HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 03-06-14 (Reso 2741-2014) - Exhibit A 195 N Access - IS_MND + AppendixCITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
195 NORTH ACCESS ROAD, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- PLANNING DIVISION 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94083
PREPARED BY:
ALLISON KNAPP CONSULTING AllisonKnappConsulting.com September 9, 2013
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Submitted to:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
Submitted by:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MS .CATHERINE BARBER, SENIOR PLANNER
315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94083
SEPTEMBER 9, 2013
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Initial Study and Legislative Framework 1-1 1.2 Project Applicant/Team/Contact 1-3
1.3 Documents Incorporated by Reference 1-3 1.4 City of South San Francisco Project Review Process 1-4 1.5 Standard Conditions of Approval Required by Law Addressing Environmental
Issues
1-5
1.6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 1-13
1.7 Lead Agency Determination 1-13 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location and Setting 2-1 2.2 Project Site Characteristics 2-4 2.3 Proposed Project 2-5
2.4 General Plan and Zoning 2-8 2.5 Required Entitlements 2-8
CHAPER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.1 Aesthetics 3-2
3.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources 3-7 3.3 Air Quality 3-9 3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-21
3.5 Biological Resources 3-28 3.6 Cultural Resources 3-42
3.7 Geology and Soils 3-46 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-54 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 3-56
3.10 Land Use and Planning 3-71 3.11 Mineral Resources 3-72 3.12 Noise 3-75
3.13 Population and Housing 3-81 3.14 Public Services 3-82
3.15 Recreation 3-84 3.16 Transportation and Traffic 3-85 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems 3-106
3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance/ Summary of Findings 3-110 3.19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3-115
ii
APPENDIX A 1 KBE Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies
2 KBE CalEMod 3 Furgo West Geotechnical Report, 2003 4 Furgo West Geotechnical Report, February 12, 2013
5 Furgo West Geotechnical Report, July 15, 2013 6 CSA Peer Review Geotechnical, November, 2012 7 CSA Peer Review Geotechnical, March 22, 2013
8 Crane Traffic Study, 2012 9 Crane Traffic Study/Figures, 2012
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location 2-2 2.2 Proposed Project 2-3
2.3 Project Area 2-3 2.4 Bay Trail 2-5
CHAPTER 3: TRAFFIC SECTION
3.16 All Figures 3-96 -105
PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-1
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INITIAL STUDY/LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), which can be found in the California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000
et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines found in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3,
(CCR) Section 15000 et seq., as amended. This Initial Study identifies the potential
environmental impacts associated with demolition, grading, construction and future occupancy
of the Project which includes any reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with the Project in its
entirety. CEQA (PRC Section 21065) defines a Project as:
An activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any of
the following:
a) An activity directly undertaken by a public agency.
b) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part,
through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one
or more public agencies.
c) An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license,
certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more agencies.
The Applicant is requesting entitlement approvals to expand an existing parking facility at 195
North Access Road, South San Francisco, CA1. The existing Park SFO facility, constructed in
2001 and expanded in 2007, contains approximately 1,306 parking spaces in a seven level
parking structure with approximately 629 additional spaces on an adjacent surface lot2. The
proposed project would expand Park SFO by removing the adjacent paved surface parking lot
and constructing a seven level structure that would park an additional 1,600 vehicles and connect
to the existing seven-level parking structure. The proposed project would result in an
interconnected and expanded parking structure that could park up to 3,194 vehicles with an
1 Park SFO was constructed in 2001 after undergoing environmental, legislative and entitlement review in 1997 by both the City and at that time, redevelopment agency, of South San Francisco. The surface parking was expanded in 2007 through a use permit modification.
2 The plans submitted by the applicant (Bull Stockwell Allen Architects, May, 2012) tabulate 1,276 parking spaces in the garage
and 599 on the adjacent surface lot. A parking survey conducted by Crane Transportation Group (September, 2012) counted
1,306 spaces in the garage and 629 on the surface lot. Various other written application materials note 500 surface parking spaces.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-2 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
additional 361spaces on the remaining portions of the surface lot for a total of 3,555 parking
spaces.
The proposed project requires design review and modification to the existing conditional use
permit to expand the parking structure. The project would also require an administrative waiver
to the roof-top landscaping requirements contained in Section 20.330.010.L.8 of the Zoning
Code.
The proposed project (2013 Project) meets criteria “b” and “c”, identified above and therefore
requires environmental review. Preparation of an environmental analysis and subsequent
environmental determination is required prior to or simultaneously with entitlement review.
Environmental review does not constitute Project approval, but is an independent analysis of
potential Project impacts and mitigation measures. The Lead Agency may, after review of the
entirety of the record, find that the environmental analysis is adequate and approve, disapprove
or conditionally approve the Project based upon environmental and/or merits review.
The Lead Agency for this document is the City of South San Francisco. The Planning
Commission will deliberate and take action on the 2013 Project entitlements and environmental
documentation. These actions will take place in legally-noticed public hearings.
This Initial Study, City Project Number: P12-0048, ND12-0003, UPM12-0003 and DR-0022 is
for the 2013 Project identified 195 North Access Road in South San Francisco, California
(APNs: 015-180-020 and 015-173-160).
Total site area is approximately seven acres (6.96). The site area includes the 5.71 acre parcel
supporting the existing parking garage (2001 Project) and the adjacent 1.25 acre parcel currently
containing surface parking (2007 Project). The 2007 Project would be demolished, re-graded
and reconstructed with a seven-level parking structure. Some demolition of the north wall of
the 2001 Project would be necessary to connect the two structures. The existing vertical
entrance and exit ramps would be expanded to provide access to the expanded facility (referred
to as the 2013 Project). New stairs and a lobby with two elevators are proposed as part of the
2013 Project. Drive aisles would be constructed and connected to allow vehicles to flow
between the new and existing facility. The 2013 Project architecture is proposed to be similar to
and compliment the existing facility. The totality of these actions, as well as the daily operations
of the expanded facility, constitutes the 2013 Project.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PARK SFO – INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-3
1.2 PROJECT APPLICANT/TEAM/CONTACT
PROJECT APPLICANT AND TEAM
The Project applicant and owner is R.E.S.T, represented by Mr. Robert Sims. The Project
development team consists of International Parking Design; Bull Stockwell Allen architects; and
Smith + Smith landscape architects.
The contact for the Project is:
Mr. Robert E. Simms
237 Harbor Way South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 871-6137
LEAD AGENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
The Lead Agency for this Initial Study is the City of South San Francisco. The administrative
record for the 2013 Project is on file at the City’s Planning Division. The following person has
been assigned as the custodian and Case Planner/Project Manager for the Lead Agency:
Ms. Catherine Barber, Senior Planner
Department of Economic and Community Development-Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 877-8535
The Environmental Document was prepared by:
Allison Knapp Wollam, Environmental Consultant ALLISON KNAPP WOLLAM CONSULTING
345 Vicente Street, San Francisco, CA 94127 (415) 902-3238
The environmental consulting team consists of Allison Knapp Wollam Consulting, KB
Environmental Engineering for the air quality and hazard risk assessments, Environmental
Collaborative for the biology assessment and Crane Transportation Group for the traffic and
circulation.
1.3 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
1997 Initial Study /Mitigated negative Declaration PARK SFO, Jerry Haag Consulting, February 1997.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-4 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
GEOLOGY
Updated Geotechnical Investigation Report 195 North Access Road , South San Francisco, California, Furgo
West, March 2003 and February 12, 2013).
Geotechnical Peer Review, 195 North Access Road, South San Francisco, California, Cotton Shires
Associates, November 21, 2012 and March 22, 2013.
TRAFFIC
Traffic Impact Report, Park SFO, Long Term Parking Expansion, Crane Transportation Group
September 13, 2012.
1.4 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROJECT REVIEW
PROCESS
As a matter of law, the Project is required to comply with federal, state and local laws and
regulations. The following regulations are verified as satisfied and incorporated into the Project as a matter of demolition, grading and /or building permit issuance. As such, these requirements
are considered a part of the Project, not a separate and distinct requirement.
City of South San Francisco project processing requires that applications for projects are first reviewed by the City’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG). TAG is comprised of representatives
from Planning, Building, Police, Fire, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, and Water Quality Control. TAG review identifies changes and additions that are required in a project to comply
with local, state and federal laws that are implemented through the City’s Municipal Code. The Planning Division, subsequent to TAG review, issues a letter to the applicant identifying the
changes required in Project plans and supporting materials necessary to comply with prevailing laws pursuant to site development, construction and land use. The applicant is required to revise
the plans and supporting documentation or the application is not certified as complete and not processed. Revised plans and documentation are submitted to the Planning Division to be
routed again to all affected City departments and divisions; again to evaluate the application in light of their earlier comments and requirements. The process results in an application that can
be certified ‘complete’ as well as identifying the Conditions of Approval (COAs) that are required should the Project be approved. Many of these COAs implement environmental
mitigations that were historically identified through the environmental review process (California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA) and now have become a part of the City’s legislative
requirements, through its general plan, special, area, municipal code, special districts, or memoranda of understanding (i.e., its police power).
After a project application is complete it is subject to environmental, public and discretionary
review through and by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, depending upon the type of project, as defined by the Municipal Code of South San Francisco and state law. The COAs
identified through staff review of the project, and any additional ones identified through the public review process become required of the project as a matter of law. Prior to the City issuing
a building, grading and/or demolition permit all City departments and divisions (identified above) review the project plans for compliance with their identified COAs and any ones added
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PARK SFO – INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-5
through the public review process. Permits are not issued by the Building Division in absence of
authorization from City staff or in absence of the requirements being incorporated into the
Project plans.
1.5 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRED BY
LAW ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
The following COAs limit environmental impacts and are required through the City of South San Francisco’s standard review and permitting procedures. Therefore these
measures are not separately identified as mitigation measures. As is the case with all aspects of an approved project, the Project’s conditions of approval could not be altered
without additional City review and approval, which could entail subsequent or supplemental CEQA review.
Failure of the Applicant to meet the required measures and/or elements of their Project
description relating to environmental issues, such as LEED measures and TDM Programs may obviate this environmental document and require subsequent or
supplemental CEQA review as the Project as proposed coupled with the required conditions of approval is the baseline from which environmental impacts were evaluated
for the Project.
1. AESTHETICS
AESTHETICS LIGHT AND GLARE: Signage is required to be reviewed by staff, and in some
instances the by Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. Lighting, size, color, placement, design and compatibility with surrounding land uses is addressed and assured
through this process. The City’s sign regulations are intended to preserve and improve appearance, protect from visual clutter and blight, protect property values and enhance
community appearance, minimize diversion of vehicle operators’ attention and safeguard life, health, property and public welfare. Potential environmental impacts and the need or lack
thereof for environmental clearance is also addressed and undertaken as a part of the Sign Permit procedure (Chapter 20.360 South San Francisco Municipal Code-Zoning). The Planning
Division implements and monitors this requirement.
Projects are reviewed by the City’s Design Review Board consisting of professional architects and landscape architects. The Planning Commission, and in some cases the City Council, adds
design elements to projects. Projects that are within a state or local scenic corridor are further addressed through the CEQA process.
2. AIR QUALITY
AIR QUALITY DUST CONTROL: All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) dust control measures. These measures
are levied by the Engineering Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are
monitored for compliance by staff and/or special City Engineering and/or Planning inspectors.
The measures include all the Basic Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures, Basic Exhaust
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-6 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
Emissions Reduction Measures and some of the Additional Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures
identified by the BAAQMD May, 2011. The City requires Projects to:
a) Water all active construction sites at least twice daily.
b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas
at construction sites.
e) Sweep streets daily (with wet power vacuum sweepers) if visible soil material is carried
onto adjacent public streets at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
f) Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously
graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
g) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled
materials.
h) Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
i) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
j) Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break-up of pavement.
k) Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site.
l) Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible.
m) Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by
the wind.
n) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be in proper running order prior to operation.
o) Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than five
minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules.
p) Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible.
q) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PARK SFO – INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-7
r) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
s) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2484 of the California Code of
regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access
points.
t) Post a visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within
24 hours. The Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
AIR QUALITY TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS: The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos
and lead based paint) to be released into the environment is regulated and monitored through
the Building Division in compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 during Demolition. Any
applicant requesting a building or demolition permit involving a structure suspected of
containing asbestos (defined as a building constructed prior to 1978) and/or lead based paint
(defined as a building constructed prior to 1960) is required to obtain a J-Permit from the
BAAQMD. The J Permit is required to be posted on the job site and if it is not there the job
can be fined by the BAAQMD and may be shut down by the City’s Building Division.
Through this process, the BAAQMD and the City Building Division ensure that asbestos and
lead based paints are handled, removed, encapsulated and disposed of in accordance with
prevailing law requisite to protect the environment, the people conducting the work and nearby
sensitive receptors. The process typically requires surveys and removal of lead based paints and
asbestos by licensed contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the
environment and public health and safety. The process also provides for BAAQMD and City
supervision to insure compliance.
AIR QUALITY VEHICLE EMISSIONS: The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle
emissions is regulated to some extent by Section 20.400.003 of the South San Francisco Code.
Table 20.400.003 in the Zoning Ordinance establishes specific program requirements for a
project generating one hundred or more vehicle trips per day or a project seeking a floor area
ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode (mode shift) use for all projects is twenty-
eight percent below standard trip rates modeled for the project without TDM measures in place.
Projects with an increased FAR are required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly.
The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement.
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEOLOGY AND SOILS TABLE 18-1-B UNIFORM BUILDING CODE: All construction projects are required to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Projects located on soils identified in
Volume 2 Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code are required to comply with the construction specifications to limit potential damage due to liquefaction. This requirement is
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-8 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
enforced and monitored by the Engineering Division. Compliance with the Uniform Building
Code is also implemented and monitored by the Building Division.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS: The City Engineering Division also requires
geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for projects to be constructed on vacant
land, demolition and rebuilding and additions to buildings that require grading and additional
loading. The geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist,
geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The reports address design and construction
specifications for the Project including grading, site drainage, utility and infrastructure design
specifications and placement and building design. The reports are peer reviewed by the City’s
geotechnical consultant and are modified as recommended by the City’s consultant.
Geotechnical approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit. The geotechnical
professional of record is required to sign all project drawings and the City’s geotechnical
consultant provides construction inspections, oversight and monitoring for the City. The
Engineering Division implements and monitors this requirement.
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: The following is a summary of applicable requirements
in Provisions C.3.b.ii and C.3.c.i.2 of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (“Municipal Regional
Permit” or “MRP”). The full text may be downloaded at www.flowstobay.org/ms_municipalities.php.
All projects that are required to treat stormwater will need to treat the permit-specified amount
of stormwater runoff with low impact development methods. These methods include rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. However, biotreatment
(filtering stormwater through vegetation and soils before discharging to the storm drain system) will be allowed only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration and evapotranspiration are infeasible
at the Project site. Vault-based treatment will not be allowed as a stand-alone treatment measure. Where stormwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapotranspiration are
infeasible, vault-based treatment measures may be used in series with biotreatment, for example, to remove trash or other large solids. (see Provision C.3.c.i.2 of the MRP.)
Projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface related to
auto service facilities, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, and/or surface parking will be required to provide low impact development treatment of stormwater runoff. This requirement applies
to uncovered parking that is stand-alone, or included as part of any other development project, and it applies to the top uncovered portion of a parking structure, unless drainage from the
uncovered portion is connected to the sanitary sewer (see Provision C.3.b.ii.1 of the MRP). For all other land use categories, 10,000 square feet is the regional threshold for requiring low impact
development, source control, site design, and stormwater treatment, although municipalities may have the authority to require treatment to the maximum extent practicable for smaller projects.
The new requirements are built into the following standard requirements.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY STORMWATER RUNOFF PREVENTION (OPERATIONAL): All Projects are required to comply with the San Mateo Countywide Storm
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PARK SFO – INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-9
Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City/County
Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. The City requires the
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new development and construction
as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City COA’s. The
requirements are implemented and monitored by the Engineering and Water Quality Control
Divisions.
