifications; minimize the idling ,.,,,, time of diesel powered construction equipment to three minutes; use alternative fueled construction equipment (CNG, biodiesel, water emulsion fuel, electric); use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters; use diesel construction equipment that meets the ARB's 2000 or newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines; phase the construction of the project; and limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment. We recommend that the applicant stipulate the required control measures in ,^ constriction contracts. We also recommend that the FEIR evaluate the effectiveness of each of the recommended measures both qualitatively and quantitatively (when possible). Any mitigation measures considered infeasible should be identified in the FEIR as well as the _- justification for that determination. For more details on our agency's guidaalce regarding environmental review, we --- recommend that the City refer to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. This document provides information on best practices for assessing and mitigating air quality impacts related to projects and plans, including construction emissions, land use/design measures, project operations, motor --- vehicles, and nuisance impacts. If you do not already have a copy of our BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, we recommend that you obtain a copy by calling our Public Information Division at (415) 749-4900 or downloading the online version from the District's web site at -- http://www.baagmd.~ov/pln/cega/index.asp. If you have any questions regarding these coirunents, please contact Douglas Kolozsvari, -- Enviroiunental Planner, at (415) 749-4602. Sincerely, JR:DK ~ 1, yy/~ 7 ~ Jean ' oggenkamp Duty Air Po11_ution Control Officer C-5 CC: BAAQMD Du-ector Jeny Hill BAAQMD Director Marland Townsend CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter C: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, November 22, 2005. Response to Comment C-1: The Final EIR includes a more comprehensive analysis that shows consistency with Clean Air Plan assumptions, a discussion of TCM implementation at the project level, updated carbon monoxide analysis that included background levels, updated URBEMIS 2002 modeling (using Version 8.7), and additional discussion of construction exhaust emissions along with identification of additional mitigation measures to ensure less than significant impact. The CO screening analysis and URBEMIS 2002 modeling output are provided in the Appendices. Response to Comment C-2: The Final EIR discusses the impacts of toxic air contaminants (TACs) in more detail than the Draft EIR. It should be noted that sources of the project TAC _... emissions cannot be fully identified at this time, because the exact nature of the site use is unknown. It is unlikely that the project would generate an amount of truck traffic that would significantly impact sensitive receptors in the area. Truck traffic related to construction activities ~-- would be of a limited duration. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, diesel exhaust is a growing concern in the Bay ...._ Area, and mobile sources are by far the largest source of diesel emissions. The guidelines also indicate that regulatory actions needed to address diesel exhaust are largely handled by the California Air Resources Board (GARB), which first identified particulate matter from diesel- -- fueled engines as a TAC in 1998. GARB (2005) recommends a setback for sensitive receptors of 500 feet for freeways or arterials with large volumes of truck traffic. These are conservative recommendations that do not take into account substantially reduced emission rates of future '" truck fleets. It is unlikely that project construction or operation activities would generate truck volumes that even approach 1/10``' of the volumes on freeways or large arterials, and therefore, one could conclude that the project traffic generation would not cause a significant impact with respect to TAC emissions. As construction diesel emissions are both temporary and transient in nature, their impacts would be limited. ~' The Draft EIR identified the closest sensitive receptor as the Early Years Children's Center, located on Allerton Avenue. Truck traffic accessing the site during construction or operation is unlikely to pass by this school. A significant impact would occur if the projects' effects caused an increase in the chance of contracting cancer of 10 in one million or greater. The Final EIR, without conducting a detailed health risk assessment of the relatively low truck volumes that the project would cause, predicts a risk of less than 10 in one million. Response to Comment C-3: As noted on Page 2-4 of this Final EIR, revisions to the project's direct and indirect emissions modeling found that the impacts would actually be below BAAQMD thresholds for projects, which the Draft EIR used to judge the projects impacts in terms of "a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project „„ region is non-attainment..." The Final EIR reflects this change, but continues to include the mitigation measure requiring implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. It should be noted that the Ciry requires the TDM plan, and components of the TDM 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-15 CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .~. plan are also identified as mitigation for transportation and circulation impacts. The mitigation measures specifically identify the components of the plan that would further reduce impacts to local and regional air quality. These include supporting employer-sponsored shuttle services to BART and Caltrain. Additional measures were added in response to the BAAQMD's comment. It should be noted that the City requires a reduction in parking capacity as described under """ Impact 13-8, On.rite Parking. The project impact to air quality with or without these measures would be less than significant. «. Response to Comment C-4: Because electrical generating facilities for the San Francisco Bay Area are located either outside the region or are offset through the use of pollution credits, pollution from offsite generation of electricity is generally excluded from the evaluation of ... project significance. The URBEMIS 2002 modeling includes air pollutant emissions associated with natural gas usage for a land use of the type - O~ce Park. The exact nature of the project use has not been identified, and therefore, the energy usage is unknown. A project that includes large laboratories could use considerably more energy, but unlikely enough more energy to change the impact finding from less than significant to significant. ,~ Response to Comment C-5: Page 2-2 of the Final EIR includes additional mitigation measures to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and criteria air pollutants during construction. These measures should ensure that impacts would be less than significant, especially for the Early Years Children Center. r PAGE 3-16 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR .., Department of Public Works RECEIVED IY Q V ~ Q L~J~~ PLANi~l~G BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARK CHURCH RICHARD S. GORDON JERRY HILL ROSE JACOBS GIBBON ADRIENNE TISSIER NEIL R. CULLEN DIRECTOR 555 COUNTY CENTER, 5T" FLOOR • REDWOOD CITY • CALIFORNIA 94063-1665 • PHONE (650) 363-4100 • FAX (650) 361-8220 November 22, 2005 Ms. Susy Kalkin, Principal Plamier .- Plaimin~ Division. City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 -- South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Kalkin: Letter D Re: Comments on Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report, 249 East G><•and Avenue (APN O1S-OSO-440) in South San Francisco (SCH #2005042121) We have reviewed the Draft Focused Enviromnental Impact Report for the redevelopment of 249 East Grand Avenue in South San Francisco and offer the following comments: The District is reiterating its position that the project site is located outside the Colma Creels Flood Control Zone and as such stone water runoff from the site should not be directed to the -- Zone's Flood Control Channel, namely Colma Creels. We are aware that a portion of the project site currently drains to a stone drain system that flows to Cohna Creels. It is the District's belief that existing drainage patterns must be reconfigured during redevelopment such that they are -" consistent with the Zone boundary. 1. Mitigation Measure 9-4 (Pg 9-14) of this report offers two proposed mitigation "' scenarios for Impact 9-4: "Site Drains to Colma Creek Flood Control Channel." Mitigation Scenario 1 proposes to route all stone waters out of the Colma Creels °~ Watershed. Mitication Scenario 2 proposes that in lieu of rerouting all flows to the southeastern ~`" corner of the project site out of the Cohna Creek Watershed, the project applicant could enter into an agreement with the Cohna Creels Flood Control District to be included in the Colma Creels Flood Control Zone (Zone). Ms. Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner, City of South San Francisco Re: Comments on Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report, 2491';ast Grand Avenue {APN 015-050-440) in South San Francisco (SCH #2005042121) '~" November 22, 2005 Page 2 '" .~ District Comment: The Zone boundary is based on the Colma Creek watershed and camiot be modified to meet the needs of proposed projects. Mitigation Scenario 2 is not available to ~-1 the project. Mitigation Scenario 1 is all appropriate mitigation measure as it is consistent with the Cohna Creels Flood Control Zone. 2. The last sentence of the 2"d paragraph on Page 9-3 (Flooding) states that flood control improvements to Colma Creek since the effective date of the FEMA FIRM have ,,,, reduced flooding along the Colma Creels Cha>imel. This claim is based upon a telephone conversation with Kelvin Munar of the City of South San Francisco on June 21, 2005, according to footnote #5. „~ District Comment: We believe it is more appropriate to state that there is a reduced potential for upstream flooding caused by stonnwater leaving the clia>ulel due to upstream chalnlel improvements. We do not believe hydrologic studies have been conducted to support D_2 Mr. Munar's claim. The claim should be removed or it should be noted in the body of the text that the observation is not based upon rigorous engineering study. I can be reached at {650) 599-1417 should you have any questions or need additional information. Very truly yours, ~n,~l~~9~XLc,~ - Aml M. Stillman, P.E. ~- Principal Civil Engineer Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection AMS:MC:CSadd F:\USERS\ADMIN\CIT[ES\SSF\2005\249 E. Grand Ave -Draft EIR.doc G:\USERSIUTILITY\Colma Creek FCD\WORD\Review External Project12005~49 E. Grand Ave -Draft EIR.doc F-149 (9H) cc: Mr. Terry White, Director of Public Work, City of South San Francisco Neil R. Cullen, Director of Public Worlcs ..~ CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter D: County of San Mateo Department of Public Works, November 22, 2005. Response to Comment D-1: The DEIR has been revised to eliminate Mitigation Measure 9-4 Scenario 2, as shown on page 2-7 of this Final EIR. Response to Comment D-2: The DEIR has been revised to delete the following sentence, as also shown on page 2-6 of this Final EIR. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-19 RECEi1/E~ ~ 0 V 2 2 ZOQ~ PLANNING November 21, 2005 San Francisco International Airport P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128 Tel 650.821.5000 Fax 650.821.5005 www.flysfo.com Ms. Susie Kalkin Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division AIRPORT p O. Box 711 COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY South San Francisco, CA 94083 OF SAN FRANCISCO Subject: Comments on 249 East Grand Avenue/R & D Project - GAVIN NEWTON Draft Focused EIR (SCH#2005052121) MAYOR LARRY MAZZOLA Dear Ms. Kalkin: PRESIDENT MICHAEL S. STRUNSKY Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 249 East Grand Avenue/R & D VICE PRESIDENT Project -Draft Focused EIR (DFEIR). San Francisco International Airport (SFO) has reviewed the potential environmental impacts identified in the DFEIR and LINDA S.CRAYTON believes there are potential aviation related noise impacts on the proposed project that CARYL ITO should receive further discussion in the Noise Chapter. Furthermore, the Cumulative Projects (Chapter 16.5) does not include an evaluation of recent projects undergoing ELEANOR JOHNS review in the East of 101 Plan area. Our specific comments are as follows: JOHN L. MARTIN The DFEIR noise analysis indicates that the project site is located outside of the 65- AIRPORT DIRECTOR CNEL noise contour, and therefore, aircraft noise will have no adverse impacts. However, the proposed project site is located about one and a half miles north of SFO. The proposed project location is subject to flights using the Shoreline charted visual departure procedure and overflown on a daily basis, at altitudes ranging from 1,000 to 2,500 MSL using climb power settings while executing a right turn over the East of 101 area of South San Francisco. The climb power settings result in an increased noise signature for the departing aircraft. The DFEIR should more fully analyze and disclose the noise impacts arising from the development's proximity to the Airport. In fact, depending on weather conditions, the Shoreline from Runway 28 and PORTE -- procedures from Runway 1 comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SFO departures. In addition, aircraft using the Skyline departure route originating from Oakland International Airport also directly overfly the proposed project site. E-1 Ms. Susie Kalkin November 21, 2005 Page 2 SFO also concurs with ALUC comments with respect to Height of Structures/Airspace Protection and Aircraft Noise/Overflights, as stated in their staff comment letter on the Notice of Preparation dated May 23, 2005. In particular, we concur that the City of South San Francisco shall require the project sponsor to file a FAA Form 7460-1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" with the FAA Western-Pacific Regional Office. In addition, to mitigate overflight noise impacts, "the proposed inhabited structures should be designed and built to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB, based on aircraft noise events. That level should en (sic) easily achievable with standard building construction for office/R&D buildings... the City of South San Francisco carefully review the building plans for the proposed project to assure itself that the 45 dB interior noise level will be achieved, via the proposed construction design and selected building materials. " Finally, a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project should also have identified and discussed the other development projects in the East of 101 area. SFO is aware of the following proposed projects: • Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Building and Related Garden Center at 600-700 Dubuque Avenue; • Home Depot Home Improvement Warehouse Building and related Parking Structure at 900 Dubuque; and • Genentech Building 31 Project at 1631 Grandview Drive ... E-2 .,~ E-3 .. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to call me at (650) 821-5347. Thank you. -~ Very truly urs, Nixon Lam Senior Environmental Planner Planning, Design & Construction c: Ivan Satero Joe Rodriguez, FAA ADO Dave Carbone, San Mateo County ALUC CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter E: San Francisco International Airport, November 21, 2005. Response to Comment E-1: Comment noted. However, as discussed in Section 9.2- Single Event Flyover Noise of the Ciry of South San Francisco General Plan, "Noise contours are based on average noise levels. Single event noises such as aircraft flyovers need to occur frequently and at very high volumes in order to bring average noise levels to 65 dB CNEL". The Ciry of South San Francisco uses the ALUC's 1995 SFO Land Use Plan to establish this 65 dB CNEL contour as the noise impact boundary for SFO. According to ALUC standards, commercial and industrial uses would be acceptable within the 65 dB CNEL FAA-approved ,_.. contour without any noise insulation mitigation measures. Chapter 11 of the DEIR has been revised to include comments noted in this letter pertaining to ,~.,. noise impacts from SFO. These additions, included on Page 2-7 of this Final EIR, are as follows: "° AIRPORTS The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and future (2006) airport „_ noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. The proposed project site is located about one an a half miles north of the SFO, and is subject to flights using the Shoreline charted visual departure procedure and overflown on a daily basis which .- depending on weather conditions can comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SFO departures. However, these contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future airport noise contours. Response to Comment E-2: Comment noted. Because the project site is located within the Federal Aviations FAR Part 77 Conical Surface airspace protection area for SFO, the project a-- sponsor is already required to file FAA Form 7460-1 with the FAA Western-Pacific Regional Office. ,~.~- In regards to achieving an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB, Policies NO-2 and NO-3 of the Ciry of South San Francisco's East of 101 Area Plan are consistent with these requirements, in requiring that office developments, as well as noise sensitive portions of °~- industrial buildings within the East of 101 Area, be designed so that calculated hourly average noise levels during the daytime do not exceed and Ley of 45 dBA. These levels are easily achievable with standard building construction for office/R&D buildings. Response to Comment E-3: In regards to cumulative impacts of the proposed project, Chapter 16.5 of the Draft EIR notes that "the development of the Project site as proposed would contribute to a permanent increase in regional emissions of air pollutants and reduced freeway Levels of Service, representing significant and unavoidable adverse impacts". Cumulative air quality impacts were identified on Page 5-7 of the Draft EIR as being significant impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable even following mitigation. However, as 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-23 .~ CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ..» detailed in Response to Comment C-3 in this Final EIR, and revised on Page 2-4 of this Final EIR, the Final EIR revised the project's direct and indirect emissions modeling and found that '°' the impacts would actually be below BAAQMD thresholds for projects, which the Draft EIR used to judge the projects impacts in terms of "a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment..." The Final EIR reflects this ~' change, and as such the Project will not have significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to air quality. .~. In regards to cumulative traffic impacts, the three projects referenced in this letter- Lowe's, Home Depot, and Genentech Building 31- are all included in Table 3-5 on Page 13-21 of the Draft EIR, which details the peak hour trip contribution of projects within the East of 101 Area ... expected to be completed and occupied by 2008. For clarification purposes, reference to this table, and the discussion of cumulative traffic impacts in the Transportation and Circulation chapter of the Draft EIR, has been included on Page 2-10 of this Final EIR. ~. In addition, Page 13-48 of the Draft EIR notes that "The City may take action on the 249 East Grand project based upon a statement of overriding considerations that was made by the City .k Council in the process of approving the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan. At that time, the lead agency determined that the Ciry could not implement feasible mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on the U.S.101 freeway." The City of South San Francisco has already determined that new projects in the East of 101 Area will have cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts on US 101, and has addressed these via the aforementioned statement of ,.,,, overriding considerations. 0 ..~ ... ... PAGE 3-24 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR -% ~~ 18 November 2005 ALEX-ANDRIA Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner °°- Planning Division City of South San Francisco 3 15 Maple Avenue .~-- P.O. Box 71 South San Francisco, CA 94083 F-1 RE~E~~~~ 2929 CAMPUS DRIVE SUITE 400A SAN MATEO, CA 94403 TEL:650-286-1200 FAX:650-286-1256 Letter F RE: 249 East Grand Avenue Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report Dear Susy: We are writing in regards to Impact 9-2 Potential Contamination of Local Groundwater, and the subsequent Mitigation Measure 9-2 Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. The first paragraph of the Mitigation measure reads as follows: I) Grading and earthwork shall be prohibited during the wet season (October 15 through April 15) and such work shall be stopped before pending storm events. We propose that the dates and language of this Mitigation Measure be revised to match the requirements of the South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.08.170 Restriction of Work During Rainy Season. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. ~~ Robert Kain Vice President of Construction -" Alexandria Real Estate Equities CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ._ Letter F: Alexandria Real Estate Equities, November 18, 2005. Response to Comment F-1: The DEIR has been revised to delete the following sentence, as also shown on page 2-6 of this Final EIR. The deleted sentence has been replaced with text that matches South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.08.170. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-27 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A 111 GRAND AVENUE ~ . ._. P. 0. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 Flex your power! PHONE (510) 286-5505 Be energy efficient! FAX (510) 286-5559 "° T'P~ (800) 735-2929 - December 23, 2005 Ms. Susy Kalkin °`° City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Kalkin:. JAS! 0 ~ ?,~a its? PLJ~~iN1NG SM101408 SM-101-22.14 SCH2O0504212 Letter G 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project -Traffic Operational Analysis ..- Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. ~- We have reviewed the Traffic Operational Analysis in conjunction with the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated October 2005. We have found that several pages of the calculation sheets are missing from the package. Please provide us with a complete `~ package for our review and comment. A 95% queue analysis for intersections #1 and 4 through 10 should be included. ~~ The trips generated by this project will produce significant impacts to segments of US 101. Therefore, mitigation measures to reduce those impacts should be provided. All „_. mitigation measures, proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring. Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988. "" Sincerely, TIMOTHY .SABLE ._ District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA "Caltrans improves mobility across California" G-1 CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ,_ Letter G: California Department of Transportation, December 23, 2005. Response to Comment G-1: Following several discussions between the Department of .~ Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of South San Francisco, evaluation to determine 95th percentile vehicle queuing was completed for the approaches to three study intersections, including an off-ramp from the U.S.101 freeway. The results of this analysis were included in ~„ the revised Transportation chapter as part of the Partial Revision to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project, which was available for state and public review between March 28, 2006 and May 12, 2006. Caltrans' main concern was that off-ramp traffic does not queue ..®. back onto the freeway mainline during peak traffic periods. To provide Caltrans the most accurate queuing evaluation, a different software package was used to evaluate the three subject intersections than had been used to evaluate all other intersections in the study. Thus, updated •-- levels of service using the new software were also incorporated into the revised circulation section. This resulted in the identification of one new intersection impact during the AM peak hour (Impact 13-4). 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-31 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSMG AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER• Governor "-" DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5505 Flex your power! FAX (510) 286-5559 ~a Be energy efficient! TTY (800) 735-2929 ~•'~~~ qya ~(( CCCC~~EE Y ~9L~ [~ f .#' 8~~~a~ May 11, 2006 ..