The measures address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities,
e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and
subcontractor training. Stormwater pollution prevention measures also affect site development
and operations in order to prevent pollution due to Project occupancy. Typical storm water
quality protection measures include:
a) Walking and light traffic areas shall use permeable pavements where feasible. Typical
pervious pavements include pervious concrete, porous asphalt, turf block, brick pavers,
natural stone pavers, concrete unit pavers, crushed aggregate (gravel), cobbles and wood
mulch.
b) Parking lots shall include hybrid surfaces (pervious material for stalls only), concave
medians with biofilters (grassy swales), and landscaped infiltration/detention basins as
feasible.
c) Landscape design shall incorporate biofilters, infiltration and retention/detention basins
into the site plan as feasible.
d) Outdoor work areas including garbage, recycling, maintenance, storage, and loading,
applicable storm water controls include siting or set back from drainage paths and water
ways, provision of roofing and curbs or berms to prevent run on and run off. If the area
has the potential to generate contaminated run off, structural treatment controls for
contaminant removal (such as debris screens or filters) shall be incorporated into the
design.
e) Roof leaders and site drainage shall be filtered and directed to the City storm drain
system and harvesting of rainwater shall occur.
f) Drainage from paved surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated swales, buffer or sand
strips before discharge to the City’s storm drain system.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY STORMWATER RUNOFF PREVENTION
(CONSTRUCTION): The City of South San Francisco requires through COAs, Project
compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board’s general permitting requirements which
requires the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, complete
a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10
days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies
of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco’s Technical Services Supervisor
within the Water Quality Control Plant of the Public Works Department prior to issuance of
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-10 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
building and/or grading permits. The requirements are implemented and monitored by Water
Quality Control personnel. Typical construction stormwater protection measures include:
a) Identify all storm drains, drainage swales and creeks located near construction sites and
prevent pollutants from entering them by the use of filter fabric cloth, rock bags, straw
wattles, slope hydroseeding, cleaning up leaks, drips or spills immediately, use dry
cleanup methods to clean up spills, use of berms, temporary ditches and check dams to
reduce the velocity of surface flow.
b) Place rock bags at all drain inlets to filter silt and along curb and gutter to filter water
before the drain inlets.
c) Place straw wattles and hydroseed the sloped areas.
d) Place straw matting at the temporary sloped areas for erosion control.
e) Place drain systems to filter and then drain into drain inlets.
f) Use silt fencing with straw mats and hand broadcast seed for erosion control.
g) Construct temporary drainage systems to filter and divert water accordingly.
h) Construct temporary rock and asphalt driveways and wheel washers to buffer public
streets from dirt and mud.
i) Use part and full time street sweepers that operate along public streets and roads.
j) Cover all stockpiled soils to protect from erosion. Use berms around stockpiled soils.
k) Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powders which create large
amounts of suspended solids.
l) Store all hazardous materials (paints, solvents, chemicals) in accordance with secondary
containment regulations and cover during wet weather.
m) Use terracing to prevent erosion.
n) Through grading plan review and approval, phase grading operations to reduce disturbed
areas during wet weather, limit vegetation removal, delineate clearing limits, setbacks,
easements, sensitive or critical areas, trees, drainage courses and buffer zones to prevent
unnecessary disturbance and exposure. Limit or prohibit grading during the wet weather
season, October 15 to April 15th.
o) Prevent spills and leaks by maintaining equipment, designating specific areas of a site for
such activities that are controlled and away from water courses and perform major
maintenance off-site or in designated areas only.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PARK SFO – INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-11
p) Cover and maintain all dumpsters, collect and properly dispose of all paint removal
wastes, clean up paints, solvents, adhesives and all cleaning solvents properly. Recycle
and salvage appropriate wastes and maintain an adequate debris disposal schedule.
q) Avoid roadwork and pavement stormwater pollution by following manufacturers’
instructions.
5. NOISE
NOISE INTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE: The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure through state law and their General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan. The California Building
Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California Code of Regulation, collectively known as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms
for multi-family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings
intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies the extent to which walls, doors, and floor-ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound in
between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise level of 45 dBA (CNEL or Ldn) in any habitable room with
all doors and windows closed and requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas
subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or Ldn). Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance by the Building Division.
The City, through its General Plan, adopted the Noise Guidelines of the State Department of
Health Services in their Noise Element (1999). Table 9.2-1, Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan (page 280) guides land use decisions
based upon noise thresholds and acoustical analysis and mitigation. Additionally, the General Plan (page 279) also guides and mitigates development in light of aircraft noise. The City
implements the Federal Aviation Administration adopted noise contours and participates in an aircraft noise insulation program. Figure 9-1 of the General Plan Aircraft Noise and Noise
Insulation Program (page 279) identifies the noise contours and program area. The East of 101 Area Plan requirement for interior ambient noise for commercial, office and retail is 45 dBA,
Leq, echoing state law. Residential land uses are prohibited. The Noise Guidelines are implemented by the Planning Division through new project review.
NOISE EXTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE: The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise
levels through the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 8.32.030). The Municipal Code regulates noise pursuant to land use and time of day. Lower density residential maximum noise
exposure (excluding vehicle horns and emergency vehicles) is restricted to 50 dB 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 60 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Higher density residential and commercial is
restricted to 55 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 65 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Industrial land uses are restricted to 70 dB anytime of the day. These noise standards are implemented largely
through enforcement actions (i.e., citizen complaint and governmental response). The Fire Department through its Code Enforcement Officer implements these regulations.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1-12 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
Construction noise is also regulated through the Municipal Code (8.32.050(d)). Hours of
construction are exempt from the standards identified in the preceding paragraph and are limited
to 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays and 10 A.M. to 6
P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these regulations.
Exceptions to the hours of construction may be granted by the Chief Building Official.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
PARK SFO – INITIAL STUDY PAGE 1-13
1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
This Initial Study evaluates the Project which is defined as that proposed by the Applicant and as modified by the City of South San Francisco’s standard COAs,
identified above. Therefore any impacts identified by the following Initial Study are those impacts that could occur above and beyond those that would be mitigated by the
City’s standard permitting process and as such will require additional mitigation and/or additional environmental review.
Environmental factors that may be affected by the Project, as defined by CEQA and as
described herein, are listed below. Factors identified with shading have been determined to have the potential for significant impacts and will be addressed in an EIR. Factors which are un-
shaded have been determined to be clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur. Factors identified with shading have been determined to be potentially affected by the Project based on
discussion also provided in Chapter 3.
Aesthetics Hazards &Hazardous Materials Public Services Agriculture & Forest Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use and Planning Transportation
Greenhouse Gas Mineral Resources Utilities & Service Systems
Biological Resources Noise Cumulative Impacts Cultural Resources Population &Housing Geology & Soils
1.7 LEAD AGENCY'S DETERMINATION
On the basis of the analysis contained in Chapter 3:
X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been identified and are required to be implemented that reduce
potential impacts to less than significant and these mitigations have been agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
Chief Planner
PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-1
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
As described in Chapter 1 Introduction, the 2013 Project, on approximately seven acres (6.96), consists of a 5.71 acre parcel supporting the existing parking garage constructed in 2001 and the
adjacent 1.25 acre parcel currently containing surface parking constructed in 2007. The 2007 parcel is owned by the City of South San Francisco and leased to Mr. Robert Simms, the Project sponsor.1
The 2013 Project would demolish the 2007 Project and construct a seven-level parking structure connecting to the existing 2001 Project.
The site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, in the southeastern corner of the City at 195 North Access Road. North Access Road and San Bruno Canal are immediately south of the site.
South of North Access Road is another parking structure. San Francisco International Airport is property is 200 feet south of the site with its main operations approximately 1,300 feet further south.
San Francisco Bay is directly east, the City of South San Francisco wastewater treatment facility is to the north and an aviation fuel tank farm is to the west. The site has access from South Airport
Boulevard, I-280 to 380 to North Access Road and U.S. 101 to North Access Road (see Figures 2.1 Project Location and 2.3 Project Area).
SITE PLANNING HISTORY-EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City received a development application in 1997 that triggered environmental, legislative and
entitlement review to construct the existing Park SFO facility. The 1997 review resulted in the City
adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (MND) and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for site development and use. Amendments to the
1999 General Plan, East of 101 Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance to designate and zone the site as
Mixed Industrial (MI) to allow a parking facility that includes surface and structured parking, and
parking on the unused dry docks were also approved. Three of the dry docks are leased from the
City and one is owned by the Project sponsor. Other actions included authorization and execution
of a development agreement and land lease agreements; a lot line adjustment; and use permit and
design review approvals, with conditions of approval. The project was approved in April, 1998 and
1 The 2013 Project is the demolition of the 1.25-acre surface parking lot paved in 2007 and construction of a seven-level
parking structure connecting to the parking structure constructed in 1998. The Project site is typically described as the
entire seven acre site. Potential 2013 Project impacts consider the “whole of the project” which is the existing 1998
Project plus the 2013 Project.
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PAGE 2-2 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
constructed in 2001 (2001 Project). The 2001 Project also included relocation of portion of the Bay
Trail and construction of a park (+/-32,000 square feet) on the southern-most dry dock which is
owned by the Project sponsor. The old dry docks, five in total, are commonly referred to as
“fingers” (see Figure 2.1).
Mr. Simms, the Project sponsor, received approvals in 2007 to add an additional 166 stall surface
parking lot onto land owned by the City adjacent to the north the 2001 Project. The parcel
(colloquially known as the Tillo Property) was used by the City’s Water Quality Control Plant for
composting sludge during their facility upgrade from 1999-2001, and since 2001, was unused
property. In 2003 the City deemed the land as surplus and in 2007 Mr. Simms applied and received
approvals for the expansion of paved surface parking onto this parcel.
The 2013 Project, the subject of this analysis, would require demolition of pavement on the Tillo
Property, new grading and site preparation, emplacement of foundations and construction to expand
the parking structure. The 2013 Project does not propose to alter or disturb the existing use of the
old dry docks. The 2013 Project does not propose to encroach bay-ward beyond the line of the
existing parking garage (see Figure 2.2 Proposed Project).
FIGURE 2.1
PROJECT LOCATION
EAST OF 101 AREA LAND USE HISTORY
Land uses in the East of 101 Area have witnessed a change in land use over the years. The East of 101 Area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco approximately 100
years ago. Since then, the area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging gave way to industrial park and warehousing and
distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The recent emergence of
Area of 2013 Expansion
(Also referred to as 2007 Project Site)
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PARK SFO- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-3
modern office buildings and life science campuses mark the third major wave of land use change in
the area which are predominately located in the central and northern areas of the East of 101 Area.
The Project area, located in the southern portion of the East of 101 Area, largely consists of
industrial and manufacturing uses, big box retail, airport-related parking and transport and freight
forwarding. Industrial, warehousing, freight forwarding and airport-related parking uses are
permitted in the East of 101 south of East Grand Avenue (pps 110 and 111 South San Francisco
General Plan, 1999). San Francisco International Airport, airport-related parking services and
infrastructure designed to move motor vehicles (major arterials and surface connector streets)
dominate the Project area (see Figure 2.3 Project Area).
FIGURE 2.2
PROPOSED PROJECT
FIGURE 2.3 PROJECT AREA
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Shell Oil Tank Farms
SFO Maintenance Building
Project Site
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PAGE 2-4 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
2.2 PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is relatively level and approximately 11 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The site includes
four dry docks extending into the bay. The site is underlain by Franciscan formation bedrock,
sandstone, shale and serpentine. Artificial fill and alluvial deposits derived from nearby hills overlay
the site (Furgo West, 2003). Research on envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov does not indicate hazardous or toxic
issues associated with the property although there may be monitoring wells on the property in
connection with monitoring nearby properties (website accessed December 5, 2012). Chapter 3, Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials describes site conditions in more detail. Luis
DaSilva South San Francisco Fire Marshal did not identify hazardous issues, conditions or concerns
with the property (memorandum June 25, 2012). The Chief Planner, Ms. Susy Kalkin, concurs with
these findings. See Figure 2.1 Project Location which shows the existing site and area conditions.
BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (BCDC) BAY TRAIL AND
BAY ACCESS
The City, in 1998 amended the East of 101 Area Plan in part to relocate a portion of the planned-for
San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) along with the first entitlements for Park SFO. BCDC in 1996/97 approved a trail alignment for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) realigning the Bay
Trail entirely west of the SFO terminating at the comer of South Airport Boulevard and North Access Road. The rerouting requested by Mr. Simms and approved by the City in 1998, resulted in
connecting the two trail segments and provided a direct route back to the shoreline north of the SFO and the Project site (see Figure 2.4 Bay Trail).2 A regional view of the Bay Trail may be
located on www.abag.ca.gov/bayaarea/baytrail/map.html.
Mr. Simms constructed a 32,000 square foot public park on the southern-most dry dock as part of
the 1998 Project. The Bay Trail is just south of the park. The realignment realized in the late 1990’s provides a public park, Bay Trail links north of the Project area and arguably a more pleasant
experience by avoiding the odoriferous activities of the Water Quality Control Plant as noted in the City 1997 staff reports.
2 Prior to the City’s amendment the Bay Trail was planned to leave Belle Air Island westerly along North Access Road, traveling
northerly parallel to the dry docks (through the Project site) and through the Water Quality Control Plant where it would then bridge
the canal and connect further to northern portions of the City.
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PARK SFO- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-5
FIGURE 2.4
BAY TRAIL
2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
The Project Sponsor is requesting various approvals (see 2.5 Project Entitlements) to demolish the 2007 surface parking lot and construct a seven-level 549,626 square foot parking structure. The new
structure would connect to the existing seven-level 477,048 square foot parking structure (see Figure 2.2 Proposed Project) comprising the 2013 Project. The total area of the expanded parking
structure would be 1,026,647 square feet. The 2013 Project proposes to plant a minimum of eight poplar trees around the perimeter of the site.
The 2013 Project does not propose to comply with City’s Zoning Code Section 20.330.010.L.8 requiring rooftop landscaping on parking structures. Plantings are prescribed to be placed a
minimum dimension of 24 inches in width around the perimeter of the roof. The application materials state that the owner’s previous experience with planters on the existing Park SFO facility
roof has been “extremely negative.” According to Mr. Simms the irrigation systems have been difficult and expensive to maintain and water leaks have caused damage to the facility and parked
cars within the structure. The damage to cars has resulted in claims against the facility.
The Project would include an unspecified amount of electric car charging stations. Application
materials indicate that the 2001 and 2007 Projects include a shuttle bus fleet that provides transportation between Park SFO and the airport. The shuttle buses run on compressed natural gas
(CNG). CNG is a cleaner burning alternative transportation fuel, having fewer emissions than gasoline and diesel. The 2013 Project would continue and expand the CNG running shuttle service.
Application materials indicate the Project would be illuminated by light-emitting diode (LED) lights. LED lights draw less energy than halogen or incandescent lighting and are task oriented thus
limiting off-site spill of light. Solar panels were installed on the roof of the 1998 Project in the Summer of 2013.
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PAGE 2-6 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
PROPOSED CIRCULATION AND ACCESS
Direct access and circulation to the 2013 Project site would remain unchanged. Customer and
shuttle bus access would be derived from the two existing driveways along North Access Road. The
Main access of the site is at the curve in North Access Road with a second access point on the
eastern side of the parking structure (see Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The eastern access is largely unused
and includes a gate restricting access. Parking capacity would increase from 1,901 to 3,194 spaces.
PROPOSED UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND HYDROLOGY
The 2013 Project would continue to connect to the existing utility lines present in the Project area.
Utility lines on the 2013 Project site would be reconfigured to accommodate the new site plan. A
stormwater quality control plan is required and shall address C-3 and C-6 permitting specifications,
rainwater harvesting, use of recycled water, capture, treatment and retention of stormwater and
other requirements outlined in Chapter 1, Introduction Section 1.5.4, Chapter 3.8 Hydrology
and Water Quality and a July 3, 2012 memorandum from Mr. Rob Lecel, Water Quality Control
Plant coordinator.
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
Project construction is expected to take approximately 16 months. There would be three main phases of construction: (1) demolition, excavation, and foundation construction, (2) deck and
vertical structure forming and construction, and (3) finishing. The first and last phases are expected to take approximately four (4) months each, with the second phase taking approximately eight (8)
months.
Typical construction equipment would include backhoes, concrete mixer trucks, cranes, dump
trucks, excavators, front end loaders, pickup trucks and forklifts. Operation of this construction equipment would generate noise levels ranging from 75 dBA to 85 dBA at 50 feet. Construction
work would be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, five (5) days a week, with occasional deliveries on Saturday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. A possible exception to this would be to
accommodate concrete pours which requires a consistent and constant delivery of cement until the pour is completed. Typically, concrete pours would occur on Thursdays or Fridays to take
advantage of weekend downtime allowing the concrete to adequately cure before construction resumes on the following Monday. Should Saturday pours be necessary, the activity would occur
between the hours of 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. These proposed hours of construction are in conformance with the City’s noise ordinance outlined in Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.5.5
which limits weekday construction from 8 AM to 8 PM.3
3 Construction noise is regulated through the Municipal Code (8.32.050(d)). Hours of construction are limited to 8 A.M.
to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays and 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these regulations. Exceptions to the hours of construction may be granted by
the Chief Building Official.
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PARK SFO- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-7
The first major phase of construction (demolition, excavation and foundation construction) would
involve excavation, off haul of asphalt and excess soil, and import of rebar and concrete for the
structural foundation. Earth moving equipment would be on-site to support foundation
construction. Demolition on the site would include removal and disposal of the asphalt paving in
the area where the expansion is proposed. The area would encompass the building footprint plus
approximately 10 feet outside of the footprint; an area of approximately 90,000 square feet. Any
abandoned building pads or other subsurface impediments within the footprint of the expansion
would also be removed.
Site grading would involve excavation for the structure’s foundation. Demolition and excavation
would be performed in a manner to minimize the generation of dust pursuant to the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Tier 1 and 2 methods identified in Chapter 1,
Introduction, Section 1.5.2. The Engineering Division requires and monitors compliance with the
BAAQMD measures. Soil would be excavated down to bedrock over the footprint of the proposed
structure for placement of spread footings. The distance from the ground surface to bedrock is
approximately 10 to 15 feet over most of the site. Off-haul of asphalt would likely occur over a two
week period and would result in an average of six truck trips per day. Off-haul of excess soil would
occur over a longer period and may result in three to four truck trips per day.
The heaviest construction traffic days during the first major construction phase would be during the
foundation concrete pours, when approximately 50 concrete trucks would travel to the site over the
course of the workday. Concrete trucks would be scheduled so that there would be two to three
concrete trucks on site at a time. Approximately six concrete pours are envisioned for the
foundation. On approximately six separate occasions during this four month period, semi-trailers
would deliver the foundation rebar to the site.
During the second major phase of construction, deck and vertical structure pours, construction
would include forming and construction of the parking decks and vertical elements (walls and
columns). The heaviest traffic days would be for forming and construction of the parking decks.
Concrete pours would typically occur every Thursday over the eight month period (or approximately
32 days). Equipment required on-site during to construct the parking decks would include concrete
pumping equipment and approximately 60 concrete trucks over the course of the work day. In
addition, delivery of rebar would occur two days per month, typically on Mondays, and would
include two semi-trucks with flatbed trailers. Vertical (column and wall) pours would also occur on
32 separate days with each pour requiring approximately 25 concrete trucks coming to the site over
the course of a work day, typically a Tuesday.
The last construction phase involves construction of exterior and interior finishes, stair and elevator
installation, painting, stall striping, and other closeout activities. Equipment used on-site during this
period would be typically limited to forklifts and trucks delivering finish materials. The geotechnical
report noted the existence of serpentine rock in several of the borings taken. Asbestos is a naturally
occurring material in some types of serpentine rock. Excavated material containing asbestos fibers
may need to be disposed of as hazardous waste and would be required to comply with the J-Permit
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PAGE 2-8 PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY
regulations of the BAAQMD outlined in Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.5.2. The demolition
and construction activities are included in the air quality analysis (see Section 3.2 Air Quality).
2.4 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the “East of 101” Planning Sub-Area
of the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan. The General Plan designates the Project site for
“Mixed Industrial” uses, and gives the following summary:
This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial lands for a wide range
of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage and
distribution and service commercial uses. The maximum floor area is 0.4, with an
increase to 0.60 for development seeking a FAR bonus with a Transportation
Demand Management Program in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Table
2.2-1 (page 32 General Plan) footnote (1) states that commercial parking structures
are excluded from the FAR restrictions.
ZONING CLASSIFICATION
The Project site is zoned “Mixed Industrial” (MI) and is consistent with the General Plan
designation. The MI District provides for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing,
general service, warehousing, storage and distribution and service commercial uses. Industries that
use or produce substantial amounts of hazardous materials or generate noise, odor, or other
pollutants are not permitted. The maximum floor area is 0.4, with an increase to 0.60 for
development providing specified off-site improvements save for structured commercial parking as
noted above. A complete list of permitted and conditional uses is identified in Chapter 20.110.002
of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (HTTP://Qcode.us).
2.5 REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS
LEAD AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
The Applicant has applied for adjudicative and administrative actions as identified below.
ADJUDICATIVE
Modification to Conditional Use Permit to expand the parking facility.
Design Review approval.
MINISTERIAL
Grading and Encroachment permits to work in the public right-of-way (Engineering
Division).
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PARK SFO- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-9
Building permits (Building Division).
Waiver of the requirement to landscape the perimeter of rooftop parking deck (Planning
Division).
OTHER AGENCY REQUIRED PERMITS
J - Permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Local and State approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (South San Francisco
Water Quality Control Plant and State Water Resources Board).
Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (review and potential permit).
California Department of Fish and Game (review and potential permit).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (review and potential permit).
PARK SFO - INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-1
3
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following checklist is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. A “no impact”
response indicates that the Project would not result in an environmental impact in a particular area
of interest, either because the resource is not present, or the Project does not have the potential to
cause an effect on the resource. A “less than significant” response indicates that, while there may
be potential for an environmental impact, the significance of the impact would not exceed
established thresholds and/or that there are standard procedures or regulations in place that would
apply to the Project and hence no mitigation is required, or that, although there is the potential for a
significant impact, feasible mitigation measures are available and have been agreed to and proposed
by the Project to reduce the impact to a level of “less than significant.” A “potentially
significant impact” indicates that the Project could exceed established thresholds, no mitigation is
currently proposed or identified and therefore the impact will be analyzed in an environmental
impact report. A “less than significant with mitigation” indicates that although the impact would
be considered significant, measures are identified and required herein that will reduce the impact to
less than significant.
Citations for this chapter are contained within the relevant discussion.
As noted in Chapter 2, the existing parking structure (2001 Project) underwent
environmental review in 1997. This 2013 Initial Study identifies mitigation measures that
carry forward from the 1997 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as the
ones that do not carry forward. The 2001 Project, 2007 Project demolition and construction
of the 20013 Project will be the “complete 2013 Project” going forward.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-2 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
3.1 AESTHETICS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS — Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
1997 IS/MND
One mitigation measure, Mitigation Measure 14, was identified in the February, 1997 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (1997 IS/MND). Mitigation Measure 14 requires a
lighting plan to ensure that all exterior fixtures would be downcast or equipped with cut-off lenses to prevent spill of unwanted light onto adjacent properties, streets or sensitive biological
resources. Mitigation Measure 14 is superseded by 2013 Biology Mitigation 3, as well as the City’s zoning ordinance and Area Plan requirements (see lighting discussion in c, above and
Section 3.5 Biological Resources).
SETTING
PROJECT SITE
The site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, in the southeastern corner of the City at 195
North Access Road. North Access Road and San Bruno Canal are immediately south of the site. South of North Access Road is another parking structure. San Francisco International Airport
(SFO) property is approximately 200 feet south of the site. San Francisco Bay is directly east, the City of South San Francisco wastewater treatment facility is to the north and an aviation fuel
tank farm is to the west (see Figures 2.1 Project Location and 2.3 Project Area in Chapter 2).
The Project area largely consists of industrial and manufacturing uses, big box retail, airport-
related parking and transport and freight forwarding. SFO, airport-related parking services, major arterials and surface connector streets dominate the Project area (see Figure 2.3 Project
Area in Chapter 2).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-3
Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the City’s Water
Quality Control Plant. In 2007, the property owner received approvals from the City to pave the
Project site and provide surface parking that is part and parcel to the existing Park SFO facility
that was constructed in 2001. Therefore, the Project site has been paved and used for a surface
parking lot as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
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, US 380 to the
south, 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 two sides. The City’s terrain ranges from the
flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain in the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the City’s
topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north-south direction and about
five miles from east to west. South San Francisco’s industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its eastern parts. Almost 20 percent of South San Francisco’s land is
occupied by industrial and warehousing uses. EAST OF 101 AREA
NORTH OF EAST GRAND AVENUE: Land uses in the East of 101 Area have witnessed a
change in land use over the years. 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 parks, including warehousing and distribution uses that
dominated the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The emergence of modern office buildings and life
science campuses in the 1980s marks the third major wave of land use change in the area.
SOUTH OF EAST GRAND AVENUE: The southern portion of the East of 101 Area, where the
Project is located retains more of a relationship to the older industrial land uses of South San
Francisco. Heavier industrial uses, such as ship repair, have gone by the wayside to be replaced
with a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage
and distribution, and service commercial uses. Dry docks are replaced with public parks and
airport-related parking. The southern area of the East of 101 is where most of South San
Francisco’s industrial uses are now located; a policy direction contained in the 1999 general plan.
The City’s zoning ordinance prohibits industries that use or produce substantial amounts of
hazardous materials or generate noise, odor, or other pollutants.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The Project would remove a surface parking lot and construct a seven-level parking structure
connecting to the existing Park SFO facility. The Project would not encroach towards the Bay but would be located north of the existing Park SFO parking garage. A park on the southern-
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-4 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
most dry dock was constructed and the Bay Trail was relocated as part of the 1998 Project. The
Park SFO The site is 11 feet above mean sea level (MSL) (see Chapter 3.7 Geology and Soils).
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
As identified in Chapter 1.5.1, the Project is required by law to undergo review by the City’s
Design Review Board. Changes in design may be identified by the Board and may also be
identified by the Planning Commission. Design review regulates signage, site layout,
architecture, urban design and lighting.
GENERAL PLAN
The South San Francisco General Plan identifies maximum heights for structures with respect to potential aircraft hazards as well as areas with special scenic considerations. The Project site is
between the 150 and 175 foot height contour airport-related height limit restriction (Http://ialp.airplanonline.com). The Project would be 100 feet in height at its highest point
which includes the light poles at the roof top parking level. The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet including the stairwells and elevator. The Project would be 50 feet below the maximum
permitted height, measured from ground level.
The Project site is not located within a scenic vista or scenic corridor. The Project site is identified as being visible from at least one viewpoint (Figure 2-4 Viewshed, South San Francisco
General Plan, page 36 and General Plan Background Report).
EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN DESIGN ELEMENT
In 1995, the East of 101 Area Plan established goals and policies for the East of 101 Area. The policies contained in the Plan’s design element apply to development at the Project site and the
Project area (page 53, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999).
The stated goals of the Area Plan’s design concept are to promote quality design, to promote a functional, safe and attractive environment, preserve the character of South San Francisco’s
heritage, protect public investment and land values, protect the natural environment, and facilitate evaluation of individual development proposals through the use of the Area Plan’s
design guidelines.
The Area Plan design element sets area-wide design policies for streetscape, parking, loading and access, site design and open space, landscaping and lighting, fencing and screening, building
design, signage and rooftop mechanical equipment. Additionally, the Area Plan sets more specific guidelines for individual land use categories. For the Project site, the design guidelines
include specific requirements for street trees, landscape buffers, avoidance of blank walls, building orientation toward the street, design guidelines, parking lot and shrubs.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-5
IMPACTS
a) Scenic Vistas
Significance Criteria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed project on scenic vistas,
the threshold of significance is exceeded when a project would result in the obstruction of a
designated public vista, or in the placement of an arguably offensive or negative-appearing
project within such a vista. Any clear conflict with a general plan policy or other adopted
planning policy regarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially significant adverse
environmental impact.
The Project is not located within a formally designated public vista, nor would it result in the
obstruction of a formally designated public vista. Additionally, the Project would not conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas. Therefore, the Project would have no
impact with respect to scenic vista impacts.
b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes
Significance Criteria: For the purposes of assessing impacts of the Project on scenic resources, the threshold of significance is exceeded by any Project-related action that would substantially
damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state [or local] scenic highway).
The Project would not be visible from a state or local scenic highway. The Project site does not
contain historic buildings or trees or significant rock outcroppings. Therefore the Project
would have no impact on scenic resources.
c) Visual Character
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
The visual character of new projects must conform to the design principles and policies set forth
in the East of 101 Area Plan Design Element. The design principles and policies, identified in
Policy DE-57 of the East of 101 Area Plan, applicable to the Project include:
Streetscape. Street trees are required to be planted every fifty (50) feet. The Project
shows a row of poplar trees along the southeast and southwest elevations (conceptual
landscape plans and architectural plans). Additional landscape improvement is required
by Biology Mitigation 2.
Footpaths and Sidewalks. The design guidelines call for sidewalks and footpaths and a
clear connection between the street and building. The Project is a parking structure that
would include clearly delineated pedestrian walkways, and provides access to the Bay
Trail and views of the Bay.
Landscape Buffers. The Project proposes to retain the existing landscape edges approved in 1998/99 and 2007. Landscaping is shown along all perimeters of the site
and within surface parking areas.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-6 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Building Orientation. The Project would not alter the orientation of the building
which clearly relates to North Access Road.
Massing of Walls. The Design Guidelines discourage blank walls in expanses greater than 30 feet that are visible from the public right-of-ways. The Project does not
propose blank walls.
Lighting. A statement provided with the applications materials indicates that lighting would be task orientated. Section 3.5 Biological Resources addresses lighting in more
detail, including the City’s regulatory requirements and identifies Biology Mitigation 3 to assure that lighting remains on site and does not negatively affect the Bay habitat.
Building Design and Height. The Project architecture is designed to conform with
the existing structure. The City’s Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed and approved the Project on July 17, 2012. The DRB recommended subdrains and trenching, to
minimize salt water intrusion to promote the success and longevity of the poplar trees.
Building and Roof Materials. All types of building materials are permitted in the Light Industrial category provided they are of high quality. The building materials match
the existing structure and the roof would provide parking.
Parking Lot Landscaping. Adequate landscaping is encouraged in parking lots. The perimeter of the project and the surface parking areas are landscaped and the Project
would add to the landscaping.
The Project would be located in an area whose visual characteristics consist largely of big-box
retail, light industrial and airport-related parking. The Project complies with the East of 101 Area
Plan Design Guidelines and is compatible with the existing land use and architecture of the area.
The Project would have no impact on visual character.
d) Light or Glare
Significance Criteria: Project related creation of any new source of substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant
environmental impact.
Implementation of Biology Mitigation 3, the City’s zoning ordinance and East of 101 Area Plan
requirements would reduce this impact to less-than-significant (see lighting discussion in c,
above and Section 3.5 Biological Resources).
Finding: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on the site
or in the area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic,
visual quality or light and glare associated with the Project with implementation of Biology
Mitigation 2.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-7
3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
SETTING
Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the City’s Water Quality Control Plant. The Project site has been paved and used for a surface parking lot as part
of the Park SFO facility since 2007.
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the
forest carbon measurement methodology provided in
the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in the Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-8 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
IMPACTS
a, b and e) Farmland Impacts
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, conflict with current zoning for
agricultural use or the provisions of a current Williamson Act contract, or involve any environmental changes that could result in the conversion of farmland currently in agricultural
uses to non-agricultural uses.