- ~~.,~~7r~;': 1" ~~^ a~ Y_~_ •' SM 101408 SCH#2005042121 Ms. Susy Kalkin ._ City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 _ Dear Ms. Kalkin: ~ ~ r 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE - PARTIAL REVISION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the 249 East Grand Avenue project. The following comments are based on the Partial Revision of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Revised DEIR); additional comments may be forthcoming pending final review of the Revised DEIR. As lead agency, the City of South San Francisco is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to state highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. The project's specific traffic mitigation fee should be identified in the Traffic Impact Study and the environmental document. Any required roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Since an encroachment permit is required for work in the State Right of Way (ROW), and the Department will not issue a permit until our concerns are adequately addressed, we strongly recommend that the lead agency work with both the applicant and the Department to ensure that our concerns are resolved during the CEQA process, and in any case prior to submittal of a permit application. Further comments will be provided during the encroachment permit process; see the end of this letter for more information regarding encroachment permits. Travel Demand Forecasting 1. Please provide the trip generation rates applied to the project, the total number of project trips and supporting materials explaining how these estimates were developed. Page 13-21. This information is typically required for review. The Revised DEIR states that, "The traffic generation rates for approved development are based on the analysis conducted for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance", and that "Traffic counts were conducted at existing office, R&D and hotel uses in the East of 101 area. However, H-1 H-2 "Cnltrans improves mobility across California" Ms. Susy Kallcin May 11, 2006 Page 2 . project trip generation rates are not provided, nor is the total number of project trips identified. '" 2. Comprehensive supporting documentation and analysis should be provided to verify the Revised DEIR's assumption that Traffic Demand Management will reduce project trips by a H-3 sizable 9.5 percent. Please include a copy of the City's Traffic Demand Management policy. 3. Supporting documentation regarding the methodology and fmdings of the 1994 employee survey, as well as the survey itself, should be provided, as project trip distribution was based H-4 on the survey. ._ 4. How was the two percent growth rate for traffic accessing -South San Francisco from Brisbane developed? Similarly, how was the one percent growth rate that was assumed for H -rJ . background traffic growth along US 101 developed? ~. Highway Operations Mitigation should be recommended for the project's impacts to the US 101 Northbound Off- .~ ramp/Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. Additional storage capacity H_g . should be provided to accommodate the Year 2008 AM Peak queue lengths at both the west- and eastbound left-turns on Oyster Point Boulevard. ~` Cultural Resources Should project-related construction in State ROW result in an inadvertent archaeological or burial discovery, compliance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 5024.5 (for state- ''~ owned historic resources) and Chapter 2 of Caltrans' Standard Environmental Reference (SER} requires that all construction within 50 feet of the fmd shall cease. Caltrans District 4 Cultural H-7 Resources Study Office should then be immediately contacted at (510) 622-5458 or -286-5618. A Caltrans staff archaeologist will evaluate the finds within one business day after contact. More information on the SER is available at the following website link: htta://www.dot.ca. ~ov/hq/env/index/htm Encroachment Permit !" Work that encroaches onto the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to the H-8 address below. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the website link below for more information. ~, http: //www.dot. ca. gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/ Sean Nozzari, District Office Chief ~. Office of Permits California DOT, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 "Callrans improves mobility across California" -°° Ms. Susy Kalkin May I I, 2006 Page 3 Please feel free to call or email Patricia Maurice of my staff at (510) 622-1644 or patricia_maurice(a~,dot.ca..og_v with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, ~` TIMOTHY .SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves mobility across California" CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter H: California Department of Transportation, May 11, 2006. Response to Comment H-1: Comment noted. ~~ Response to Comment H-2: Project trip generation rates and total generation are clearly presented in Table 13-12 of the traffic section. Peak hour trip rates and resultant generation reflect trip reductions due to mandated City of South San Francisco and C/CAG TDM programs. There is no TDM reduction in the daily rates or trip generation. The trip generation rates and resultant trip generation associated with manufacturing uses recently eliminated from ,,,,_ the project site are presented in Table 13-13 (with no TDM reduction for the previous manufacturing uses as none were required). The net change in project site trip generation due to replacing manufacturing with office uses is then presented in Table 13-14. Response to Comment H-3: Comment noted. The Revised DEIR's assumption that TDM will reduce project trips by a sizable 9.5 percent are based on Alternative D: Moderate TDM Program with Physical Improvements discussed in the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Keport (April 2001). A copy of the discussion of the alternatives considered, and the assumptions made for Alternative D (ultimately adopted by the South San Francisco Ciry Council), are included in Appendix C of this Final EIR. In accordance with the City of South San Francisco's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Appendix D), the developer will be required to implement a TDM Program designed to achieve a 32% mode shift. Ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements and potential financial penalties for noncompliance are included to ensure compliance with Ciry "` requirements over the life of the project. r Response to Comment H-4: Comment noted. Results of the 1994 employee survey are included in the 2001 Supplemental DEIR referenced in Response to Comment H-3, which is available for review at the City of South San Francisco. It should be noted that Caltrans was previously given the opportunity to review and comment on the TDM assumptions included in the 2001 Supplemental DEIR, but did not do so at the time of the document's adoption. ,_, Response to Comment H-5: Projections of 2 percent per year growth in traffic from Brisbane development (from 2005 to 2008) and 1 percent growth in traffic on the U.S.101 freeway not associated with South San Francisco development (from 2005 to 2008) were projected by the EIR consultant to conservatively project growth over this three-year horizon. Evaluation of U.S.101 traffic counts from available sources indicated a decrease in volumes on 101 in the South San Francisco area from 2003 to 2005. The City of Brisbane had no significant projects -- scheduled for completion in the immediate future that would add a measurable amount of traffic to the intersections in South San Francisco evaluated in this study. The growth rates were utilized to project a reasonably conservative level of traffic growth over this three-year horizon. `°` Year 2020 traffic projections utilized in the analysis reflect a specific list of South San Francisco and Brisbane projects. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-37 CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response to Comment H-6: Based on the description of both west- and eastbound left-turns on Oyster Point Boulevard, it appears that reference is being made to the Southbound Off- Ramp/Oyster Point/Gateway Boulevard intersection. The 249 East Grand project would not be expected to add any traffic to either the east or westbound left turn movements on the Oyster Point Boulevard intersection approaches in either 2008 or 2020. Therefore, there would be no significant impact and no required mitigation due to the project. In addition, both Oyster Point Boulevard approaches to this intersection are City of South San Francisco controlled roadways. The year 2008 50th percentile AM peak hour queues in both left turn pockets (the requirement used by the City of South San Francisco) would be within acceptable limits. Response to Comment H-7: Comment noted. Response to Comment H-8: Comment noted. PAGE 3-38 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR APPENDICES Appendix A - CO Screening Analysis ,W Appendix B - URBEMIS 2002 Modeling Output Appendix C - Excerpts from the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and „_, Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Appendix D -City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Appendix A - CO Screening Analysis ~•~ ! i 1 ' '~ i 1 1 ~ ~ .. ~ ~ . 1 ~~ ~ j { 1 j . . . ! . a 1 a 1 7. a i 1 E_ E~ i. i ; ~ . 1 6 1 ; . 3 ~ 3 ~ 2 $ _a e ! .~ 1 i/ FI P i f .- a ~ ~~ t 2 1 __ ..e ,v = _~, _ , ~9 `s f E ~.- ?~ 3~ S ~' 1` § ee i a 1 ..' 1 '~ 1i a~ $33$~$i ~. ~~ _ ~ } 'ae 1 E LLi i .... i ., B ._ ~ ~_- Appendix B - URBEMIS 2002 Modeling Output Page: 1 05/05/2006 3:28 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: C:\Program Files\U RBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7\Projects2k2\299 E Grand SSF.urb Project Name: 299 E. Grand Ave, S. San Fran. Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 ,,,_„ SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 „.~. TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 7.87 3.57 3.77 0.00 0.01 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 ..~ TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 55.49 60.95 628.01 0.91 62.69 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMI SSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 -~ TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 63.36 64.02 631.78 0.91 62.69 Page: 2 05/05/2006 3:28 PM .. URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: C:\Program Files\U RBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7\Projects2k2\299 E Grand SSF.urb Project Name: 299 E. Grand Ave, S. San Fran. Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area '"""' On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.26 3.56 2.99 0 0.01 Hearth - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.12 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - - - - Architectural Coatings 7.49 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day, unmitigated) 7.87 3.57 3.77 0.00 0.01 ... w.. Page: 3 05/05/2006 3:28 PM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Office park 55.99 60.95 628.01 0.91 62.69 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 55.99 60.45 628.01 0.91 62.69 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2008 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips ,~. Office park 11.12 trips/1000 sq. ft. 539.50 5,993.69 Sum of Total Trips 5,993.69 Tot al Vehicle Miles Traveled 9 1,161.09 .,_. Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.00 1.60 98.00 0.90 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.00 2.70 95.30 2.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.20 1.20 97.50 1.30 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.20 1.90 95.80 2.80 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-19,000 0.90 0.00 50.00 50.00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 -- Motorcycle 1.70 76.50 23.50 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 8.30 83.30 8.90 Travel Cond itions ~,. Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.8 9.6 6.1 11.8 5.0 5.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 15.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 -- Trip Speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 0 of Trips - Residential 27.3 21.2 51.5 0 of Trips - Commercial ( by land use) Office park 98.0 29.0 28.0 Page: 4 05/05/2006 3:28 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Area Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2008. ~,,,, ... ... Appendix C - Excerpts from the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2: Executive Summary 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires EIRs to consider alternatives to the proposed project that could avoid or minimize at least one of the impacts associated with the project. The alternatives must represent a `~" reasonable range of different planning options. Each alternative and its associated impacts, relative to the proposed project, are briefly summarized in this section. A more detailed analysis is in Chapter 6. AI.TERNATTVT~ A: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN (NO PROJECT) "°~ In the absence of the proposed project, the existing 1999 General Plan and the Easy of 101 Area Plan would continue to guide the East of 101 area. This alternative provides a baseline comparison to the proposed project. This alternative would allow implementation of the physical -- improvements considered in the General PIan and would implement already committed projects. The City would still be guided by a TDM program required by C/CAG, however no additional TDM measures would be required. In the absence of the additional physical improvements ® provided in the General Plan Amendment and the new TDM program, the levels of service and delays worsen. The No Project alternative would impact both transportation and air quality to a greater extent than the proposed project. The City's Goal as stated in the General Plan is to achieve a LOS D or better for all intersections. With the No Project alternative, 1~ of the 38 intersections "°' analyzed in the East of I01 area are at LOS E ar F. The impart on air quality would be increased emissions of ozone precursors because of the poor LOS and increased delay times. ALTERNATIVE 6: TNTTIALLY PROPOSED PHYSICAL IMPROI/EMENTS The Initially Proposed Physical Improvements Alternative focuses on a set of improvements that °° were initially considered adequate for the East of 101 area. This alternative represents the first attempt at supplementing the physical improvements in the General PIan and the physical improvements that are already a part of committed projects. The only TDM program that would apply in this altemative is C/CAG's program. The LOS and delay times are not improved to adequate levels, resulting in transportation and air quality impacts. Fourteen of the 38 intersections analyzed in the East of l0I are at an LOS E or F. This alternative shows only minor improvement over the No Project Alternative for delay times. ALTERNATIV)= C: MODERATE TDM This alternative builds on previous alternatives and supplements those alternatives by implementing a moderate TDM program, achieving a 3S percent alternative mode usage (?S r percent SOV trip elimination). All physical improvements discussed in Alternative Bare implemented, excluding one intersection improvement. Implementing a TDM program achieves a much better LOS and improves delay times as compared to Alternatives A and B. The levels of service and delay times were improved in many of the intersections that were analyzed. However, z-~ .. Droft SuppJementol Envlranmenta! Impact Report for South San Francesco 12 of the 38 intersections analyzed are still at LOS of E or F, which is far from the City's goal of achieving LOS of D or better for all intersections. ALTERNATIVE D: MODERATE TDM WITH ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS This alternative builds on Alternative C by implementing all of the improvements and the same .~ TDM program. This Alternative also supplements the physical improvements in Alternative C with additional improvements. With alternative D, five of the study intersections are improved to LOS D or better. ALTERNATIVE E:INTENSE TDM Alternative E also builds on previous alternatives by implementing the same physical .~ improvements in Alternative C~however this Alternative focuses on implementing an aggressive TDM prod am with a 45 percent alternative mode usage (35 percent 50V trip elimination). lviost of the intersections analyzed in this alternative are at a worse LOS than was achieved in the l~ioderate TDM with Additional Improvements Alternative. With Alternative E, ten of the study intersections analyzed are at LOS E or F. E N YI R ON MEN TALLY SU PERI OR ALTERN ATl VE The proposed project is the eanvironmentaIlysnperior alternative. With the proposed project, an intense TDM program and intersection improvements will improve aIl but four of the 33 intersections analyzed to LOS D or better. This will mean that both transportation and air quality will improve signif candy over the No Project Alternative. While biological resources have the «~ potential to be impacted by the physical improvements in all of the alternatives, these improvements are unlikely to have a significant impact, if any, on the special status species and ecologically sensitive habitats in the East of 101 area. .~ ~.a Draft Supplemental Environments! lmpast Report for South San Francisco 5.5 ALTERNATIVE D: MODERATE TDM PROGRAM WITH PH~fSICAL I MPROVEMENT5 Alternative C would supplement C/CAG's TDM pro~am using the same TDM program as described in A,Iternative B. Ho~vever, this alternative would also use physical improvements to reduce congestiou. These physical improvements are the same improvements that are included in the proposed project. The only difference between this alternative and the preferred project is that this Alternative implements a Moderate TDM program with a 24.5 percent SOV trip elimination, 3S percent alternative mode use and the proposed project implements a TDM °-" prod am with a 34 percent SOV trip elimination, 4Spercent alternative mode use for all new developments. In addition to the committed projects listed under Alternative A, Table 6.~-1 describes the physical improvements that are included in this alternative. Figure 6.5-i depicts the ""' intersection improvements and peak period traffic volumes. Traffic operations levels of service far this alternative are also included in Table 6.7-2. Table b5-1: Physics[ Improvements lniersecfion Intersection and Roadway Jrnprovements ,~ Number I Bayshore Boulevard and U5 I O I SB Hook Ramp. Re-stripe the offi-ramp right turn lane to be an optional lefrJ right turn (ane_ ,,~ 2 6ayshore /Airport Boulevard & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard. Widen EB Sister Cities Boulevard to add 1 additionaE left turn lane. 3 Dubuque Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard. Re-stripe and shift median of WB Oyster Point -.. Boulevard to add I right turn lane making it a total of two 650' right-turn lanes lane to N B 10I on-ramp. Re-stripe EB oyster Point Boulevard to change one of the through lanes to a shared through-right lane. 8 Eccles Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard. Remove median and widen east side of Eccles Avenue to add an additional left turn lane making it a total of two left-turn lanes for the N B approach. 9 Gull Drive & Oyster Point Boulevard. Widen NB Gull Drive to provide two lefr-turn Panes and one through/right shared lane. i2 Airport Boulevard & Miller Avenue/ U5 101 5B off-ramp. Widen SB I0I ofl--ramp and reconstruct retaining wall to provide a 2nd {eft turn lane. Re-stripe to change the existing i 01 SB off--ramp options! through/ left lane into a through only lane. '°°' { 3 Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue. Re-stripe existing 56 Airport Boulevard. right turn lane to a shared through-right lane and 56 shared throughlleft lane to a left turn lane. Widen EB Grand Ave to add 2 left turn Eanes; restripe the EB thraughlleft shared lane to a through lane and EB ,~. right turn lane to a shared through/right lane. Provide a 3`~ Iefr-turn lane in the WB approach and restrict truck traffic on WB Grand Avenue. 14 Dubuque Avenue & East Grand Avenue. Widen Grand Avenue to improve the n~rning radius from WB Grand Avenue to NB Dubuque Avenue to accommodate trucks. 15 Gateway Boulevard & East Grand Avenue. Re-stripe existing WB Grand Avenue to add an additional left turn laps making it a tonal of two left-turn lanes. 16 Forbes BoulevardlEast Grand Avenue & Harbor Boulevard. Widen WB Grand Avenue to add I additional through lane and I additional lefcn.trn lane. Widen SB Forbes Boulevard to add through lane and change the e ;fisting shared through-right lane to a right turn only lane. Widen 6-! 6 Chaprer 6: AJtcrnorives Table b.5-I: Physical Improvements Intersection Intersection and Roodway Improvements Number .., NB Harbor Way to add 1 through lane, I right turn lane and change the existing shared .» through-right turn lane to a through lane. 17 Grandview Drive & East Grand Avenue. Signalize intersection, Add 1 SB Grandview Avenue right turn lane; restripe EB East Grand Avenue to provide i left turn lane and I shared ~, Iefrlthrough lane. 18 Airport Boulevard & San Mateo Avenue Widen WB Airport Boulevard to add one additional left-turn lane and restripe the existing through/left shared lane to a left-turn lane to make it a rota! a{three left-n.irn lanes. Modify NB ?roduce Ave to bring the SB 101 to EB Airport Bou Ievard trafFc to stop at the intersection to eliminate the merging and weaving conflicts on EB Airpore Boulevard. ~,,,, l9 South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue & Gateway Boulevard. Widen EB Airport Boulevard to add one additional right-tl.l rn lane; restripe the existing through/left shared lane to a through - lane. Widen Mhcheli Avenue to add two additional through lanes and aright-n.irn lane. Widen S8 Gateway to add one right turn lane and change the exksting shared through-right lane to another right-turn lane. 20 South Airport Boulevard & Utah Avenue. Widen Airport Boulevard to add one SB leftwrn Pane; restripe one of the existing N 8 Airport Boulevard through lanes to a shared throughlright ... lane. Railroad Avenue. Construct a 7 lanes, 2 ways, roadway within the existing UPRR right of way between Linden Ave and Gateway boulevard """ Harbor Way. Widen Harbor Way to a ~-lane roadway with parking prohibition between Grand Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. -- Mitchell Avenue, Widen Mitchel! Avenue to a 4-lane roadway with parking prohibition .., between Gateway Boulevard and Harbor Way. With the additional improvements, four of the study intersections operate at unacceptable LOS (E or F} during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Compared to the No Project (Current General Plan) Alternative, the following intersections improve to acceptable opezations (LOS D or better) , f in the AM and/or PM peak hours: ~ Airport Boulevard 8~ Oyster Point Boulevard {from LOS F to LOS D in PM} "" • Eccles Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard {from LOS F to LOS B in PM) • Gull Drive ~ Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS C in PM) + Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue & US 101 SB off-ramp (from L05 F to LOS D in A~vI) • Airport Boulevard $ Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS C in AM) . .., Gateway Boulevard S< East Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS D in PM) • Forbes Boulevard & East Grand Avenue (from LOS 1= to LOS C in AM and from LOS F to ,.. LOS D in PM) DrafE Supplemenca! Environment.a! Jmpnct Report far South San Frartrisco ~" Grandview Avenue & East Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS C in AM and from L05 F to LOS C in PM) Airport Boulevard & San Mateo Avenue (from LOS F to LOS D in PM) • South Airport Boulevard & Gateway Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS D in PM) • South Airport Boulevard & Utah Avenue (from L05 F to LOS D in AM) "' 6- 18 ~ ~ Q _.. r r°n r` ~- (LD1£DZ 41~Ij4 ~ (Z6b)OZE l t r-ILfLIZE ~~ ~4~1 'PNQUndnlY I6BEIzssl~ ~ (6E615sbyw ppt ~~ fu5lezzrp~~ M u r ~ ~ m n o n m^ m N ~ ~ ° ° ~(hEZ}OLS ~ ~ ~ ~~~~lA ~~-I9BL}Z9E ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,rtBrariS ~ 'P"~q dwslrp (55)691 ~ ~~t pr (Z6L}BZL~y~ ~t1trJ (L9Z}i5'~9 N C °' m a r '~ ° ~ •- ~m ~~ ~ ~~ ip/nunpuop Isl1tZ i5 } l < ~ °t +y tit iZC l l n ~ W ~,p~,o N ~ ~ m '5 .~~"(DBLIDE9 ~mN ] ~-~Isselzez 1~ ~ 4 lr Jr(BLIDL {bCD1LZtZ~,f Pn{9 P IY'S" IB[sl[ic---- R~ j~ IsIBy'~. ^ ~ ~ 6 r. i rn a ~~ ; ~o 0 j ~Y J. N ~ q ,~ ~1'4 ~ 'r- IL051bLZ IY l~ t ~1"(zbl)£9 {LES}SVB-- 7.m ~!V ILL}L9~ a o a T O m m v o ~ Y.VE}LDZL h1/1 j i ~~ .~ I5ZZlov ` ~~ • 1~ ILDL1Z95 mny ur5ngnp un DN 101 Sf1 A ~cR ~~ 'S~5 3 ~~' a ~ ~° M ~ m Q~ ~ ~~o ~~ or ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ibbz)ece . ~ { l~ I9pL)0£ ~~ ~ 7WU xwgo xp~ ~ (LBE18D6,1 , 1 1 I Ir `~ IszOo£l ~ u N N ~M° ArsiuJln un7xmp Bs sn if Qn ~I,tClp61, ~4-~1-ILSB}IBL ~. oufys rp I (DIJ9}Lfib ~ I~, (bD919E£1 -0 h W ^N-' a~ ~~~ 'any an qnQ{ {9h}LV~ •• !~'~ 1 I IZEL}5E~ ~ 6 a7 Y ~ )`+r v ~ ~ r W N 61 OI C n ro I5)Z ! Ml'~ ~ ~ (O10 (Z9t}VE •pq mxupq ~ IBt)L xwntlp ~1r5 t ~ r~ {p)p -Y ~ l l ~ M v BBi Zll~ ~ b ~ .... V I` ~ N ~~ ~ o m i (5V1SE} ~-(£l}g5 . 7 d~~~~ lr(9UEL}96t ~' ~ ~Ip LxM~lx~ ew.anup ~~ ~ 0. r r i1S16 9 p , '~ ~ b ~tt4r~ f,f~ N ~ ra~ xfti, VPa o a 1r (p1p t-~ IZZbli9l ~y ~ fzcelEB ~Ay mrbuynp IS) t -~ (6L139SE~" ~~ r (9Z91)D£L~l C n 0 ~ o d' ~ r ~, m `~ ~ ' m .~ .. C ~_;5 p ipclnsl ~~}~14 +~i°-ieulspu ~ y ~ ~ ~-ISezlL[l Ohl AOq+xH l'~f 0 "s'°~ B1Z}et~ ~ `5~5 t'~+ ILBGZe--~. ~~ fiQ ~r `^ W A Fr'r Y ~ r~ V r0 1!) N ~ rw ~ N ~--R- (OZ)DL ~t~ lr~(L9D1ZlZ '4 any c7pr~ a ~~ a ~N rm[I N O ~~ m ~• LCMiAIIp ~ p ~~ , Itil1BZ~ ,S m ~_~ `` ~ ,\ ~ N O O Ip~l IO aS I£B l}fi5B Q ~ f-fttl)tLE d b~~ ~ ~(bZ9}58V ~ ~ •~.lB>,od,lrs ~Npl xuarep Itblq>t~,l ~ ~~ (4ZZklbl----- c p~I ~ 1 i "i { Lbl11DZC71~n ~ ~ ~ A L, ~ ~ T v m w Y Y m ~ ~ (E)Z ~; ~ ~ IISL}SB rnlq ornmly ~ ~~ ~ S ~r ~ (LZ1BE ._ rn ~ `t;E ~~(E}L I~~ ~ ~' ~(9ZB)B5E aMOnNO {Ek ~ I9}Z~+,g BUUuD ~ ~ ~ 66 rri Iloz}L5 ~ ;~ ~' ~ O, ~ ^ ~ g w r r rn L!7 li ~ o ~, r ~, ~, ~ ~ 70 > ~ , •C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~u o w Q k =- ~- :. ~ .~' ~ d~. 3 ~ U ~' JL o® 1rr ~~ ~ l5 1~ b•i11 l-'Y. Appendix D -City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance 20.120.010 Chapter 20.120 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Sections: 20.120.010 20.120.020 20. 120.030 20. 120.040 20. 120.050 20.120.060 20.120.070 20.120.080 20.120.090 20.120.100 20.120.110 Purpose. Applicability. Program requirements and standards. Required measures. Additional measures. Submittal requirements. Review and approval process. Waivers and minor deviations. Amendments. Monitoring and enforcement. Appeals. 