The Project site contains no farmland and as such would not involve the conversion of Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The Project site is not in Williamson Act Contract. The Project site is not
nearby or adjacent to any agricultural use and as such would have no impact to farmland.
c, d and e) Forest Land Impacts
The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as such, nor in proximity to such a use.
Use of the site for airport-related parking would not cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). The Project is not nearby or adjacent to timberland or forest lands and
would have no impact on timberland production or resources or forest lands.
Finding: Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the
City’s Water Quality Control Plant. The Project site has been paved and used for surface parking as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007. The Project would not adversely affect any
existing agricultural operations as none exist on the site. The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively and is not in any Farmland, Unique Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), or in Williamson Act Contract. The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as such, and would not cause rezoning of forest land
(as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section51104(g)).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-9
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
X
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)?
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X
1997 IS/MND One mitigation measure was identified in the 1997 IS/MND. Mitigation Measure 7 from the
1997 IS/MND does not apply to the 2013 Project. The following air quality analysis evaluates the whole of the Project which includes the existing 2001 Project as background conditions and
the 2013 Project. The analysis contained herein is compliant with current agency, state guidelines and law and City regulatory requirements, as identified below which is considerably
more detailed and defined that that required in 1997.
Air Quality Modeling and Assessment
This air quality analysis was conducted by Mr. Mike Ratte of KB Environmental Consultants, air quality specialists. This air quality analysis was performed using methodologies and assumptions
recommended within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated June 2010, updated in May 2011, and revised in May 2012).1 This
1 The Air District’s June 2010 adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda
County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the Air District had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the
thresholds. The court found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA and ordered the Air District to examine whether the thresholds would have a significant impact on the environment under CEQA before recommending their use. The court did not determine whether the thresholds are or are not based on substantial evidence and thus valid on the merits. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the Air District had complied with CEQA. The court’s order permits the Air District to develop and disseminate these CEQA
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-10 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
section describes existing air quality as well as air pollutant impacts related to construction and
operation of the proposed Project. Pursuant to the City of South San Francisco’s project review
process, Air Quality Conditions of Approval (as described in Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2) that are required to be implemented as part of the Project are also addressed.
Air quality pollutants included in the analysis comprise carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic
compounds (ROG), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter equal to or less than 10 micrometers (coarse particulates or PM10)and particulate matter equal to or less
than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulates or PM2.5). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) from construction equipment exhaust and asbestos/serpentine rock2 fugitive dust from construction
and grading activities are of particular concern with regard to health risk assessments (HRAs). Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are also addressed within Section 3.4.
SETTING
CLIMATE
The peninsula region of the Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area) extends from the area northwest of
San Jose to the Golden Gate. The Santa Cruz Mountain range extends up the center of the
peninsula, with elevations exceeding 2,000 feet at the south end, and gradually decreasing to an
elevation of 500 feet in South San Francisco, where it terminates. San Francisco is at the north
end of the peninsula and because most of the topography of San Francisco is less than 200 feet
in elevation, the marine air layer is able to flow across most of the city, making its climate
relatively cool and windy3.
Meteorological data collected at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), which is
approximately two miles south of the Project site, are representative of general meteorological
conditions. Average maximum and minimum winter (i.e., January) temperatures at SFO are 56
and 42 ºF, respectively, whereas average summer (i.e., July) maximum and minimum
temperatures are 72 and 54 ºF, respectively. Precipitation at SFO averages approximately 20
inches per year4.
Guidelines, as long as they do not implement the thresholds of significance. Although the BAAQMD’s adoption of significance thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to judicial actions, the City of South San Francisco has determined that BAAQMD’s Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October 2009), provide substantial evidence to support the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco has determined the BAAQMD recommended
thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis.
2 In 2002, the California Air Resources Board adopted an Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for construction, grading,
quarrying and surface mining operations. New emission control measures, such as dust suppressants apply to activities such as road construction and road maintenance, construction, grading, and quarrying and surface mining operations in areas with naturally-occurring asbestos/serpentine rock. Geologic mapping does indicate the existence of asbestos/serpentine rock within the project site.
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 4, 2010, Bay Area Climatology
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Bay-Area-Climatology.aspx, accessed February 4, 2012.
4 Western Regional Climate Center, Local Climate Data Summaries for San Francisco International Airport, California. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/clilcd.pl?ca23234, accessed February 4, 2012.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-11
Annual average wind speeds throughout the peninsula range from five to 10 miles per hour
(mph). The east side of the mountains has a westerly wind pattern; however, it is influenced by
local topographic features. During stable atmospheric conditions a topographic feature
measuring a few hundred feet rise in elevation will induce flow around as opposed to over the
feature. This phenomenon can change the wind directional pattern by as much as 90 degrees
over short distances. Areas on the east side of the peninsula often experience eastern flow in the
surface layer, induced by upslope flow on the east-facing slopes and by the bay breeze on
mornings without a strong pressure gradient. The bay breeze is rarely seen in the afternoon
because the stronger sea breeze dominates the flow pattern5.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
People that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution within the general population
include children, elderly, and those that suffer from certain illnesses or disabilities, and land uses including schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals are considered to be sensitive receptors to
air pollution. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to localized air
pollutants.
BAAQMD considers the relevant zone of influence for an assessment of health risks to be those areas within 1,000 feet of the project boundary. There are no sensitive receptors within 1,000
feet of the Project boundary. Residential land uses are approximately 3,300 feet (0.65 miles) to the west of the Project site (west of Route 101 and north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (0.75
miles) to the southwest of the Project site (west of Route 101 and south of Interstate 380). The closest school is Belle Air Elementary which is 1.1 miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from the
Project site. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is located approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the Project site (although airport-owned property is within 200 feet of the Project site).
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
The BAAQMD monitors and regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, as
amended, and the California Clean Air Act. The BAAQMD also adopts and enforces controls
on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and inspection programs. Other
BAAQMD responsibilities include monitoring air quality, preparation of clean air plans, and
responding to citizen air quality complaints. The BAAQMD has also published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans
proposed in the Bay Area.
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 4, 2010, Bay Area Climatology http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Bay-Area-Climatology.aspx, accessed February 4, 2012.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-12 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
CURRENT AIR QUALITY
The BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network of ambient concentrations of six criteria
pollutants. Currently, the criteria pollutants of most concern in the Bay Area are ozone and particulate matter. The monitoring station closest to the Project site is in San Francisco on
Arkansas Street. This air quality monitoring station monitors levels of ozone, particulate matter in the form of PM10 and PM2.5, CO, NO2, and SO2).
Air Quality Table 1 summarizes the most recent three years of data published by the
BAAQMD for the San Francisco, Arkansas Street air monitoring station, which is approximately seven and a half miles to the north of the Project site. The federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard was
exceeded twice in 2011, three times in 2010 and once in 2009. No other State or federal air quality standards were exceeded during the three year period.
Therefore, the Bay Area is currently designated “nonattainment” for state and national (1-hour
and 8-hour) ozone standards, for the state PM10 standards, and for state and national (annual average and 24-hour) PM2.5 standards. The Bay Area is designated “attainment” or
“unclassified” with respect to the other ambient air quality standards.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 1 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
SAN FRANCISCO, ARKANSAS STREET, CA, 2009 – 20116
Pollutant Standard Days Standard Exceeded
2009 2010 2011
Ozone State 1–Hour 0 0 0
Ozone Federal 8–Hour 0 0 0
Ozone State 8–Hour 0 0 0
PM10 Federal 24–Hour 0 0 0
PM10 State 24–Hour 0 0 0
PM2.5 Federal 24–Hour 1 3 2
Carbon Monoxide State/Federal
8–Hour
0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide State 1–Hour 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide State 24-Hour 0 0 0
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries,
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Air-Quality-Summaries.aspx, 2012.
IMPACTS
This section addresses each of the Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact outlined within the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.
Relevant significance criteria are outlined and evaluated, including methodological descriptions
and computations, where necessary per each category. Significance findings are highlighted
6 2012 data will not be available until March/April, 2013.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-13
where applicable. Detailed methodology results can be found within Appendix A to this
document.
a) Conflicts with the Current Air Quality Plan
Significance Criteria: Any project that would not support the goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air
Plan (CAP) would not be considered consistent with the 2010 CAP.
On September 15, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted the 2010 CAP. The 2010 Bay Area CAP updates the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California
Clean Air Act (CCAA) to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and GHG emissions in a single,
integrated plan; and establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 through 2012 timeframe. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area CAP are to:
• Attain air quality standards;
• Reduce population exposure and protecting public health in the Bay Area; and • Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.
The recommended measure for determining Project support of these goals is consistency with
BAAQMD-approved CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, if approval of a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts after the application of all
feasible mitigation, the Project would be considered consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP. All Project air quality impacts addressed within this document have been deemed less than
significant or less than significant after mitigation therefore (see following discussion), the Project would be consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP, and thus, the impact is less
than significant.
b and c) Violation of Standards and a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed
BAAQMD’s construction and/or operational mass emission thresholds for exhaust emissions
and/or if appropriate air pollutant control measures are not implemented. The BAAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects from criteria air
pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the mass daily and annual thresholds. These
thresholds were developed to identify a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant
regional air quality impact.
Air quality impacts are associated with both construction and operation of a project. BAAQMD
rules and regulations govern certain aspects of the construction phase of projects and relate to
portable construction equipment (e.g., gasoline- or diesel-powered engines used for power
generation, pumps, compressors, and cranes), architectural coatings, fugitive dust, and paving
materials. Project construction and operation impacts are discussed within the following
sections.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-14 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS The parking facility expansion would remove surface parking and construct a 549,626 square
foot expansion to park an additional 1,300 cars, for a total of approximately 3,3,194 parking
spaces. The construction would occur over a 16 month period. Chapter 2 Project Description provides further information on Project phasing and construction characteristics.
Project construction would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including
fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
recommend quantification of construction-related exhaust emissions and comparison of those
emissions to significance thresholds. Therefore, this analysis includes quantification of
construction emissions and comparison of the emissions to the BAAQMD’s construction
significance thresholds. The CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model) was used to
quantify project construction emissions of criteria pollutants (see Appendix A for emissions
estimate assumptions).
Air Quality Table 2 provides the estimated short-term construction emissions that would be
associated with the Project and compares those emissions to the BAAQMD’s thresholds for
construction exhaust emissions. The average daily construction period emissions were
compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds. All construction-related emissions would
be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 2 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)
Emission Sources ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO
Construction 21.8 40.1 2.44 2.44 30.6
Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 ---
Significant Impact? No No No No No
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions.
BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides a number of Construction Mitigation Measures
(related to fugitive dust and exhaust emissions) for construction activities which are required of
the Project through the City’s standard review and approval procedures (see Introduction,
Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2). All construction emissions would be below the BAAQMD
significance thresholds with the implementation of these measures that are required by law.
Therefore, Project impacts that would be associated with construction related exhaust
emissions would be less than significant with implementation of the measures the City
requires by law.
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
The CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions that would be associated with natural gas space heating, water heating, and landscape maintenance emissions expected to occur due to
implementation the Project. The Project would demolish a surface parking lot and construct a seven-level 549,626 square foot parking structure connecting to the existing seven-level 477,048
square foot parking structure.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-15
The Project would increase on-site parking from 1,901 up to 3,194 spaces through expansion of
the parking garage (on property currently used for surface parking). After completion, there
would be 2,833 garage spaces and 361 surface parking spaces. Operational emissions associated
with the additional vehicle traffic were estimated. The daily trip rate was estimated to be 650 (or
1.2 per 1,000 square foot per day)7. Twenty-five percent of the trip generation is related to the
shuttle bus fleet, which transfer passengers from the facility to SFO.
The Project would include an unspecified amount of electric car charging stations. The existing
project includes a shuttle bus fleet that provides transportation between Park SFO and the
airport. The shuttle buses run on compressed natural gas (CNG). CNG is a cleaner burning
alternative transportation fuel, having fewer emissions than gasoline and diesel. The Project
would continue and expand the CNG shuttle service. Application materials indicate the Project
would be illuminated by light-emitting diode (LED) lights. LED lights draw less energy than
halogen or incandescent lighting and are task oriented thus limiting off-site spill of light.
Estimated operational daily and annual emissions that would be associated with the Project are
presented in Air Quality Tables 3 and 4 and are compared to BAAQMD’s thresholds of
significance. As indicated, the estimated operational emissions that would be associated
with the Project would be below the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds and would be
less than significant.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 3 PROJECT DAILY OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)
Emission Sources ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO
Operation 8.96 4.34 0.19 0.19 25.8
Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 ---
Significant Impact? No No No No No
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. Values reflect rounding.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 4
PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (tons per year)
Emission Sources ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO
Operation 1.58 0.75 0.04 0.04 4.61
Significance Thresholds 10 10 15 10 ---
Significant Impact? No No No No No
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. Values reflect rounding.
The BAAQMD has identified preliminary screening criteria for determining whether CO
emissions would be exceeded. The screening criteria provide a conservative indication of whether the implementation of the Project would result in CO emissions that are potentially
significant. The methodology includes the following:
7 Based upon trip generation rates found at commercial airports in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition - 2012), pm peak hour trip generation is about 5.6 to 6 percent of daily generation.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-16 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
■ Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established
by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways,
regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
■ The project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
■ The project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is
substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban
street canyon, below-grade roadway).
The two signalized intersections at the South Airport Boulevard/I-380 interchange as well as the
North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection just south of the site are currently
operating at Levels of Service (LOS) A and B during AM and PM commute peak hour
conditions. All three analysis intersections would have LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak
hour operation in the year 2015 with the addition of Project traffic8. Two of the three analysis
intersections would have LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak hour operation in the year
2035 with the addition of Project traffic. In addition, the South Airport Boulevard/North
Access Road/I-380 westbound on-ramp intersection would maintain LOS B during the AM
peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour operation with the addition of Project traffic.
The additional traffic would not exceed the screening criteria based on the size of the facility, the
anticipated resultant traffic volumes, and the anticipated LOS at the analysis intersections.
Therefore, impacts that would be associated with long-term operational CO exhaust
emissions would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects from
criteria air pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the BAAQMD’s mass daily and annual
significance thresholds. Project-related emissions would be below the thresholds with
implementation of the measures the City requires by law (see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section
1.2.2) as shown in Air Quality Tables 2 through 4. Therefore, the Project would not be
cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
d) Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Significance Criteria: The significance of impact to sensitive receptors is dependent on the chance
of contracting cancer from exposure to carcinogenic toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as
DPM, or of having adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic TACs. A project
is considered to be significant if the incremental cancer risk at a receptor exceeds 10 in a million.
For cumulative analysis of cancer risk, BAAQMD recommends that the risks from all sources
within a 1,000 foot radius of the source or receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative
8The trip generation and intersection levels of service are from the Project-specific traffic analysis conducted by Crane
Transportation Group and discussed in Section 3.16 Transportation and Traffic.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-17
increased risk threshold of 100 in one million. The non-cancer hazard index significance
threshold of 1.0 is defined in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. For cumulative
analysis of non-cancer hazard index, BAAQMD requires that the hazards from all sources within
a 1,000 foot radius of the source or receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative hazard
index threshold of 10.
The BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold for PM2.5 to protect public
health as emissions of PM2.5 are associated with health risks. For individual projects, the
BAAQMD significant threshold for PM2.5 impacts is an average annual increase of 0.3 µg/m3.
For cumulative analysis, BAAQMD recommends that the PM2.5 concentrations from all
sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the receptor be assessed and compared to a cumulative
threshold of an average annual increase of 0.8 µg/m3.
CANCER RISK
Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to
carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as the chances in one million of contracting
cancer, for example, ten cancer cases among one million people exposed.
Following HRA guidelines established by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) and BAAQMD’s Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines, incremental
cancer risks were calculated by applying toxicity factors to modeled TAC concentrations in order
to determine the inhalation dose (milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day [mg/kg-day]).
See Appendix A for details.
Construction Related Impacts
As a result of construction activities (with implementation of the measures the City requires by
law), the unmitigated maximum cancer risk for a residential-adult receptor would be 0.18 per
million and for a residential-child would be 2.0 per million. Thus, the unmitigated cancer risk
due to construction activities is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and would
be less than significant.
Operational Related Impacts
The maximum cancer risks from the Project operations for a residential-adult receptor would be
0.30 per million and for a residential-child would be 0.15 per million with implementation of the
measures the City requires by law. Thus, the health impacts from Project operations would
be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and less than significant.
Total Project Impacts
The maximum cancer risks from the Project construction and operations (with implementation
of the measures the City requires by law), the unmitigated maximum cancer risk a residential-
adult receptor would be 0.30 per million and for a residential-child would be 2.0 per million with
implementation of the measures the City requires by law. Thus, the health impacts from
Project construction and operations would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per
million and less than significant.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-18 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
NON-CANCER HEALTH IMPACTS
Both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) adverse health impacts unrelated to cancer are
measured against a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental
exposure concentration from the Project to a published reference exposure level (REL) that
could cause adverse health effects. The RELs are published by OEHHA based on
epidemiological research. The ratio (referred to as the Hazard Quotient [HQ]) of each non-
carcinogenic substance that affects a certain organ system is added to produce an overall HI for
that organ system. The overall HI is calculated for each organ system. If the overall HI for the
highest-impacted organ system is greater than 1.0, then the impact is considered to be
significant.
The chronic reference exposure level for DPM was established by the California OEHHA as
5 µg/m3. There is no acute REL for DPM. However, diesel exhaust does contain acrolein and
other compounds, which do have an acute REL. Based on BAAQMD’s DPM speciation data
acrolein emissions are approximately 1.3 percent of the total DPM emissions. The acute REL
for acrolein was established by the California OEHHA9 as 2.5 µg/m3.
The chronic HI would be 0.01. The chronic HI would be well below the BAAQMD
threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant.
The acute HI would be 0.01. The acute HI would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant.
PM2.5 Concentration
Dispersion modeling was also used to estimate exposure of sensitive receptors to Project-related
concentrations of PM2.5. Because emissions of PM2.5 are associated with health risks the BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold to protect public health. The
BAAQMD guidance requires inclusion of PM2.5 exhaust emissions only in this analysis (i.e., fugitive dust emissions are addressed under BAAQMD dust control measures and are required
by law to be implemented into Project construction, see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2). The unmitigated maximum annual PM2.5 concentration as a result of Project
construction would be 0.02 µg/m3. The annual PM2.5 concentration due to implementation of the Project would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m3,
and hence is considered less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include standards and methods for determining the significance of cumulative health risk impacts. The method for determining cumulative
health risk requires the addition of the health risks from permitted sources and major roadways in the vicinity of a project (i.e., within a 1,000-foot radius of the source, also considered the zone
9 California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database, 2010.
http://www.oehha.ca.gov//.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-19
of influence for a health risk analysis), then adding the health risks of the Project impacts to
determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded.
The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include standards and methods for determining
the significance of cumulative health risk impacts. The method for determining cumulative
health risk requires the tallying of health risk from permitted sources and major roadways in the
vicinity of a project (i.e., within a 1,000-foot radius of the source or new receptor), then adding
the Project impacts to determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded.
BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted emissions sources throughout
the San Francisco Bay Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool
(dated May, 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from permitted sources. Six permitted
sources are located within 1,000 feet of the Project.
BAAQMD has also developed a geo-referenced database of roadways throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area and has developed the Highway Screening Analysis Tool (dated May 2011) for
estimating cumulative health risks from roadways. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also
require the inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet of the project with annual average daily
traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater10. Route 101 is located approximately 2,000 feet to the west
of the project site. Upon review of nearby roadways, no nearby roadways meet the criteria.
Air Quality Table 5 lists the BAAQMD-permitted facility and major roadways within 1,000 feet
of the Project. Air Quality Table 5 also shows the cumulative cancer risk, hazard impact, and
PM2.5 concentrations (in µg/m3) associated with these facilities (developed by BAAQMD), as
well as the Project. The cumulative impacts are below the BAAQMD significance
thresholds. Secondly, given that the Project would not result in increased health impacts
exceeding the Project-level thresholds, the Project would also not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to localized health risk and hazard impacts,
resulting in a less than significant cumulative air quality impact.
AIR QUALITY TABLE 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Site # Facility Type Address Cancer Risk Hazard Impact PM2.5 Concentration
5876 South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality 195 Belle Air Road 11.3 0.01 0.05
13863 City of SSF Water Quality Plant 477 South Airport Blvd 1.72 0.0006 <0.01
6329 Sing Tao Newspaper 215 Littlefield
Ave - - -
G10732 Costco Wholesale 479 South Airport Blvd 0.85 0.0003
10926 NRI 436 South Airport Blvd - - -
10 BAAQMD County Surface Street Screening Tables, May 2011 and CEHTP Traffic Linkage Service Demonstration, http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-20 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Site # Facility Type Address Cancer Risk Hazard Impact PM2.5 Concentration
1703 Inter-City Cleaners 438 South Airport Blvd 26.5 0.0706 -
Permitted Sources Total 40.4 0.08 0.05
Project 2.0 0.01 0.02
Grand Total 42.4 0.09 0.07
Significance Thresholds 100 10 0.3
Significant Impact? No No No
e) Odor Impacts
Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD’s significance criteria for odors are more subjective and are
based on the number of odor complaints generated by a project. Generally, the BAAQMD considers any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to
objectionable odors to cause a significant impact. Projects that would site a new odor source or a new receptor farther than the applicable BAAQMD-established screening distances from an
existing receptor or odor source, respectively, would not likely result in a significant odor impact. An odor source with five more confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years is
considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the screening distances.
Typical odor sources of concern include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical
manufacturing facilities, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, auto body shops, rendering plants, and coffee roasting facilities. Diesel-fueled construction equipment would generate some odors
associated with diesel exhaust; however, these emissions typically dissipate quickly and would be unlikely to affect a substantial number of people. The Project operations include a parking
facility, which would not be expected to create or increase odors. Therefore, odor impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant.
Finding: The Project would not result in a significant impact to air quality and would not result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria nonattainment pollutants (ozone precursors, PM10, and PM2.5). The annual PM2.5 concentration due to implementation of the
Project would be 0.02 µg/m3 below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m3, and hence is considered less than significant. The City’s building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD
permitting regulations, as well as BAAQMD’s recommended emission control measures. The Project would be below the daily and annual operational criteria pollutant thresholds and would
not result in significant or cumulative impacts. Odor impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant.
The Project would be below the thresholds of significance for health risks. The chronic HI
would be 0.01 well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. The acute HI would be 0.01. The acute HI would be below
the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant.
The cumulative impacts are below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Given that the
Project would not result in increased health impacts exceeding the Project-level thresholds, the
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-21
Project would also not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to localized health risk
and hazard impacts, resulting in a less than significant cumulative air quality impact.
3.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —Would
the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
1997 IS/MND AB 32 was adopted in 2006 therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 1997
IS/MND pertaining to GHG. SETTING
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a
greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as the driving force for global climate change. Primary GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and
nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and water vapor.
Although the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, CO2, CH4, and N2O are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these
compounds occur within earth’s atmosphere. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices
and landfills. Other GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes. Greenhouse gases are typically
reported in “carbon dioxide-equivalent” measures (CO2e).11
There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts in California may
include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are
likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.12
11 Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently measured in “carbon
dioxide-equivalents,” which present a weighted average based on each gas’s heat absorption (or “global warming”) potential.
12 California Climate Change Portal. Frequently Asked Questions about Global Climate Change. Available Online at: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/faqs.html. Accessed June 17, 2012.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-22 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimated that in 2006 California produced about
484 million gross metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e), or about 535 million U.S. tons.13 CARB
found that transportation is the source of 38 percent of the state’s GHG emissions, followed by
electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-state) at 22 percent and industrial sources at
20 percent. Commercial and residential fuel use (primarily for heating) accounted for 9 percent
of GHG emissions.14 In the San Francisco Bay Area, fossil fuel consumption in the
transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) and the
industrial and commercial sectors are the two largest sources of GHG emissions, each
accounting for approximately 36 percent of the San Francisco Bay Area’s 95.8 MMTCO2e
emitted in 2007.15 Electricity generation accounts for approximately 16 percent of the San
Francisco Bay Area’s GHG emissions followed by residential fuel usage at 7 percent, off-road
equipment at 3 percent and agriculture at 1 percent.16
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The following regulations and guidelines are applicable to GHGs in California.
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-3-05
In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor
Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which set forth a series of target dates by
which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
■ By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
■ By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
■ By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
ASSEMBLY BILL 32 – CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT
In 2006, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (California Health and Safety
Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), also known as the Global Warming
Solutions Act. AB 32 requires CARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and
other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to
1990 levels by 2020 (representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions).
In June 2007, CARB directed staff to pursue 37 early actions for reducing GHG emissions
under AB 32. The broad spectrum of strategies to be developed, including a Low Carbon Fuel
Standard, regulations for refrigerants with high global warming potentials, guidance and
protocols for local governments to facilitate GHG reductions, and green ports, reflects that the
serious threat of climate change requires action as soon as possible.
13 California Air Resources Board (ARB), “California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2006— by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan.” Available Online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_
2009-03-13.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2012.
14 Ibid.
15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Base Year 2007, Updated: February 2010. Available Online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/regionalinventory2007_2_10.ashx. Accessed June 17, 2012.
16 Ibid.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-23
In addition to approving the 37 GHG reduction strategies, CARB directed staff to further
evaluate early action recommendations made at the June 2007 meeting, and to report back to
CARB within six months. CARB suggested a desire to attempt to pursue greater GHG
emissions reductions in California in the near-term. Since the June 2007 CARB hearing, CARB
staff has evaluated all 48 recommendations submitted by stakeholders and several internally-
generated staff ideas and published the Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration.17
Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted a Scoping Plan in December 2008, outlining measures to
meet the 2020 GHG reduction limits. In order to meet these goals, California must reduce its
GHG emissions by 30 percent below projected 2020 business as usual emission levels or about
15 percent from today’s levels.18 The Scoping Plan estimates a reduction of 174 MMTCO2e
(about 191 million U.S. tons) from the transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry, and high
global warming potential sectors (see GHG Emissions Table 1). CARB has identified an
implementation timeline for the GHG reduction strategies included in the Scoping Plan.19 Some
measures may require new legislation to implement, some will require subsidies, some have
already been developed, and some will require additional effort to evaluate and quantify.
Additionally, some emissions reductions strategies may require their own environmental review
under CEQA.
AB 32 requires CARB to establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990
emission levels, as well as to adopt regulations by January 1, 2008 that identify and require
selected sectors or categories of GHG emitters to report and verify their statewide GHG
emissions, and CARB is authorized to enforce compliance with the program. Under AB 32,
CARB was also required to adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit by January 1, 2008
equivalent to the statewide GHG emissions levels in 1990, which must be achieved by 2020.
CARB established this limit, in December 2007, at 427 MMTCO2e. This is approximately
30 percent below forecasted business-as-usual emissions of 596 MMTCO2e, and about
10 percent below average annual GHG emissions during the period of 2002 through 2004.
17 California Air Resources Board (CARB), Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In
California Recommended For Board Consideration, October 2007. Available Online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/
meetings/ea_final_report.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2012.
18 California Air Resources Board (CARB), California’s Climate Plan Fact Sheet, Updated January 27, 2010. Available Online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/facts/scoping_plan_fs.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2012.
19 California Air Resources Board (CARB), Scoping Plan Measures Implementation Timeline, October 28, 2010. Available Online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/sp_measures_implementation_timeline.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2012.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-24 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 1 GHG REDUCTIONS FROM THE AB 32 SCOPING PLAN SECTORS20
GHG Reduction Measures By Sector
GHG Reductions
(MMTCO2e)
Transportation Sector 62.3
Electricity and Natural Gas 49.7
Industry 1.4
Landfill Methane Control Measure (Discrete Early Action) 1
Forestry 5
High Global Warming Potential GHGs 20.2
Additional Reductions Needed to Achieve the GHG
Cap 34.4
Total 174
Other Recommended Measures
Government Operations 1-2
Agriculture- Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1
Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1
Additional GHG Reduction Measures
Water 4.8
Green Buildings 26
• High Recycling/Zero Waste
• Commercial Recycling
• Composting
• Anaerobic Digestion
• Extended Producer Responsibility
• Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
9
Total 42.8-43.8
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MMTCO2e = million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
On January 1, 2011, CARB was required to adopt rules and regulations, to achieve the maximum
technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 permits the use of
market-based compliance mechanisms to achieve those reductions. By January 1, 2012, the rules
and market mechanisms adopted by CARB took effect and are legally enforceable. The cap-and-
trade measure went into effect on January 1, 2013. Full implementation of AB32 and its
timeline may be subject to legal challenges.
AB 32 also anticipates that local government actions will result in reduced GHG emissions.
CARB has identified a GHG reduction target of 15 percent from current levels for local
governments themselves and notes that successful implementation of the plan relies on local
governments’ land use planning and urban growth decisions because local governments have
20 Ibid.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-25
primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit land development to accommodate
population growth and the changing needs of their jurisdictions.
The CARB Scoping Plan relies on the requirements of SB 375 to implement the carbon
emission reductions anticipated from land use decisions. SB 375 was enacted to align local land
use and transportation planning to further achieve the state’s GHG reduction goals. SB 375
requires regional transportation plans, developed by Metropolitan Planning Organizations, to
incorporate a “sustainable communities strategy” in their regional transportation plans (RTPs)
that would achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by CARB. SB 375 also includes
provisions for streamlined CEQA review for some infill projects such as transit-oriented
development. SB 375 would be implemented over the next several years and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission’s 2013 RTP would be its first plan subject to SB 375.
SB 97 required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the state CEQA
Guidelines to address the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHGs. In
response, OPR amended the CEQA Guidelines to provide guidance for analyzing GHG
emissions. Among other changes to the CEQA Guidelines, the amendments add a new section
to the CEQA Initial Study Checklist to address questions regarding the project’s potential to
emit GHGs.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES REVISIONS
In 2007, the California legislature passed SB 97, which required amendment of the CEQA
Guidelines to incorporate analysis of, and mitigation for, GHG emissions from projects subject
to CEQA. The California Natural Resources Agency adopted these amendments on
December 30, 2009, and they took effect March 18, 2010, after review by the Office of
Administrative Law and filing with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the CCR.
The CEQA Guideline revisions include a new section (Section 15064.4) that specifically
addresses the significance of GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 calls for a good-faith effort to
describe, calculate or estimate GHG emissions; Section 15064.4 further states that the
significance of GHG impacts should include consideration of the extent to which the project
would increase or reduce GHG emissions; exceed a locally applicable threshold of significance;
and comply with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or
local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The revisions also state that a
project may be found to have a less than significant impact if it complies with an adopted plan
that includes specific measures to sufficiently reduce GHG emissions (Sec. 15064(h)(3)).
Importantly, however, the revised guidelines do not require or recommend a specific analysis
methodology or provide quantitative criteria for determining significance of GHG emissions.
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
The Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, better
known as CALGreen), requiring all new buildings in the state to be more energy efficient and
environmentally responsible, took effect on January 1, 2011. These comprehensive regulations
are targeted to achieve major reductions in GHG emissions, energy consumption and water use
to create a greener California. CALGreen requires that every new building constructed in
California:
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-26 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Reduce water consumption by 20 percent
Divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills
Install low pollutant-emitting materials
Requires separate water meters for nonresidential buildings’ indoor and outdoor water
use
Requires moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects
Requires mandatory inspections of energy systems (e.g., heat furnace, air conditioner and mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure
that all are working at their maximum capacity and according to their design efficiencies.
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for air quality regulation in the nine county
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. As part of their role in air quality regulation, BAAQMD has
prepared CEQA air quality guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of
proposed projects and plans. The guidelines provide procedures for evaluating potential air
quality impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements.