20.120.010 Purpose. The specific purposes of this chapter are the following: (a) Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new non-residential development, and the expansion of existing non- residential development, pursuant to the city's police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. (b) Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the city of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated. (c) Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. (d) Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. (e) Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new non-residential development. (f) Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this chapter. (g) Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are implemented. (Ord. 1300 § 1 (part), 2001) 20.120.020 Applicability. (a) Area. The requirements of this chapter shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the city. (b) Projects. The requirements of this chapter apply to all nonresidential development expected to generate one hundred or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. (Ord. 1300 § 1 (part), 2001) 20. 120.030 Program requirements and standards. Table 20.120.030-A establishes the specific program requirements for a project generating one hundred or more trips or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode use for a1I projects is twenty-eight percent and applicants who propose projects with increased FAR would be required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly. The requirements are described in the subsections below. (Ord. 1300 § 1 (part), 2001) (South San Francisco 5-0?) 758-14 20.120.030 't'able 2U.12U.U3U-A: Applicabthty of '1~UM Kequ~rements Trips Generated by Required Percent Annual Survey Triennial Financial Project or Project Measures Alternative Report Penalty for Requesting an FAR Mode Use Non- Bonus Re uired compliance Project with > than Yes 28 Yes No No l 00 average daily trip Project requesting an Yes See Table Yes Yes Yes FAR bonus* 20.120.020-C * Refer to Table 20.120.30-C for FAR bonus requirements. (a) Required and Additional Measures. All projects generating one hundred or more trips shall prepare and submit a preliminary TDM plan that includes all required measures and additional measures necessary to achieve a minimum twenty- eight percent alternative mode use, as prescribed in Table 20.120.030-B. Refer to Section 20.120.040: Required Measures and 20.120.050: Additional Measures, for a description of the measures. Table 20.120.030-8: Summary of Program Requirements Required Measures for all Projects Generating 100 or More Trips Additional Measures Chosen by Applicant to ivleetthe Required Alternative Mode Use (at least one measure required of all projects) A. Bicycle Parking, Long-Term A. Alternative Commute Subsidies/Parking cash out B. Bicycle Parking, Short-Term B. Bicycle Connections C. Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Service C. Compressed Work Week D. Designated Employer Contact D. Flextime E. Direct Route to Transit E. Land Dedication for Transit FacilitiesBus Shelter F. Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools F. Onsite Amenities G. Guaranteed Ride Home G. Paid parking at Prevalent Market Rates H. Information Boards/Kiosks H. Telecommuting I. Passenger Loading Zones I. Reduced Parking J. Pedestrian Connections J. Other measures as determined by the Chief Planner consistent with (B) below K. Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking L. Promotional Programs M. Showers/Clothes Lockers N. Shuttle Program 0. Transportation Management Association Partici ation ... .~ .~ .. ... .. .,, ... .. .«. 75$-15 (South San Francisco 5-02) 20.120.030 (b) Projects Seelang an FAR Bonus. Projects ,~ seeking an FAR bonus shall prepare and submit a preliminary TDM plan that includes all required measures, any combination of additional measures, and ~. any other measures that have a demonstrable effect of reducing the number of trips generated as determined by the chief planner and as approved by the planning --- commission. Table 20.120.030-C prescribes the maximum allowable FAR under these intensity provisions and Table 20.120.030-D prescribes the °" required alternative mode use based on the FAR. ~' Table 20.120.030-C: Maximum Allowable FAR General Plan Land Use Classification Base FAR Maximum FAR with TDM Plan* Maximum Permitted FAR in the General Plan* Office 1.0 2.3 2.5 Business Commercial 0.5 0.9 1.0 Hotels 1.2 1.8 2.0 Business and Technology 0.5 0.9 1.0 Park Coastal Commercial 0.5 0.9 1.Q Hotels 1.2 1.8 2.0 me general plan establishes a maxunum floor area ratio (FAR) (Table 2.2-1 in the South San Francisco General Plan). Column two indicates the maximum floor area ratio permitted with the TDM bonus. Column three indicates the maximum permitted floor area ratio with the combined TDM bonus and design bonuses. (c) Alternative Mode Use Required for an FAR Bonus. The alternative mode use required for •-- bonus FAR under these intensity provisions is prescribed in Table 20.120.030-D. (South San Francisco 5-D2) 758-16 .~ Table 20.120.030-n_ AltPrnat7VP MnriP TTen Rnnnirn*nnnte f'...~ .~., TAU u,,....., General Plan Land Use Requested FAR ~ Alternative Mode Use Classification Required (Percent} Office 1.10-1.59 30.0 1.60-I.99 36.5 2.00-2.30 45,0 Business CommerciaUCoastal 0.51-0.69 30.0 Commercial or Business Technology Park 0.70-0.80 32.0 0.81-0.90 35.0 Hotel (ln either Business 1.21-1.49 3Q,0 Coininercial or Coastal Commercial) 1.50-1.69 32,p 1.70-1.80 35.0 (d) TDM Plans Required. Pursuant to Section 20.120.060 and Section 20.120.070, all projects shall submit a preliminary acid final TDM plan. Said plans must demonstrate that, upon implementation, they will achieve the required alternative mode use. (e) Guidelines. TDM guidelines regarding the range of alternative mode use achievable from each additional measure are available from the planning division. (f) Monitoring and Enforcement. Projects will be monitored pursuant to Section 20.120.100 to en- sure the alternative mode use is achieved. Applicant shall be required, as a condition of approval, to reim- burse the city for costs incurred in maintaining and enforcing the TDM program for the approved pro- ~el:t. (C'lyd. 13VU ~ i (pai-<), 200i} 20.120.040 Required measures. All non-residential development shall implement the following measures: (a) Bicycle Parking, Long-Term. The appli- cant shall determine the appropriate number of bicy- cle spaces based on the required alternative mode use and subj ect to review and approval by the chief plai- ner. Bicycle parking shall be located within seventy- five feet of a main entrance to the buildng and all long-term spaces must be covered. Long term bicycle parking shall be achieved by providing one or more of the following measures: (1) Parking in a locked, controlled access room or area enclosed by a fence with a locked gate; (2) Lockers; (3) Panting within view or within one hundred feet of an attendant or security guard; (4} Panting in an area that is monitored by a se- curity camera; (5) Providing fixed stationary objects that allow the bicycle frame and both wheels to be locked with a bicycle-locking device or the bicyclist supplying only a lock and six-foot cable. (b) Bicycle Parking, Short-Term. The appli- cant shall determine the appropriate number of bicy- clespaces based on uie required aliernaiive mode use and Su ject to leVleVV~Arid approvai uj%tl'ie Chief plan- ner. Ifmore than ten short-term spaces are required at least fifty percent must be covered. Bicycle parking shall be located within one hundred feet of a main entrance to the building. Security shall be achieved by using one or more of the same methods used for securing long-term bicycle parking. (c) Carpool and Vanpoal Ridematching Ser- vices. The designated employer contact shall be re- sponsible far matching potential carpoolers and van- poolers by administering a carpooUvanpool matching ... ..~ i 5 8-17 (South San Francisco Supp. No. 4, 7-03) application. The application shall match employees ~- who may be able to carpool or vanpool. (d) Designated Employer Contact. Each appli- cant shall designate or require tenants to designate an "` employee as the official contact for the TDM pro- gram. The city shall be provided with a current name and phone number of the designated employer con- tact. The designated employer contact shall adminis- ter carpool and vanpool ridematching services, the -.. promotional programs, update information on the information boards/kiosks, and be the official contact for the administration of the ailriual survey and trim- .-., nial report. (e) Direct Route toTransit. Awell-lighted path or sidewalk shall be provided utilizing the most di- •-- rect route to the nearest transit or shuttle stop from the building. Refer to Figure 20.120.040. (f) Free Parking for Carpools and Vanpools. °- The preferential parking spaces shall be provided free of charge. (g) Guaranteed Ride Home. Carpool, vanpool °"° aild transit riders shall be provided with guaranteed rides home in emergency situations. Rides shall be provided either by a transportation service provider r (taxi or rental car) or an informal policy using com- pany vehicles/and oT designated employees. (h) Information Boards/Kiosks. The desi;- Hated employer contact shall display in a permanent location the following information: transit routes and schedules; carpooling and vanpooling information; bicycle lanes, routes and paths and facility informa- tion; and alternative commute subsidy information. ,~„ (i) Pa6icn~er Loa'u=inb uoric~. Passenger ivad- iTig zvne5 ivr Cat~.rvvi and v ai2pGvi drop-v~ Shau be located near the main building entrance. -- (j) Pedestrian Connections. Safe, convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided from the project to surrounding external streets and, if appli- A`° cable, trails. Lighting, landscaping and building ori- entation should be desi~ied to enhance pedestrian safety. "' (k) Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Park ing. Ten percent of vehicle spaces shall be reserved for carpools or vanpools, with a m;n;mum of one space required. Such spaces shall be provided in premium and convenient locations. (1) Promotional Programs. The following promotional programs shall be promoted and organ- ized by the designated employer contact: new tenant and employee orientation packets on transportation alternatives; flyers, posters, brochures, and emails on commute alternatives; transportation fairs; Spare the Air (June -October); R.ideshare Week (October); trip planning assistance-routes and maps. (m) Showers/Clothes Lockers. Shower and clothes locker facilities shall be provided free of charge. (n) Shuttle Program. Establish a shuttle pro- gram or participate in an existing program approved by the chief planner and subject to any fees for the existing program. (o) Transportation Management Association (TMA). The applicant shall participate or require tenant to participate in a local TMA, the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance) or a similar organization approved by the chief planner, that pro- vides ongoing support for alternative commute pro- grams. (Ord. 1300 § 1 (part), 2001) ,r (Soufl~ San Francisco Supp. No. 4, 7-03) 758-1 g 20.120.040 `. '~ c5 cv t~ ~~ ass-ly s~ ~ w 5 "" ~ ~ ~~ ~ (South San Francisco Supp. No. 4, 7-D3) . 20.120.050 20.120.050 Additional measures. The chief plamier and the plaluung commission shall determine the appropriateness of each addi- tional measure chosen by the applicant. See also Sec- tion 20.120.070: Review and Approval Process. (a) Alternative Commute Subsides7Parking -- Cash Out. Employees shall be provided with a sub- sidy, determuied by the applicant and subject to re- view by the chief planner if they use transit or com- mute by other alternative modes. (b) Bicycle Connections. If a site is abutting a bicycle path, lane or route according to Figure ~" 20.120.040, a bicycle connection shall be provided close to an entrance to the building on the site. (c) Compressed Work Week. The applicant ._ shall allow employees or require their tenants to al- low employees to adjust their work schedule in order to complete the basic work requirement of five eight- hour woxkdays by adjusting their schedule to reduce vehicle trips to the worksite. „~, (d) )Flextime. The applicant shall provide or re- quire their tenants to provide employees with staff sered work hours involving a shift in the set work .