The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide CEQA thresholds of significance for operational
GHG emissions from land use projects for the first time. The BAAQMD has not defined
GHG thresholds from construction activities, but recommends that significance be determined
in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction targets. OPR’s amendments to the CEQA
Guidelines as well as BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and thresholds of significance
have been incorporated into the analysis of potential GHG impacts associated with the Project.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
The City of South San Francisco does not have an adopted plan or specific policies to reduce
GHG emissions, although many of the City’s policies and ordinances-such as one of the region’s
most aggressive TDM programs-achieve the same objective. Currently, the City is preparing a
community-wide comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP will provide goals,
policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions, climate change adaptation and support the
goals of AB 32 and SB 375. In preparation of the CAP, the City has completed a Government
Operations Emissions Inventory, a community-wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, and
has recently adopted a Bicycle Master Plan. Although the general plan did not specify policies
and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, many of the Plan’s policies will contribute to
this objective by promoting development that is less reliant on motor vehicles. According to the
City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Update (December 17, 2009), South San
Francisco emitted approximately 527,000 tons of CO2e in 2005 from all major sources, nearly
half of which were from transportation.
IMPACTS
a) Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify a project specific
threshold of either a bright-line threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year or an efficiency
threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per year per service population (i.e., the number of
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-27
residents plus the number of employees associated with a new development) as resulting in a
cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact.
Alternatively, a project that is found to be consistent with a Qualified CAP would have a less
than significant impact to global climate change. This analysis applies the 1,100 metric tons of
CO2e per year significance criterion.
CalEEMod was used to quantify GHG emissions associated with Project construction activities
(for informational purposes), as well as long-term operations associated with natural gas space
and water heating, electricity, landscape maintenance, and vehicles.
The Project would include an unspecified amount of electric car charging stations. The existing
project includes a shuttle bus fleet that provides transportation between Park SFO and the
airport. The shuttle buses run on CNG. CNG is a cleaner burning alternative transportation
fuel, having fewer emissions than gasoline and diesel. The Project would continue and expand
the CNG running shuttle service. Application materials indicate the Project would be
illuminated by LED lights. LED lights draw less energy than halogen or incandescent lighting
and are task oriented thus limiting off-site spill of light.
Estimated construction GHG emissions that would be associated with the Project are presented
in GHG Emissions Table 2. The estimated construction GHG emissions are 736 metric tons.
As indicated, 30-year amortized annual construction related GHG emissions would be 25 metric
tons. Of note, there is no BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold for construction-related
GHG emissions. Nevertheless, GHG construction impacts would be less than the
BAAQMD GHG operational threshold of 1,100 metric tons.
GHG Emissions Table 2 also provides the estimated operational GHG emissions that would
be associated with the Project. The GHG operational impacts would be 838 metric tons
per year, which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 metric tons and thus, less than
significant.
GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 2 PREFERRED PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Emission Source GHG CO2e Metric Tons Per Year
Construction (30-year amortized) 25
Operations 838
BAAQMD Bright line Threshold 1,100
Potentially Significant? No
Notes: Refer to Appendix A for all emission assumptions. b) Potential Conflicts with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation
The City of South San Francisco currently does not have an applicable adopted plan, policy, or
regulation regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City has established a baseline government and community-wide inventory of GHG emissions. The Project would result in a
significant impact if it would be in conflict with AB 32 State goals for reducing GHG emissions.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-28 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
The assumption is that AB 32 will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the
cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020. The State has taken these measures, because no
project individually could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global
concentration of GHG. Therefore, the Project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32
measures and it has been determined that the Project would not conflict with the goals
of AB 32.
Finding: The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact with
respect to GHG emissions.
3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. 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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
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?
X
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-29
1997 IS/MND
One mitigation measure was identified in the 1997 IS/MND. Mitigation Measure 10 from the
1997 IS/MND does apply to the 2013 Project, and is superseded by Biology Mitigation 1. The
1997 mitigation required:
All lighting on the Project shall be directed inward and downward toward the Project and away from the Bay. This mitigation is enhanced to comply with current regulations for lighting
and restated in 2013 Biology Mitigation 3.
Buffer/landscaped setback areas shall be provided as follows, as measured from the top of the bank: a minimum of 30 feet from the easterly tips of all fingers and a minimum of
five feet from the sides of the fingers. This mitigation shall continue to be maintained for the Project for the life of the Project unless modified by future environmental review compliant with CEQA.
Shuttle pick up and drop off areas shall be precluded from the eastern portion of the
fingers areas. This mitigation shall continue to be required and maintained for the Project for the life of the Project unless modified by future environmental review compliant with CEQA.
Human activity should be restricted from the end of each of the fingers to minimize
disturbance in the canal area. Signs shall be posted at the end of each parking area prohibiting further access and describing the sensitivity of the wildlife habitat. This
mitigation shall continue to be required and maintained for the Project for the life of the Project unless modified by future environmental review compliant with CEQA.
Bank stabilization of the fingers shall be accomplished in a manner which does not
disrupt wetland or tidal mudflat areas adjacent to the fingers. This mitigation shall continue to be required maintained for the Project for the life of the Project unless modified by future environmental
review compliant with CEQA.
1997 Mitigation Measure 10 is modified by 2013 Biology Mitigation 3:
The landscape buffer shall be planted with native vegetation, including native toyon.
Plantings shall be maintained by the Project sponsor for a period of 5 years following
installation. As noted in Biology Impact 3, some of the bank areas are not well maintained and
invasive exotic plants are becoming established in violation of the East of 101 Area Plan CON-7 policy
and the 1997 IS MND mitigation measure.
Biological Assessment
The biological assessment and analysis was prepared by Jim Martin of Environmental
Collaborative.
SETTING
VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE HABITAT21
The Project site is largely developed with an existing parking structure and paved surface parking, with limited landscaping around the perimeter of the “finger” projections of the former
drydocks that extend into the San Bruno Canal. Landscape plantings include ornamental and
21 The analysis in this section is based upon the work and research conducted by Jim Martin of Environmental Collaborative. Mr.
Martin is a biologist.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-30 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
native species installed around the edges of the paved parking and ends of the fingers. The
plantings at the ends of the fingers are primarily native species such as coyote brush (Baccharis
pilularis), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), although scattered
tufts of non-native invasive pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) have become established in several
locations. Both pampas grass and highly invasive French broom (Genista monspessulana) occur
along the north bank of San Bruno Creek, just south of the existing parking structure on the site
and the landscape plantings along the canal-side of the paved Bay Trail (see Figure 2.4 in Chapter 2) segment adjacent to the site. These planting areas are in poor condition, with
exposed concrete rubble, and very little visible soil necessary to allow for successful plant
establishment.
The site boundaries extend down the slope of each of the finger projections to the mid-marsh
zone of the tidelands of San Bruno Canal. The mid-marsh zone along the shoreline of the
fingers, between the unvegetated mudflats and open water of San Bruno Canal and the uplands
that are not under tidal influence, supports native pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), with gum plant
(Grindelia stricta) and salt grass (Distichlis spicata) at higher elevations. Most of the former
drydocks are now exposed mudflats during low tides.
The upland areas of the site provide only marginal habitat for species typical of urban and
suburban areas. However, the adjacent tidelands support scattered clumps of northern coastal
saltmarsh and mudflats, which are highly sensitive habitat. The mudflats support numerous
species of invertebrates which provide foraging opportunities for wading and shorebirds such as
willets, godwits, dowitchers, sandpipers, snipes, turnstones, and plovers. The open water habitat
of the adjacent turning basin provides foraging opportunities for grebes, cormorants, bay ducks,
coots, gulls, kingfishers, terns, and pelicans.
The Project site is paved for surface parking with approximately 10 percent of the area in
ornamental landscaping. Given the absence of essential habitat features, it appears unlikely that
the site supports any special-status plant or animal species22. No occurrences of species with
special-status have been mapped in the Project vicinity by the California Natural Diversity Base.
A small population of the state and federally-endangered California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) was reported in the salt marsh habitat of San Bruno Point in 1975. Suitable foraging
habitat for this species is absent in the scattered clumps of pickleweed along the lower elevations
of the fingers on the site. There remains a possibility that special-status bird and fish species
22 As defined further below under Regulatory Framework, special-status species are plants and animals that are legally
protected under the state and/or federal Endangered Species Acts or other regulations, as well as other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts and other essential habitat. Species with legal protection under the Endangered Species Acts often represent major constraints to development; particularly when they are wide ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a “take” of these
species.
A “take” as defined by the federal ESA means to ‘harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, kill, trap, capture or collect” a threatened or endangered species. “Harm” is further defined by USFWS to include the killing or harming of wildlife due to significant obstruction of essential behavior patterns (i.e., breeding, eating, or sheltering) through significant habitat modifications or degradation. The CDFW may also consider the loss of listed species habitat as “take,” although this policy lacks statutory authority and case law support under CEQA.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-31
known to occur in the bay may occasionally utilize the tidal areas adjacent to the site. However,
essential habitat for breeding or roosting is absent in the upland portion of the site, and this
occasional activity should not pose a significant constraint to proposed improvements.
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are
periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water, and support vegetation
adapted to life in saturated soil. The Regulatory Framework below provides a detailed
discussion of the regulatory structure related to wetlands and jurisdictional waters.
The open waters of the former drydocks and San Bruno Canal are jurisdictional waters regulated
by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). All modifications associated with the
Project would be located in upland areas at the existing paved parking lot, and would not affect
any jurisdictional wetlands or waters.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Local, State, and federal regulations have been enacted to provide for the protection and
management of sensitive biological and wetland resources. The following section outlines the
key local, State, and federal regulations that apply to these resources.
FEDERAL
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for protection of terrestrial and
freshwater organisms through implementation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA
Fisheries) is responsible for protection of anadromous fish and marine wildlife. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) has primary responsibility for protecting wetlands under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps also regulates navigable waters under Section 10 (33
U.S.C. 403) of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
STATE
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) are responsible for administration of
the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and for protection of streams and water bodies
through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process under Section 1600 of the California Fish
and Game Code.
Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is also
required when a proposed activity may result in discharge into navigable waters, pursuant to
Section 401 of the CWA and EPA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The RWQCB also has
jurisdiction over waters of the State not regulated by the Corps under the Porter-Cologne Act.
The following discusses in more detail how State and federal regulations address special-status
species, wetlands and other sensitive natural communities.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-32 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the State and/or
federal ESAs, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Fish and Game Code (sections 3503,
3503.5, 3511, 3513, 3515, and 4700), or other regulations.23 In addition, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15380, special-status species also include other species that are considered
rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration,
particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations,
communal roosts and other essential habitat. Species with legal protection under the federal and
State ESAs often represent major constraints to development; particularly when they are wide
ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result
in a take of these species.
WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are
periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water, and support vegetation
adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features on a regional and
national level due to their high inherent value to fish and wildlife, use as storage areas for storm
and flood waters, and water recharge, filtration and purification functions. The CDFW, Corps,
and RWQCB have jurisdiction over modifications to river banks, lakes, stream channels and
other wetland features. Technical standards for delineating wetlands have been developed by
the Corps and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which generally define
wetlands through consideration of three criteria: hydrology, soils and vegetation.
The CWA was enacted to address water pollution, establishing regulations and permit
requirements regarding construction activities that affect storm water, dredge and fill material
operations, and water quality standards. The regulatory program requires that discharges to
surface waters be controlled under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program which applies to sources of water runoff, private developments, and
public facilities.
Under Section 404 of the CWA, the Corps is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill
material into waters of the United States. The term “waters” includes wetlands and non-wetland
bodies of water that meet specific criteria as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. All
three of the identified technical criteria must be met for an area to be identified as a wetland
under Corps jurisdiction, unless the area has been modified by human activity. In general, a
23 Special-status species include: designated (rare, threatened, or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the CDFW;
designated (threatened or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries; species considered
to be rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, such as
those identified on lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of
California; and possibly other species which are considered sensitive due to limited distribution or lack of adequate information to
permit listing or rejection for state or federal status, such as those included on list 3 in the CNPS Inventory or identified as
“California Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the CDFW. Species designated as a SSC have no legal protective status under
the California Endangered Species Act but are of concern to the CDFW because of severe decline in breeding populations and
other factors.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-33
permit must be obtained before fill can be placed in wetlands or other waters of the United
States. The type of permit is determined by the Corps depending on the amount of acreage and
the purpose of the proposed fill.
Certain activities in wetlands or “other waters” are automatically authorized, or granted a
nationwide permit which allows filling where impacts are considered minor. Eligibility for a
nationwide permit simplifies the permit review process. Nationwide permits cover construction
and fill of waters of the U.S. for a variety of routine activities such as minor road crossings,
utility line crossings, streambank protection, recreational facilities and outfall structures. A
project must demonstrate that it has no more than a minimal adverse effect on the aquatic
ecosystem, including species listed under the ESA to qualify for a nationwide permit. Typically
this means that there will be no net loss of either habitat acreage or habitat value, resulting in
appropriate mitigation where fill activities are proposed.
The Corps assumes discretionary approval over proposed projects where impacts are considered
significant, requiring adequate mitigation and permit approval. To provide compliance with the
Environmental Protection Agency's Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, an applicant must
demonstrate that the proposed discharge is unavoidable and is the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative that will achieve the overall project purpose. The 1990
Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and Corps concerning the Determination of
Mitigation under the Guidelines prioritizes mitigation, with the first priority to avoid impacts,
the second to minimize impacts, and the third to provide compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable impacts.
Jurisdictional authority of the CDFW over wetland areas is established under Section 1600 of the
Fish and Wildlife Code, which pertains to activities that would disrupt the natural flow or alter
the channel, bed, or bank of any lake, river, or stream. The Fish and Wildlife Code stipulates
that it is unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the
bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake without notifying the CDFW, incorporating
necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement. The Wetlands
Resources Policy of the CDFW states that the Fish and Wildlife Commission will strongly
discourage development in or conversion of wetlands, unless, at a minimum, project mitigation
assures there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat values or acreage. The CDFW is also
responsible for commenting on projects requiring Corps permits under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act of 1958.
In addition, the RWQCB is responsible for upholding state water quality standards. Pursuant to
Section 401 of the CWA, projects that apply for a Corps permit for discharge of dredge or fill
material, and projects that qualify for a Nationwide Permit must obtain water quality certification
from the RWQCB. The RWQCB is also responsible for regulating wetlands under the Porter-
Cologne Act, which may include hydrologically isolated wetlands no longer regulated by the
Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Recent federal Supreme Court rulings have
limited the limits of Corps jurisdiction, but the RWQCB in some cases continues to exercise
jurisdiction over these features.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-34 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is increasingly recognized as vital to the protection of
natural diversity in the State, in addition to species-oriented management. Protecting habitat on
an ecosystem-level is considered the most effective means of providing long-term protection of
ecologically viable habitat, and can include whole watersheds, ecosystems and sensitive natural
communities. Providing functional habitat connectivity between natural areas is essential to
sustaining healthy wildlife populations and allowing for the continued dispersal of native plant
and animal species.
Although sensitive natural communities have no protected legal status under the State or federal
Endangered Species Acts, they are provided some level of protection under CEQA. The CEQA
Guidelines identify potential impacts on a sensitive natural community as one of six significance
criteria, as shown in 3.5 Biological Resources v.b, above. As an example, a discretionary
project that is constructed on any riparian habitat, native grassland, valley oak woodland, or
other sensitive natural community would normally be considered to have a significant effect on
the environment. Further loss of a sensitive natural community could be interpreted as
substantially diminishing habitat, depending on its relative abundance, quality and degree of past
disturbance, and the anticipated impacts to the specific community type. Where determined to
be significant under CEQA, the potential impact would require mitigation through avoidance,
minimization of disturbance or loss, or some type of compensatory mitigation when
unavoidable.
LOCAL REGULATIONS
Several policies in the City of South San Francisco General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan pertain
to the protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources. Following is a description of the
key policy documents and regulations that are applicable to the site.
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan
contains a number of policies related to protection of sensitive biological and wetland resources
that are applicable to the site. The policies are:
• 7.1-G-1: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San
Francisco, including species that are State or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare.
• 7.1-G-2: Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore saltmarshes and wetlands.