~-- hours of all employees at the workplace or flexible work hours involving individually determined work hours. -- (e) Land Dedication for Transit/Bus Shelter. Where appropriate, land shall be dedicated fortransit or a bus shelter shall be provided based on the prox- °- unity to a transit _route shown on Figure 20.120.050. (f) Onsite Amenities. One or more of the fol- lowing amenities shall be implemented: ATM, day l:al e, L'+['L1GLGlld, llllli LGU fooU Jet V1~`+e eJLaU11D11LL1G11 L, dry cleaners, eXCrC:IJe laclll`LIeS, CUlLVGI-110n1%G iettlll, post office, on-site transit pass sales. (g) Paid Parking at Prevalent Market Rates. Parking shall be provided at a cost equal to the preva- ,_ lent market rate, as determined by the city based on a survey of parking in North San Mateo County. (h) Telecommuting. The applicant shall provide _. or require tenants to provide opportunities and the ability to work off-site. (i) Reduced Parking. In accordance with Gen- -- eral Plan Policy 4.3-1-8, reduced parking, consistent with projected trip reduction identified in the pre- lilninary TDM plan; may be permitted subject to ap- proval by the planning commission. (j) Other Measures. Additional measures not listed in this chapter, such as childcare facilities and an in-lieu fee that would be negotiated in a develop- ment agreement with the city, may be implemented as determined by the chief planner and approved by the planning commission. Once the planning com- mission approves the preliminary TDM plan, the chief planner may recommend additional measures either as part of the fmal TDM plan or as part of the triennial review process. (Ord. 1323 Exh. B (part), 2003; Ord. 1300 § 1 (part), 2001) (South San Francisco Supp. No. 4, 7-03) 75 5-20 20.120.050 ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ L ~ .. ~ ~ L ~ i ... C GL ~ ... '~ '~i ~ td ... t!s ~ ~ «. ~ ~ i . + ~ #.~ :~ ... .~. ~ '"" N a ~ .,°~ ~ ... ~ ~ w V ..e ~ ~. ~`- ... E®1 ~ ~ a b a. ^rut ~' ~ ~ ~ - -- .~~ ~~ ~ a- ~~ .~ e ~] ~ 8-21 (South San Francisco Supp. No. 4, 7-03) ~"` GV.I LV.VVV 20.120.060 Submittal requirements. All projects generating oi~e hundred or more trips shall submit the following information in conjunction with the development application: (a) Preliminary TDM Plan. (1) A completed checklist of the required meas- ures pursuant to Section 20.120.040. (2) A completed checklist of the additional measures chosen by the applicantpursuantto Section 20.120.050. (3) A description of how the applicable alterna- tive mode use will be achieved and maintained over the life of the project, iiicludu1g, but not limited to, the trip reduction goals targeted for the various TDM measures. (4) TDM Site Plan. AlI applicants shall submit a site plan that designates, if applicable, TDM design elements including: (A) Ea~#ernal: preferential parking areas, paid parking areas, bicycle connections, bicycle parking long- and short-term, location of onsite amenities, passenger loading areas, land dedicated for transit facilities and bus shelters, direct route to transit, and pedestrian connections. (B) Internal: showersllockers, information boards/kiosks, ATM, dry cleaners, day care, conven- ience retail, post office, cafeteria, limited food ser- vice establishment, exercise facilities, onsite transit pass sales. (b) Program Costs. All projects shall be re- quired to reimburse the city for program costs associ- ated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM pro- ia.Lil for u+ie ro eCt. ~vrd. i3vv ~ i ~'"ai~~ 2vvi~ ~~ !' J l y IN J: J 20.120.070 Review and approval process. °' The review and approval process forthis chapter is set forth below. (a) All Projects. Approval of a conditional use "~ permit is required for all non-residential develop- ments subject to the provisions of this chapter. .~ (b) Required Findings. In addition to the re- quirements of Chapter 20.81: Use Permit Procedure, the planning commission shall make the following ,_, findings: (1) The proposed TDM measures are feasible and appropriate for the project, considering the pro- posed use or mix of uses and the project's location, size, and hours of operation; and (2) Whether the proposed performance guaran- tees will ensure that the target alternative mode use established for the project by this chapter will be achieved and maintained. (c) Actions By Planning Commission. Prior to approval of a use permit, the planning commission may: (1) Reject the preliminary TDM plan based on the fmdings in subsection C and require applicant to resubmit preliminary TDM plan; (2) Approve a lower FAR bonus based on the findings in subsection C; or {3) Impose conditions that are necessary to achieve and maintain the target alternative mode use. (d) Final TDM Plan. The applicant shall modify the preliminary TDM plan and submit the fmal TDM plan including additional conditions imposed by the planning commission as part of the building permit process. Prior to receiving a building permit, the final TDM plan shall be reviewed and approved by the chief planner to ensure all conditions imposed by the planning commission have been addressed. (Ord. 1300 § .1 (part), 2001) 20.120.080 Waivers and minor deviations. An applicant may request a waiver or minor devia- tion from the requirements of this chapter. The chief planner shall review such requests and determine w11E`~lier a pat'"`i.iC'uiar lcquu"ciu2nt 1J l1Vt appllt+a.b1E to a patll+ular non-i'CS1llelltlal developulellt or whelLhL'r it may be reduced, or an alternative and equivalent measure substituted. Prior to approval of a use permit the planning commission shall impose conditions that are necessary to achieve and maintain the target al- ternative mode use. (Ord. 13M § 1 (part), 2001) 20.120.090 Amendments. A use permit modification shall be required when a major change-a change is the addition often per- cent of the building area or a change in use classes ~'- (SoutU San Francisco Supp. No. 4, 7-03) 75 g-22 .~n 20.120.090 ~. that triggers a ten percent or greater .increase in trips-occurs. (Ord. 1300 § 1 (part}, 2001) 20.120.100 Monitoring and.enforcement. All projects -are subject to . an .annual :survey. Applicants seeking an FAR bonus are also subject to a triennial report and penalties .for noncompliance. (a} Annual Surveys for All Projects. (1) Purpose. The purpose of the annual survey is to report on the compliance of a project with the final TDM plan. (2) Survey Preparation. The .city or .the city's designated representative shall prepare and administer the annual survey of participants in .the TDM program. (3) Survey Specifications. The survey shall :be used to monitor all projects. The survey administrator shall use :statistical .sampling techniques that will create .a ninety-five percent .confidence in the .findings. (4) Survey Report. A report of the survey findings shall be presented annually to the planning commission. and the city council. (b) ')iriennual Reports for Applicants Seeldng an FAR Bonus. (1) Purpose. The purpose of the triennial report is to encourage alternative mode use and to document -the effectiveness of the final TDM plan in achieving the required alternative mode use. (2) Triennial -Report Preparation: The triennial report will be prepared byan independentconsultant, retained by city and paid for by applicant, who will work in concert with the designated employer contact. (3) Submittal. The triennial report -shall be submitted every three years on the anniversary date of the granting of the certificate of occupancy for a building or facility. (4) Response Rate. The information for the triennial report shall be obtained from all employees working in the buildings. All nonresponses will be counted as a drive alone trip. (S} Required Alternative Mode Use. The triennial report shall state whether the nonresidential development has or has not achieved its required percent alternative mode use. If the development has not achieved the required alternative mode use, the applicant shall provide an explanation of how and why the goal -has not been reached and a detailed description of additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to attain the required alternative mode use. Any -and all additional measures must include an implementation schedule by month. (6) Historical Comparison. The triennial report shall include a comparison to historical responses on the survey and .if a .mode share has ..changed significantly, a detailed description as to -why the ..mode share has changed. (7) City Review. The. chief planner shall review alltriennial reports. •If at anytime the reports indicate failure to achieve the stated policy goals, those reports will be submitted o -the city council. (8) Penalty for Noncompliance. If after the initial triennial report, the subsequent triennial report indicates that, in spite of -the changes in the final TDM plan, the required alternative mode use is still not being achieved, or if an applicant fails to submit a triennial report at the times described above, the city may .assess applicant a penalty. The penalty shall be established by city council resolution on the basis of project size and.actual percentage alternative mode use as compared to the percent alternative mode use established in the TDM :plan. (9) Application of the Penalty. In deten'nin;ng whether a financial penalty is appropriate, the city may consider whether the applicant has made a good faith effort to achieve the required alternative mode use. If a penalty is imposed, such penalty sums shall be used by the city toward the implementation of the final TDM plan: (Ord. 1300 § 1 (part), 2001) 20.120.110 Appeals. In accordance with Chapter `20.90: Appeal Procedure, an applicant may appeal an administrative decision to the planning commission, and if the applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the planning commission, the applicant may appeal the decision to the city council. 758-23 :(south San Francisco Supp. No. 9, ]0-04) o -~ H ~ n J O c'~LIFOR~~A taff e ort p AGENDA ITEM #9 DATE: July 12, 2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Terry White, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION RECYCLING ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council conduct a public hearing and adopt an ordinance that requires the recycling of construction and demolition materials and adds a new chapter to the Municipal Code consistent with the requirements of AB 939. It is also recommended the City Council adopt a resolution amending the master fee schedule. BACKGROUND The proposed ordinance would require the diversion of construction and demolition (C&D) materials produced during demolition, new construction, and remodeling projects. It would be part of the City's overall effort to comply with AB 939, the state law mandating 50 percent waste diversion in all cities and counties. Penalties up to $10,000 per day can result for failure to comply. C&D materials are currently being processed at the Blue Line Transfer/Material Recovery Facility (MRF). More than 50 percent of the C&D debris that comes into the MRF is being diverted, however, there is no control over the C&D debris that is hauled to other facilities. Contractors are able to haul their own C&D debris to the facility of their choice, and if that facility does not have a C&D program it could be landfilled and count against the City's diversion credits. This ordinance would still allow self-haulers to take C&D debris to a facility of their choice, but that facility would need to divert at least 50 percent. Need for Ordinance The City has been required to achieve 50 percent diversion every year starting in 2000 and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) is the state agency that reviews the diversion rates and approves the City's programs. Many cities in the state now have C&D ordinances and of the 20 cities in San Mateo County, 16 have C&D ordinances. State law enacted in 2002 requires the CIWMB to adopt a sample C&D ordinance and requires the cities and counties to show why they do not need one if they have not adopted their own or used the state's model. Because we have not achieved the 50 percent mandate each year, we were granted a time extension to adopt new programs to improve the chances of achieving the 50 percent per year diversion. The C&D ordinance is one of the programs listed in our time extension request. The C&D program recommended in this Staff Report Subject: Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance Page 2 staff report will add to our good faith efforts and should increase our diversion rate. Estimated Effect of the Ordinance Programs at Blue Line Transfer/MRF already support the diversion of over 50 percent of incoming C&D debris. The self-haul waste stream (the segment hauled by individuals and companies other than the franchised hauler, such as contractors) has been analyzed and the data shows about 55 percent of this segment is C&D debris. Table 1, Composition ofLandfilled Self-Haul C&D Debris in 2003, shows the average composition of C&D debris in South San Francisco (this waste was taken directly to the landfill, not to Blue Line Transfer/MRF). Reducing disposal of the C&D materials from self-haulers will conserve landfill space and can significantly increase the City's diversion rate. Data from 2003 is the most up to date available. Table 1, Composition of Landfilled Self-Haul C&D Debris in 2003 Material Tons Concrete 580 Asphalt Paving 4 Asphalt Roofing 660 Lumber 2,000 Gypsum 490 Rock, Soil, and Fines 460 Ferrous Metal 220 Remainder/Com osite C& 880 Total 5,294 If 100 percent of the inert materials and 50 percent of the other unprocessed materials, not processed by South San Francisco Scavenger Company (SSFSCo) but directly landfilled were diverted, the City's 2003 diversion rate (the latest rate available) would increase to 50 percent, placing it in compliance with the State's diversion requirements. More than 10,000 tons of C&D debris was diverted through South San Francisco Scavenger Company in 2003. Many of these materials can be used for alternate daily cover at a landfill or as aggregate in construction. Others need to be processed before being used. It is reasonable to expect that half of these materials can be conveniently recycled. Building Conditions in South San Francisco When staff analyzed building permit data to develop background for the ordinance, we categorized the building projects as commercial or residential. The type of projects include new buildings, remodels (alterations), and demolition. Roofing projects are commonly included in the C&D ordinance and were not analyzed. The number of commercial and residential projects in 2003 is shown in Table 2, 2003 Number of Commercial Building Projects and Table 3, 2003 Number of Residential Building Projects below. The projects are broken down by value to determine the appropriate threshold of projects subject to the ordinance. If the threshold is set too low, there could Staff Report Subject: Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance Page 3 be too many projects subject to the ordinance, which could overload the City's Staff. If the threshold is set too high, less diversion would occur. The ordinance will focus on larger projects as these generate the most waste. In addition, the contractors working on larger projects often have more resources to comply and may haul their own debris. We need to encourage those parties that do not use our franchised hauler to divert as much of the debris materials as is reasonable. T~hIP 2 ~.M3 Nnmher of ('nmmercial Building Proiects Valuation Range New Construction Alteration Demolition Total Number of Projects 2 257 9 Less than $50,000 - 184 6 $50,000 - $74,999 - 15 1 $75,000 - $99,999 1 9 - $100,001 - $149,999 - 12 1 $150,001 - $199,999 1 8 - Greater than $199,999 - 29 1 If the recommended limit of $50,000 valuation for commercial projects were in place in 2003, a total of two new construction and 58 alteration projects would have been affected. The nine demolition projects would be covered. The ordinance would affect all of the new construction projects and 23 percent of the alterations. 'Tahte ~_ 2(1(13 Nnmher of Residential Building Proiects Valuation Range Const u tion Alteration Demolition Total Number of Projects 23 1,133 19 Less than $10,000 - 818 18 $10,000 - $19,999 - ~~ 1 $20,000 - $29,999 - 41 - $30,000 - $39,999 - 21 - $40,000 - $49,999 - 14 - $50,000 - $99,999 - 33 - $100,000 - $149,999 2 22 - Greater than $149,999 21 85 - If the recommended limit of $50,000 valuation for residential projects were in place in 2003, a total of 23 new construction and 140 alteration projects would have been affected. The 19 demolition projects would have been covered. The ordinance would affect all of the new construction projects and 12 percent of the alteration projects. In total, the number of reviews for the new ordinance that would have been done in 2003 would have been 69 commercial projects (there were 268 projects total) and 182 residential (there were 1,175 projects total.). A total of 28 demolition projects would Staff Report Subject: Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance Page 4 have been covered. Thirty percent of the commercial projects and 15 percent of the residential projects would have been reviewed. They can be reused on the job site as part of the new project (e.g., using old asphalt as a base layer in new paving).The building can be deconstructed (if demolition is part of the project). If deconstructed, the materials are used in other building projects or sold at a store that specializes in used materials. They can be taken to a landfill and used for alternative daily cover or for road or construction materials for the landfill, if the material meets their needs and specifications. The material can be taken to a facility that can convert each of the individual materials (concrete, wood, metal) into useable materials. These facilities require the incoming material be separated at the source. Keeping the material separate at the source requires multiple debris boxes and increases the expense of diversion. The material can also be taken to a processing center capable of separating the constituent materials from a mixed load. The ordinance will not direct the permit applicant to just one diversion option. The trend in the C&D diversion industry is to use facilities capable of processing mixed materials, such as the Blue Line Transfer/MRF located in South San Francisco. These facilities offer the advantages of a simple solution and reduced cost at the job site for diversion and can result in more C&D diversion. The ordinance would encourage the use of mixed waste facilities. Waste Management Plan A Waste Management Plan is completed by the building contractor or permit applicant and reviewed by City Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The Plan allows the contractor to describe how a project will reduce, reuse, and/or divert C&D and other project debris. The Plan would contain the following: • Program Description: A brief description of City's C&D diversion requirements (provided by the City on the form.) • Checklist: A checklist of the necessary steps in the program. • General Information: Project address, contractor name, telephone number, and project description. • Reuse: Information regarding how items or structures will be salvaged or deconstructed for reuse by the applicant, including the types and quantities of items and the salvage company that will perform the work. The permit applicant may choose not to salvage materials for reuse, but having the information in the Waste Management Plan should encourage the practice. Hauling Company: The name and contact information of the company that will haul the material. This can be used to monitor compliance to franchise agreements, identify companies that may be unfamiliar with the program, or identify non-complying companies. Staff Report Subject: Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance Page 5 Receiving Facility: The recycler, material processing facility, transfer station, landfill, or other facility that will receive the C&D materials. This information will allow the City to identify what materials will be diverted and alert the applicant to potential problems they may have meeting the ordinance requirements. • Deposit Calculation: A way to calculate a diversion deposit based on valuation, squaw footage, tonnage of waste, or other factors. Reporting Information is needed from the permit applicant to confirm the materials that were planned to be diverted were actually diverted. Many ordinances require a significant deposit that will be returned if the materials are diverted. The Waste Management Plan approval documents the diversion to support return of the deposit. The documentation provided needs to be sufficient and from a verifiable source. The types of documents provided in the report are: • Weight tickets or dump receipts: An invoice from the waste disposal site or processor showing the date, time, name of facility, name of hauler, city of origin, type of material, weight of material, volume of material, and tip fee. • Contracted hauler invoices: Hauling companies, particularly debris box companies, provide service invoices to building contractors that summarize by date, size and destination of the materials pulled from the job site. Service receipts or letters from service providers: Generally reserved for difficult to weigh or quantifiable materials or services such as deconstruction or salvage. This documentation can be a letter on service provider's company letterhead describing types and amounts of materials salvaged, dates of service, and address serviced. A contractor may also provide a list of materials self-salvaged on personal letterhead. Implementation Implementation will be through the Building Department as they issue building permits, do inspections, and are equipped to deal with building related programs. FUNDING An administrative fee of 1 % of the plan checking fee will be added for plan review. Income from the fee collection process will be placed into the general fund and assist with the cost of operating the Building Department. A deposit will be required of $50/ton - $I00 minimum per plan with a maximum deposit of $50,000 refundable upon completion of the project and proof of recycling. Staff Report Subject: Page 6 CONCLUSION Due to the number of ordinances existing within the County at this time contractors should not have difficulty complying with or understanding the requirements of this program. The South San Francisco Scavenger Company will monitor the program results and compile the diversion data and report it to the CIWMB as required. This ordinance also helps contribute to the amount of recycled products available for reuse and if the City desires to require recycled products for construction projects in the future this is a first necessary step in that process. By.~1^ C~ Terry Wh~te Director o ublic Works Attachments: Ordinance Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance Approved by: t ~~ B .Nagel City anager Summary to Ordinance Resolution Master Fee Schedule ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 15.60, "RECYCLING AND DIVERSION OF DEBRIS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION," TO TITLE 15 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO RECYCLING AND DIVERSION OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the City is committed to protecting the public health, safety, welfare and environment; and WHEREAS, in order to meet these goals, it is necessary that the City promote the reduction of solid waste and reduce the stream of solid waste going to landfills; and WHEREAS, under California law as embodied in the California Waste Management Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 40000 et seq.), the City is required to prepare, adopt and implement a source reduction and recycling element to reach reduction goals, and is required to make substantial reductions in the volume of waste materials going to landfill, or pay penalties; and WHEREAS, debris from construction and demolition of buildings represents a significant portion of the volume of solid waste presently being generated by the City, and much of this debris is particularly suitable for recycling; and WHEREAS, the City's commitment to the reduction of waste and to compliance with State law requires the establishment of programs for recycling and salvaging construction and demolition materials; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that requiring construction and demolition debris to be recycled and reused may in some respects add modestly to project costs and in other respects may make possible some cost recovery and cost reduction; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare that the City implement a recycling requirement in order to achieve the above-referenced public purposes. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Anew chapter 15.60, "Recycling and Diversion of Debris from Construction and Demolition," is hereby added to Title 15 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, to read as follows: 842810-1 Chapter 15.60 RECYCLING AND DIVERSION OF DEBRIS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION 15.60.010 Definitions 15.60.020 Deconstruction and Salvage and Recovery 15.60.030 Diversion Requirements 15.60.040 Information Required Before Issuance of Permit 15.60.050 Administrative Fee 15.60.060 Deposit Required 15.60.070 Reporting 15.60.080 Penalties and Enforcement 15.60.010 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply: (a) "Construction and demolition debris" means and includes: (1) Discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, copper, aluminum, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum, wallboard, and lumber from the construction or destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the renovation of a structure and/or landscaping, including rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter that normally results from land clearing, landscaping and development operations for a construction project; (2) Remnants of new materials, including but not limited to: cardboard, paper, plastic, wood, and metal scraps from any construction and/or landscape project; (b) "Contractor" means any person or entity holding, or required to hold, a contractor's license of any type under the laws of the State of California, or who performs (whether as contractor, subcontractor, owner-builder, or otherwise) any construction, demolition, remodeling, renovation, or landscaping service relating to buildings or accessory structures in the corporate City limits of South San Francisco. (c) "Covered Project" means and includes any project which consists of one or more of the following: (1) Demolition work only, where the cost of the work exceeds $5,000 as determined by the Building Official; (2) The renovation, remodel or addition to an existing structure, or the construction of a new structure where the cost of the work exceeds $50,000, as determined by the Building Official; (3) Commercial, residential ormulti-family residential development, and any new structure that is equal to or greater than 2,000 square feet. 842810-1 (d) "Designated recyclable and reusable materials" means and includes: (1) Inert solids (2) Wood materials, including any and all dimensional lumber, fencing or construction wood that is not chemically treated, creosoted, CCA pressure treated, contaminated or painted; (3) Vegetative materials, including trees, tree parts, shrubs, stumps, logs, brush or any other type of plants that are cleared from a site for construction or other use; (4) Metals, including all metal scrap such as, but not limited to, pipes, siding, window frames, door frames and fences; (5) Roofing materials including wood shingles and shakes as well as asphalt, stone and slate based roofing material; (6) Salvageable materials and structures, including, but not limited to doors, windows, fixtures, hardwood flooring, sinks, bathtubs and appliances; (7) Any other materials that the Building Official determines can be diverted due to the identification of a recycling facility, reuse facility, or market accessible from the County. (e) "Inert solids" includes asphalt, concrete, rock, stone, brick, sand, soil and fines; (f) "Salvage" means the controlled removal of materials from a covered project, for the purpose of reuse or storage for later reuse; (g) "Structure" means anything constructed or erected. 