• 7.1-I-2: As part of the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan update,
institute an ongoing program to remove invasive plant species from ecologically sensitive
areas, including Sign Hill Park, Colma Creek Linear Park, Bayfront Linear Park, and other City-owned open space, as depicted in Figure 7-1.
• 7.1-I-3: As part of development approvals on sites that include ecologically sensitive
habitat designated in Figure 7-2, require institution of an on-going program to remove and prevent the re-establishment of the invasive species and restore the native species.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-35
• 7.1-I-4: Require development on the wetlands delineated in figure 7-1 to complete
assessments of biological resources.
• 7.1-I-5: Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding
for wetland and marsh protection and restoration projects.
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in July 1994. The Area Plan includes a Conservation Element that contains policies intended to protect and
enhance natural resources in the East of 101 Area. Policies relevant to the site are:
• Policy CON-1: Prior to construction of development projects on sensitive resource
lands the City shall require an applicant to conduct a formal wetlands delineation at the
project site The results of the wetlands delineation shall be made available to evaluate project specific impacts associated with sensitive habitats
• Policy CON-2: The City shall require that developments comply with all applicable State
and federal laws and regulations regarding protection and replacement of wetlands.
• Policy CON-4: The City shall take all feasible measures to preserve any sensitive plant
and animal species that occur in the East of 101 Area.
• Policy CON-5: Prior to receiving approval for construction activities or other disturbances on undeveloped land in the East of 101Area project sponsors shall conduct
environmental analyses to evaluate the site-specific status of sensitive plant and animal species
• Policy CON-6: If sensitive plant or animal species would be unavoidably affected by a
proposed project the City shall require the project developer to implement appropriate
mitigation measures
• Policy Con-7: New development adjacent to sensitive resource areas shall be required to
incorporate the following measures into project design:
• Shield lights to reduce off-site glare.
• A buffer area of at least 100 feet in width shall be provided between known sensitive resources and development area. Encroachments into the 100-foot buffer
area may be allowed on a case-by-case basis as follows: o Buildings which have a water oriented theme and which further the goals of allowing or encouraging public access to the Bay or inland
waterways; o Development located adjacent to inland waterways; o Accessory parking from adjacent development; o Development on the “fingers’ portion of the planning area.
Any encroachment into the 100-foot buffer must receive approval of the City, Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the California Department of Fish and Game, and shall only be permitted if supported by a site-
specific biological assessment prepared by a qualified biologist. Mitigation measures
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-36 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
identified through the biological analysis shall be attached as conditions of any
encroachment approvals.
• Landscape all on-site buffer areas with native vegetation to screen habitat areas
from adjacent land uses.
• Restrict entry to habitat areas through devises such as fencing landscaping or
signage.
• Ensure that run-off from development does not adversely affect the biotic values
of adjacent wetlands or other habitat areas.
Municipal Code
South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a “Protected Tree” as one with a
circumference of 48” or more when measured 54” above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees
designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importance to the
public due to its location or unusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a stand
of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependent on the
others for survival.
IMPACTS
a) Special-Status Species and Nesting Habitat
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if were to result in a substantial
adverse effect on special-status species, as identified in 3.5 Biological Resources a, above.
Essential habitat for special-status species would not be affected by the Project. The addition to the parking structure would be located adjacent to the open water habitat of the basin area to
San Bruno Canal, where special-status birds and fish may occasionally forage and disperse. The Project would have no direct affect on this area and is not likely to disrupt the existing foraging
and dispersal activity for these species.
Suitable nesting habitat for State and federally-listed bird species is absent on the site. However, the few native shrubs along the perimeter of the fingers could be used for nesting by more
common bird species. These nests would be protected under the federal MBTA when in active use. The MBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, including whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Construction activities during the breeding season could result in the
incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or nest abandonment.
A standard requirement is to either initiate construction during the non-nesting season, which in San Mateo County is September 1- January 31, or to conduct a nesting survey within seven days
prior to initial grubbing and construction to determine whether any active nests are present that must be protected until any young have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest.
Protection of the nests, if present, would require that construction setbacks be provided during the nesting and fledging period, with the setback depending on the type of bird species, degree
to which the individuals have already acclimated to other on-going disturbance, and other factors.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-37
In summary, suitable nesting habitat for State and federally-listed bird species is absent on the
site. However, the few native shrubs along the perimeter of the fingers could be used for
nesting by more common bird species. These nests would be protected under the federal
MBTA when in active use. Disturbance of active nests would be considered a significant
impact. Biology Mitigation 1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 1: POTENTIAL PRESENCE OF ACTIVE BIRD NESTS IN
PROXIMITY TO CONSTRUCTION COULD RESULT IN A TAKE OF A PROTECTED SPECIES
There is a remote potential for presence of active nests in close proximity to the construction
site. Construction activities could disturb or result in a take if nesting birds are present.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 1.A: Outside of Nesting Season: Vegetation and tree removal
shall be scheduled to take place outside of the nesting season (which occurs from February 1 to
August 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds;
or,
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 1.B: During Nesting Season: A qualified biologist (Biologist)
shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird (both passerine and raptor) survey within seven
days prior to the commencement of construction if construction is unavoidable during the
nesting season. The survey shall be within 300 feet of the limits of proposed construction shall
be performed by a Biologist. If no nesting birds are observed no further action is required and
grading and ground breaking activities shall occur within one week of the survey to prevent take
of individual birds that could begin nesting after the survey.
Another nest survey shall be conducted if more than seven days elapse between the initial nest
search and the beginning of tree removal and construction activities. The Biologist shall
determine the disturbance-free buffer zone to be established around the nest tree(s) until the
young have fledged if active bird nests (either passerine and/or raptor) are observed during the
pre-construction survey.
A qualified biologist shall determine the radius of the required buffer zone. Buffer zones vary
depending on the species, (i.e., 75-100 feet for passerines and 300 feet for raptors). The
dimensions of the zone shall be determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Orange construction fencing, flagging, or other marking system shall be installed to delineate the
buffer area at the specified radius from nest location(s) within which no cranes or other
equipment associated with the parking structure construction shall intrude. Continued use of
the surface parking areas for parking and parking lot maintenance may continue within this
setback zone.
There would be no restrictions on grading or construction activities outside the prescribed
buffer zone after the no-construction zone has been identified.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-38 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
A survey report of findings verifying that any young have fledged shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Chief Planner at the City of South San Francisco Planning Division prior to
initiation of any grading or other construction activities within the buffer zone. Following
approval by the Chief Planner, grading and construction in the nest-buffer zone may proceed.
Implementation of the Biology Mitigation 1 would reduce potential Project impacts to
nesting birds to less-than-significant.
b) and c) Jurisdictional Habitat
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if it were to substantially impact
sensitive natural communities or jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S. as identified in
Biological Resources 3.5 b-c, above.
The proposed parking structure improvements would all be located in uplands, and would not
directly affect any sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional wetlands or open waters of the
former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal. The Project would have no impact
on any sensitive natural communities or jurisdictional wetlands.
d) Native Fish and Wildlife Movement Opportunities and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites.
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
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.
The Project would expand the existing parking structure over an existing surface parking lot.
The existing surface parking lot does not serve as an important movement corridor for native
wildlife and the new structure is not expected to interfere substantially with native wildlife
corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The new structure could disrupt the
flight path of local birds, but they could continue to fly around or over the structure when
passing through the vicinity. Species common in the vicinity would continue to forage in the
open water habitat of the former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal. The Project
would not result in any significant impacts on native wildlife movement opportunities or
nursery sites.
e) Local Policies and Ordinances
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.
Protected Trees
There are no Protected Trees on the site as defined by City ordinance. South San Francisco
Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a “Protected Tree” as one with a circumference of
48” or more when measured 54” above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designated by the
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-39
Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, importance to the public due to its
location or unusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a stand of trees that the
Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependent on the others for
survival. There are no trees on the site which meet the City’s definition of protected tree, and
no adverse impacts are anticipated.
Biological Study and Protection of Resources
As indicated in the Regulatory Framework discussion, the City of South San Francisco General Plan
and the East of 101 Area Plan contain policies relevant to the site and Project. Policies 7.1-G-1
and 7.1-G-2 of the general plan pertain to protection of special-status species and wetland
habitat. As discussed under criterion a and c, the Project would not affect any essential habitat
for special-status species or nearby wetland habitat associated with the San Bruno Canal. Biology Mitigation 1 is identified to ensure Project construction does not disrupt and bird
nesting activity, in the remote instance new nests were established in close proximity to the site,
consistent with the intent of these goals. The biological assessment conducted as part of this
Initial Study preparation provides the review called for in Policy 7.1-I-4. The Project site is
located adjacent to wetlands but does not contain wetlands. Policy 7.1-I-5 does not directly apply
to the Project as the Project would not affect these wetland areas and does not include any
restoration component.
Control of Invasive Exotics
General Plan Policies 7.1-I-2 and 7.1-I-3 pertain to invasive species controls from ecologically
sensitive habitat areas. The fingers and southern boundary of the site along San Bruno Canal are
identified in Figure 7.1 Sensitive Biological Resources and Figure 7-2 Special Environmental
Studies Required for Development Proposals (pps 226 and 227, South San Francisco General Plan).
Pampas grass occurs in scattered locations on the site and both pampas grass and French broom
are spreading along the north bank of the San Bruno Canal just south of the existing parking
structure on the site. These invasive species, unless removed and prevented from becoming
established, will eventually spread throughout the margins of the site and compromise the
wildlife habitat values in the area. Additionally, the soil improvements associated with the Bay
Tail segment in this location were poorly implemented, with concrete rubble and a lack of top
soil preventing the establishment of even ornamental shrubs in this location. The Project
currently does not include any provisions to address the invasive species establishment on the
site and the poor condition of some of the landscape plantings on and adjacent to the property.
The East of 101 Area Plan also contains policies relevant to the site and Project. The biological
assessment conducted as part of this Initial Study preparation provides for the review called for
in East of 101 Area Plan Policies CON-1 and CON-5 and implements the biological review
required by Figure 7-2 of the General Plan. No wetlands would be affected by the Project, as
discussed above under criterion c, above. Therefore the Project by default conforms to Policy
CON-2. No significant adverse impacts on special-status species are anticipated (as discussed
above under criterion a). The Project would not conflict with Policies CON-4 and CON-6.
Policy CON-7 includes standards for new development adjacent to sensitive habitat, including
the wetlands adjacent to the site, addressing requirements for native landscaping, shielding of
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-40 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
new lighting, restrictions on entry, and controls on run-off. The policy states that the City will
review developments proposed within the 100-foot buffer area on a case-by-case basis. The
policy requires a biological assessment which is conducted through this initial study and
implementation of identified mitigation measures, if warranted. Mitigation measures are
identified in this Initial Study to reduce biological impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Left unmitigated the spread of invasive exotic plant materials would be a significant impact.
Implementation of Biology Mitigation 2 would reduce the spread of invasive species on the
site, provide for habitat enhancement through establishment of native species, and provide
compliance with General Plan Policies 7.1-I-2 and 7.1-I-3. Implementation of Biology
Mitigation 2 would reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant with respect to habitat
quality and policy compliance.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE ARE NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN AND THE EAST OF 101
AREA PLAN POLICIES THAT DIRECT THE PROTECTION OF HABITAT, REMOVAL OF INVASIVE
EXOTIC PLANTS AND PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE VEGETATION TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES AND SUCCESSFUL ESTABLISHMENT OF
NATIVE ENHANCEMENT PLANTINGS.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION MEASURE 2: The landscape plan for the Project shall be
revised to include an “Invasive Species Removal Program”, eliminating pampas grass, French
broom, and other invasive species listed as having a “high” or “moderate” rating for “Invasive
Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands in California” according to the electronic Inventory
of the California Invasive Species Council (Cal IPC). All invasive species shall be removed from
the site and the adjacent segment of the Bay Trail along the north side of the San Bruno Canal
on the south side of the existing parking structure.
The landscape plan shall also be revised to include a “Native Species Enhancement Program”; a
plan to provide for installation of additional native species in areas where existing landscape
plantings are absent or performing poorly. Of particular concern is the area south of the
existing parking structure, between the concrete Bay Trail and top of bank to San Bruno Creek;
an area planted with non-native species that are performing poorly or dead. Concrete rubble
and non-organic fills shall be removed from the ground surface and a layer of top soil shall be
installed to a minimum depth of six inches to provide a growing substrate for new plantings.
The entire area shall be planted with native creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides) installed from
plugs on approximately one-foot centers to provide a continuous groundcover. Any shrubs or
trees planted in this location shall be restricted to native species indigenous to the South San
Francisco area. All new native plantings shall be provided short-term irrigation for a minimum
of three years during the dry season to ensure successful establishment, and any plantings that
die shall be replaced during this establishment period.
All native plantings installed as part of the Native Species Enhancement Program shall be
monitored annually, for a period of three years, by a qualified landscape architect or biologist.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-41
The annual monitoring report shall summarize the condition of the native enhancement
plantings, status of invasive species removal, and include recommendations for any corrective
work necessary. Copies of the annual monitoring reports shall be provided to the Chief Planner
at City of South San Francisco Planning Division by December 31 of each reporting year. If
native enhancement plantings have not become successfully established or target invasive
species are still present on the site and adjacent corridor of the Bay Trail, the applicant shall be
required to submit a remedial enhancement plan and extend the monitoring period and annual
reporting until successful establishment has been achieved.
A report of successful completion of the Native Species Enhancement Program shall be
provided for review and approval by the Chief Planner of the City of South San Francisco at the
end of the three year monitoring period. The row of non-native Lombardy poplar proposed as
part of the Landscape Plan along the east side of the new parking structure is appropriate to
screen the building in views from the east; however, the area between the row of poplar
plantings and shoreline of the drydock shall be planted exclusively with native species to
enhance this area as part of the Native Species Enhancement Program.
Future landscape maintenance of the site shall include the routine monitoring and annual
removal of any target invasive species identified in the Invasive Species Removal Program. The
maintenance and monitoring shall include the native species enhancement area on the south side
of the existing parking structure.
Lighting
The application materials note that lighting would be designed to minimize additional lighting
skyward and are silent on light seepage towards the Bay. Chapter 1, Legislative Framework,
Section 1.5.1 Aesthetics stipulate the City’s requirement to control off-site glare and light.
Municipal Code Section (Zoning) 20.300.008.4 also requires light to be shielded so as not to
produce obtrusive glare onto the public right-of-way or adjoining properties. Protection of the
Bay lands from an additional substantial light source, such as non-directed or unshielded light
associated with doubling the size of the existing parking structure, is of biological concern as
noted in the East of 101 Area Plan Policy CON-7 and left unmitigated could result in a significant
impact. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 3 would reduce the lighting impact to less-
than-significant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 3: SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN LIGHT ONTO BAY
LANDS MAY REDUCE THE HABITAT VALUE OF THE TIDAL AREA (WETLAND HABITAT) AND WOULD
CONFLICT WITH EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN POLICY CON-7.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 3: All lighting in the new parking structure and any modifications
to existing lighting shall be shielded and oriented onto the site to prevent off-site illumination
and glare into the adjacent wetland habitat along San Bruno Canal and the former drydocks.
Resource Agency Review and Approval
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-42 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
As noted in Chapter 1, Legislative Framework, above in the Setting Section and identified in East of 101 Area Plan Policy CON-7 the Project is required to obtain approval from the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game
prior to commencement of grading or construction. Eclipsing the review and regulatory
authority of these two agencies would be a significant impact. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 4 would reduce the permitting and policy impact to less-than-significant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 4: PROJECT COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FROM THE BAY CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN POLICY CON:-7.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 4: No building, grading or construction permit shall be issued by
the City in absence of written approvals/conditional approvals for the development analyzed in
this Initial Study by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the California
Department of Fish and Game. Written approvals from the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game shall be provided
to the Chief Planner and Building Official prior to issuance of any demolition, grading on
construction permits for the Project. Any plan modifications required by the permitting
agencies shall be incorporated into the Project plans and reviewed by the Chief Planner, prior to
issuance of any demolition, grading on construction permits for the Project.
f) Approved Habitat Conservation Plans
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
No approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan
encompasses, governs or regulates the site. The Project would not conflict with any approved Habitat Conservation Plans and as such would have no impact.