15.60.020 Deconstruction and Salvage and Recovery. (a) Contractors are encouraged to make every structure planned for demolition available for deconstruction, salvage, and recovery prior to demolition; and to recover the maximum feasible amount of salvageable designated recyclable and reusable materials prior to demolition. (b) Recovered and salvaged designated recyclable and reusable materials from the deconstruction phase shall be counted towards the diversion requirements of this chapter. 15.60.030 Diversion Requirements. (a) One hundred percent (100%) of inert solids, and at least fifty percent (50%) of the remaining construction and demolition debris tonnage shall be diverted. (b) For each covered project, the diversion requirements of this chapter shall be met by submitting and following a Waste Management Plan that includes the following: (1) Deconstructing and salvaging all or part of the structure as practicable. AND 842810-] (2) Directing one hundred percent (100%) of inert solids to reuse or recycling facilities approved by the City. AND (3) Either a. Taking all mixed construction and demolition debris to the Mixed Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling facilities approved by the City and taking all sorted or crushed construction and demolition debris to approved facilities. OR b. Source separating non-inert materials, such as cardboard and paper, wood, metals, green waste, new gypsum wallboard, tile, porcelain fixtures, and other easily recycled materials, and directing them to recycling facilities approved by the City and taking the remainder (but no more than 50% by weight or yardage) to a facility for disposal. In this option, calculations must be provided to show that 50% of construction and demolition debris (in addition to 100% of inert solids) has been diverted. 15.60.040 Information Required Before Issuance of Permit. Every contractor shall submit a properly completed "Waste Management Plan," on a form prescribed by the City's Building Division, as an integral part of the building or demolition permit application process for a covered project. The Waste Management Plan shall indicate the intended salvage, reuse, and recycling facilities, chosen from a list of facilities approved by the City, for all construction and/or demolition debris from the project. Approval of alternative facilities or special salvage or reuse options may be requested of the Building Official. Approval by the Building Official, or designee, of the Waste Management Plan as complying with this chapter shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of any building or demolition permit for a covered project. 15.60.050 Administrative Fee. As a condition precedent to the issuance of any building or demolition permit for a covered project, the applicant shall pay to the City a fee as established by resolution to compensate the City for all expenses incurred in administering this chapter. 15.60.060 Deposit Required As a condition precedent to issuance of any permit for a building or a demolition permit that involves the production of solid waste destined to be delivered to a landfill, the applicant shall post a cash deposit in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) for each estimated ton of construction and/or demolition debris, but not less than one hundred dollars ($100) or more than fifty thousand ($50,000). The deposit or cash bond shall be returned, without interest, in total or in proportion, upon proof to the satisfaction of the building official, that no less than the required percentages or proven proportion of those percentages of the tons of debris generated by the demolition and/or construction project have been diverted from landfills and have been recycled or reused. If the lesser percentage of tons or cubic yards than required is diverted, a proportionate share of the deposit will be returned. The deposit shall be fortified entirely or to the extent that there is a failure to comply with the requirements of this chapter. 15.60.070 Reporting. 842810-1 (a) No later than thirty (30) days following the completion of a demolition project or construction project, the contractor shall, as a condition of final approval and for issuance of any certificate of occupancy, submit documentation to the City that demonstrates compliance with the requirements of this chapter. (b) The documentation shall consist of photocopies of receipts and weight tags or other records of measurement or equivalent documentation from recycling companies, deconstruction contractors, and landfill and disposal companies. The contractor's approved "Waste Management Plan" shall be completed by recording and confirming the type of debris diverted and the facilities to which it was taken. The contractor shall sign the completed "Waste Management Plan" form to certify its accuracy as part of the documentation of compliance. (c) Progress reports during construction may be required. (d) All documentation submitted pursuant to this section is subject to verification by the City. (e) It is unlawful for any person to submit documentation to the City under this section which that person knows to contain any false statements, including but not limited to false statements regarding tonnage of materials recycled or diverted, or to submit any false or fraudulent receipt or weight tag or other record of measurement. 15.60.080 Penalties and Enforcement (a) Each violation of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor, and shall be punishable as provided for in Section 36901 of the Government Code, as that section or its successor reads at the time of the offense. Each day that a violation continues shall be deemed a new and separate offense. (b) The Building Official shall have the authority to enforce this chapter as specified in section 15.06.060 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, including but not limited to the authority to order that work be stopped where any work is being done contrary to the provisions of this chapter. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION 3. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE 842810-1 Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This ordinance shall become effective thirty days from and after its adoption. Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the day of , 2006. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this day of , 2006. Joe Fernekes, Mayor 842810-1 Summary of Ordinance No. , an Ordinance Amending Title 15 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to Add Chapter 15.60 Requiring Recycling and Diversion of Debris from Construction and Demolition 1. SUMMARY The California Waste Management Act requires cities and counties to prepare, adopt and implement a source reduction and recycling element to reach reduction goals, and requires substantial reductions in the volume of waste materials going to landfill. This Ordinance encourages contractors to make every structure planned for demolition available for deconstruction, salvage, and recovery prior to demolition. It further requires that one hundred percent (100%) of inert solids (including asphalt, concrete, rock, stone, brick, sand, oil, and fines) and at least fifty percent (50%) of remaining construction and demolition debris be diverted. In implementing these requirements, the Ordinance mandates that contractors shall submit a "Waste Management Plan" as part of its building or demolition permit application. Such a Plan shall provide for compliance with the Ordinance's requirements. The Ordinance imposes an administrative fee prior to issuance of any building or demolition permit for covered projects. Additionally, contractors are required to post a cash deposit of fifty dollars ($50.00) per estimated ton of construction and/or demolition debris to be delivered to a landfill. The deposit shall be returned upon proof that no less than the required percentages of debris generated have been diverted from landfills and have been recycled or reused. The Ordinance requires that no later than thirty (30) days following completion of a construction or demolition project, contractors submit documentation demonstrating compliance with the Ordinance requirements. Failure to comply with the requirements of the Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided for in Section 36901 of the Government Code. The Ordinance shall be enforced by the City's building official. 2. This Ordinance Summary was prepared pursuant to Government Code section 36933. The City Council ordered preparation of this Ordinance Summary by the City Attorney. DATED: City Clerk CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATION Prior to Adoption. I, SYLVIA M. PAYNE, City Clerk of the City of South San Francisco, CERTIFY that on day of 2006, at least five days prior to the City Council meeting set for the day of , 2006 when this Ordinance was scheduled for adoption (1) the Summary was published and circulated in the City, and (2) a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance was posted in my office, all in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. DATED: , 2006 Sylvia M. Payne, City Clerk 2. After Adoption. I, SYLVIA M. PAYNE, City Clerk of the South San Francisco, CERTIFY that this Ordinance was adopted on the day of 2006. days thereafter (1) the Summary of this Ordinance, a copy of which is attached, was published in the "San Mateo County Times", a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City, and (2) a certified copy of this Ordinance, with the names of those City Council members voting for or against this Ordinance, or otherwise voting, was posted in my office, all in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. DATE: City Clerk CERTIFICATION AND POSTING PRIOR TO ADOPTION A certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance is posted in the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California. The Ordinance was read for the first time on the 12th day of July 2006, and is scheduled for second reading and adoption on the day of , 2006. DATED: Sylvia M. Payne, City Clerk 4. CERTIFICATION AND POSTING AFTER ADOPTION This Ordinance was adopted on the day of , 2006, and a certified copy of the full text, together with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance or otherwise voting, is posted in the Office of the City Clerk. The vote was recorded as follows: FOR: Councihnembers AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 842822_1 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFIED FEES AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO INCORPORATE THOSE FEES FOR 2006-07 WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council approve modifications to the Master Fee Schedule for 2006-07 fiscal year as set forth in the staff report and ordinance; and WHEREAS, the fees reflect the reasonable costs of providing the subject services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves the Master Fee Schedule as modified to include those fee amendments specified in the staff report and ordinance attached hereto. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of , 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 842806-2 Modification to Master Fee Schedule 2006/2007 Page 56 -Miscellaneous Fees Waste Management Plan Review 1 % of plan checking fee Waste Management Plan Deposit Deposit required @ $50/ton - $100 minimum per plan - $50,000 Maximum deposit required for new construction and demolition refunded upon completion of plan. Deposit gains no interest. (July 12, 2006 Ord ---------.