Finding: Implementation of the Biology Mitigation 1 would reduce potential Project impacts
to nesting birds to less-than-significant. The Project would have no impact on any sensitive natural communities or jurisdictional wetlands as it would be completely located in uplands, and
would not directly affect any sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional wetlands or open waters of the former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal.
The Project would expand the existing parking structure over an existing surface parking lot that
does not serve as an important movement corridor for native wildlife. The new structure is not expected to interfere substantially with native wildlife corridors or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites. Species common in the vicinity would continue to forage in the open water habitat of the former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-43
Implementation of Biology Mitigation 2 would reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant
with respect to habitat quality and policy compliance. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 3
would reduce the lighting impact to less-than-significant. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 4 would reduce the permitting and policy impact to less-than-significant.
No approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan
encompasses, governs or regulates the site. Therefore the Project would not conflict with any
approved Habitat Conservation Plans and as such would have no impact.
The Project would have a less-than-significant impact with implementation of Biology Mitigations 1-4. 1997 Mitigation 10 is not applicable to the 2013 Project and has been
redefined in Biology Mitigations 1 and 3.
3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 15 was identified in the 1997 ISMND requiring the cessation of grading
and/or construction activity should archeological artifacts be discovered during Project
construction. Review of City planning and building files indicate that archaeological and
paleontological artifacts were not discovered in 1998/99 or 2007 when the grading and paving
for the surface parking area was conducted. Review of the geotechnical boring logs (Furgo,
2012) does not reveal the presence of culturally significant soils or content. Mitigation Measure
15 is not required for the 2013 Project. SETTING
Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the City’s Water
Quality Control Plant. The 2013 Project site was unused from 2003 to 2007. In 2007, the
property owner received approvals from the City to pave the 2013 Project site and provide
surface parking that is part and parcel to the existing Park SFO facility that was constructed in
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-44 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
1999. Therefore, the Project site has been paved and used for a surface parking lot as part of the
Park SFO facility since 2007.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
CEQA relies on the criteria identified in Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Public Resources Code Section 4852.1 to identify if a building is appropriate for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources (Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archaeological Resources, Section 15064.5 Title 14, Chapter 3, California Code of
Regulations). In summary, these criteria include consideration of whether the building:
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California history and cultural heritage;
B. Associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of type, period, region or method of construction,
or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or,
D. Yield or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
A lead agency does not have to rely solely on the above criterion and may determine the appropriateness of a potential resource based upon age. Commonly 50 years of age is used as a
basis by which to consider a structure’s potential historic significance under which a more detailed and rigorous analysis is required to determine actual or imagined significance
(Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archaeological Resources, Section 15064.5 Title 14, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations).
IMPACTS
a) Historic Resources
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause
a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5.
The Project would modify the northern elevation of the existing parking structure by
constructing and connecting a seven-level parking structure where the paved surface parking lot
is currently located. The existing parking structure (Park SFO) was constructed in 1998 and is
not considered an historic resource. The Project site is not identified on Figure 7-3 Designated
Historic Resources in the City’s General Plan (page 241). There are no historical resources or
structures on the Project site. The Project would have no impact on historic resources.
b - d) Archaeological Resources
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause
a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in
§15064.5, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature, or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-45
The Project site was graded and paved in 2007. There is no evidence of archaeological or
paleontological resources on the site as witnessed during previous grading and construction
activities in 1999 and 2007 (City planning and building files and Linda Ajello, Associate Planner,
January 28, 2013). The boring logs taken in 2003 and 2013 by Furgo West, Inc (see Section 3.7
Geology and Soils, below) does not indicate the presence of culturally significant soils, such as
shell or artifact fragments. The Project would have no impact on archaeological or
paleontological resources.
Finding: The Project is located on a developed site and in a developed area. There is no
evidence of archaeological or paleontological resources on the site as witnessed during previous
grading and construction activities in 1999 and 2007 and in the boring logs. In light of Title 14
California Code of Regulations, Public Resources Code Section 4852.1, there are no historic
resources on the entirety of the Project site. The Project would have no impact on cultural
resources.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-46 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. 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.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
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?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
1997 IS/MND Mitigation Measure 1 was identified in the 1997 ISMND requiring the applicant to submit a soils
and geotechnical report to the City, characterizing site conditions and identifying design requirements. 1997 Mitigation Measure 1 is not required for the 2013 Project as an updated
geotechnical characterization and design measures have been provided, peer reviewed by the City’s consulting geologists, summarized herein and included in Attachment A in its complete
form. Mitigation Measure 2 identified in the 1997 ISMND requiring preparation, approval and implementation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan is not required as a mitigation
measure in the 2013 Project; it is replaced by the City’s requirement to comply with NPDES and C.3 regional board permitting regulations as a matter of law (see Section 3.9 Hydrology and
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-47
Water Quality, subsection a for the exact requirements of the Project through entitlement
review and Chapter 1.5.4).
SETTING
PROJECT SITE
The Project site is approximately seven acres in area (6.96). The existing Park SFO (2001
Project) parking garage sits on 5.71 acres adjacent to and south of the 1.25-acre site that would
support the parking garage expansion. The 1.25-acre site (2007 Project) is paved and used as
surface parking associated with the existing Park SFO parking garage. As noted throughout this
document, prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre 2007 Project site supported industrial land uses, ship
repair, warehouse and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area
for the City’s Water Quality Control Plant. In 2007, the property owner received approvals
from the City to pave the Project site and provide surface parking that is part and parcel to the
existing Park SFO facility that was constructed in 1998. Therefore, the Project site has been
paved and used for a surface parking lot as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007.
The site is relatively level and surface the elevation is approximately 11 feet above mean sea level
(MSL) (Furgo West, Inc., March 2003, see below) San Francisco Bay is immediately east of the
Project. Although the 2013 Geotechnical Report prepared by Furgo West makes note of a
potential basement level parking area, this initial study analyzes an above grade parking structure
only consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Division.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The City Engineering Division requires geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for
projects to be constructed on vacant land, demolition and rebuilding and additions to buildings
that require grading and additional loading (see Chapter 1, Section 5). The geotechnical reports
are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering
geologist. The reports address design and construction specifications for the projects including
grading, site drainage, utility and infrastructure design specifications and placement and building
design. The reports are peer reviewed by the City’s geotechnical consultant and are modified as
recommended by the City’s consultant.
A geotechnical investigation was conducted and a report prepared for the 2013 Project. The
report is incorporated herein by reference (Geotechnical Investigation Report REST Parking Facilities
South San Francisco, California, Furgo West, Inc., March, 2003 and Geotechnical Study Update REST
Parking Facilities South San Francisco, California, Furgo West, Inc., February, 2013) (Geotechnical
Report). The Geotechnical Report was peer reviewed by the City’s Consulting Geologists,
Cotton Shires Associates (CSA), Geotechnical Investigation REST Investments Parking Facilities,
November 12, 2012 and Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review REST Investments Parking Facilities,
March 22, 2013 and is incorporated herein by reference (both are included in Appendix A).
PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-48 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Seven subsurface borings were conducted in 2003 and again in 2012 to a maximum depth of 35
feet below ground surface (bgs) (Furgo West). The boring locations and logs are shown in the
Furgo West Report, attached in Appendix A of this initial study. Groundwater was not
encountered during the borings and for design purposes is assumed to be two feet below
existing grade, or nine feet MSL. The 2001 Park SFO parking structure with a basement level
approximately seven feet below existing grade is supported on deep spread footings founded at a
depth of approximately 10 feet below existing grade (approximately +one foot MSL) which
would be connected to the proposed seven-level parking facility.
Site constraints or challenges include the presence of: 1) undocumented fills and alluvial soils of
various thickness over bedrock, 2) underground mixing basins, 3) existing below-grade footings
associated with the existing Park SFO parking garage, 4) variations of depth to bedrock, and 5)
San Francisco Bay. Specifically site reconnaissance revealed:
• An abandoned surface building pad approximately 40 by 60 feet in dimension of unknown thickness affecting the uniformity of the surface.
• Two abandoned mixing basins approximately eight feet in depth and approximately 45
by 90 feet in dimension. The bottom of the basin consists of 12 inch thick reinforced concrete slab overlain by undocumented fills consisting of medium to dense silty gravel
and stiff clay at approximately eight feet below existing surface and +four feet MSL. Below the concrete slab approximately five feet of very stiff clay characterized as natural
alluvial deposits was found before encountering Franciscan formation bedrock at a depth of approximately 13 feet below existing grade or Elevation - one foot. The
Franciscan formation consists of weathered sandstone and shale extending to the maximum depth explored of 35 feet.
• An abandoned surface building pad approximately 60 by 110 feet in dimension and of
unknown thickness.
• An existing 100 foot retaining wall east of the 2001 Project facing San Francisco Bay
with a total height of 12 feet (three feet above existing grade) supported on 36-inch diameter drilled caissons spaced approximately eight feet center-to-center.
• A dewatering building, approximate dimension 70 by 80 feet, previously belonging to the
WPCP is located at the northwest corner of the site. Approximately four feet (depth) of
gravely fills, underlain by 12 feet of very dense sand and very stiff clay followed by
Franciscan bedrock at a depth of about 14 feet or Elevation –four feet MSL was
encountered in this area.
The remaining areas of the 1.25 acre development area consists of approximately three to five
feet of undocumented sandy gravel fills underlain by up to nine feet of stiff to very stiff clay;
these clays are natural alluvial deposit. The competent Franciscan formation bedrock, with
standard penetration blow counts (N-SPT) exceeding 100 blows per foot was encountered at
depths of approximately 13 to 15 feet below existing grade, or an elevation of one to-three feet.
The Franciscan bedrock encountered in the borings generally consisted of severely weathered
sandstone, shale and serpentine.
Based upon the Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle (Bonilla, M.G., 1965,
Department of the Interior, United States Geological Society) the site is underlain by Franciscan
formation bedrock (Kjs) consisting of interbedded sandstone, shale and serpentine. The fresh
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-49
bedrock, commonly medium dark grey in color, is hard and intact. The olive gray to yellowish
gray soft bedrock is severely weathered and or sheared. As mentioned above, artificial fill (Qaf)
and/or alluvial deposits (Qsr) overlay the Franciscan bedrock formation. The alluvial deposits
generally consist of sands, silts and clays derived from the nearby hills to the west.
The grading plan (Luk and Associates, July 9, 2013) indicates that approximately 6,118 cubic
yards of soils would be hauled from the site and 6,694 cubic yards would be re-compacted and
reused on the site. Total grading would be approximately 12,187 cubic yards.
SEISMIC FAULTS
No active earthquake faults have been recognized within the immediate site area. Although the
site and vicinity is believed to be free of active faults, the San Francisco Bay Area is known to be
within a seismically active region. The dominant fault in this area is the San Andreas Fault,
located about 3.4 miles southwest of the site. Other active faults in the area include the San
Gregorio fault located roughly 8.8 miles west-southwest, Monte Vista-Shannon is located 17.2
miles southeast, and the Hayward fault located on the order of 14.7 miles northeast. Additional
faults in the area that are not considered active include the San Bruno and Sierra faults located
roughly 2.2 and 3.3 miles southwest of the site, respectively.
The Hillside fault, a northwesterly-trending escarpment aligned with a zone of sheared rocks on
the knoll of Point San Bruno just south of Oyster Point, has also been mapped a short distance
from the Project site. Until the late 1990’s this fault was considered active for planning purposes.
Subsequent geophysical studies conducted in the late 1990’s using a more accurate high-powered
deep-penetrating sonar system found no evidence suggesting that the Hillside fault is potentially
active. Moreover, geologic observations of the Hillside fault exposed during recently graded cuts
on San Bruno Mountain did not detect any recognizable offsets of units that would indicate a
current fault rupture hazard. Therefore, there is no evidence that this fault has been active
within geologically recent time; however, it may be possible for sympathetic movements to be
imposed on this fault as a result of stress from major earthquakes on nearby faults, such as the
San Andreas and Hayward faults.
The site is located three miles northeast of the active San Andreas fault zone. The San Gregorio
fault zone lies 8.5 miles northeast and the Hayward fault zone lies 15 miles southwest of the
Project site.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-50 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
IMPACTS
Seismic Hazards
Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary and secondary. Primary geologic
hazards include surface fault rupture. Secondary geologic hazards include ground shaking,
liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced ground failure.
i) Surface Fault Rupture
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the surface
rupture of a known earthquake fault.
There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the San Andreas Fault,
located about three miles northeast. The hazard from fault rupturing on the site is considered to
be low (Furgo West, 2003). The Hillside fault is located nearby, but there is no evidence that
this fault has been active within geologically recent time. Therefore, the Project would have a
less than significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface
rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong
seismic ground shaking.
Given that there are no active faults within the Project site, damage from a seismic event is most
likely to occur from the secondary impact of strong seismic ground shaking originating on a
nearby fault. Estimates of actual ground shaking intensity at a particular location are made
according to the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which accounts for variables such as the size
and distance from the earthquake. For the Project site, Mercalli Intensity estimates indicate that
earthquake-shaking intensity would vary depending upon where the seismic event originates.
For the Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCE) along the nearby San Andreas and San
Gregorio faults (Richter Magnitude 7.9 and 7.4, respectively) the shaking intensities would be IX,
“violent” and VIII, “very strong”, respectively, at the Project site. The site is located in Seismic
Zone 4 and the San Andreas, San Gregorio and Hayward faults are characterized is Type A
faults (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998).
Development of the Project would increase the number of structures and people potentially
exposed to hazards associated with a major earthquake in the region. The Project and all
buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area are built with the knowledge that an earthquake could
occur, and are required by law through the issuance of building permits to meet the California
Building Code (CBC) standards for seismic safety.
The 2010 CBC identifies the site within Site Class C (stiff soil profile). The geotechnical report
(Furgo West, February, 2013, page 6) contains the design criteria applicable to 2013 Project
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-51
construction, in compliance with the 2010 CBC (see Appendix A). These requirements have
been reviewed by the City’s peer reviewer, Cotton Shires Associates (CSA), and CSA agrees with
the site characterization and assessment with the exception of the mitigation measure identified
in c, below. The Project would be designed and constructed pursuant to the 2010 CBC as a
matter of building permit issuance. Conformance with the latest CBC would ensure that
the impact of seismic ground-shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant.
iii) Liquefaction
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
Liquefaction is a secondary seismic hazard involving saturated cohesionless sand and silty sand
sediments located close to the ground surface. Liquefaction occurs when the strength of a soil decreases and pore pressure increases as a response to strong seismic shaking and cyclic loading.
During the loss of strength, the soil becomes mobile, and can move both horizontally and vertically, if not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated,
uniformly-graded, fine-grained sands.
The Project site is underlain by a non-saturated layer of medium dense to dense sand and gravel encountered within the upper five feet of undocumented fills and will likely induce a minor
seismic settlement due to dynamic densification on the order of less than a quarter (1/4) inch during a design seismic event. The non-saturated medium dense to dense sand and silty gravel,
along with the stiff clay and weathered rocks are not susceptible to liquefaction. The Geotechnical Report (Furgo West, March 2003) concludes that the liquefaction potential
necessary for liquefaction of materials under the Project site is low. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to liquefaction of subsurface
materials.
iv) Landslides
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides.
A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling.
The Project site is flat. There is no threat of landslides on the Project site; therefore the Project would have no impact with respect to landslides.
b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to
result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil.
In absence of the NPDES C-3 requirements implemented by the City as a condition of building and grading permit issuance the Project would have a potential to increase erosion during
construction. These requirements are described in detail in Section 3.8: Hydrology and Water
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-52 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Quality and in Chapter 1, Section 5. Erosion control measures are required as a matter of
law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant.
c) Geologic Instability
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse.
The Geotechnical Report, based upon subsurface testing (maximum depth of 35 feet) found that
the site is located on Franciscan bedrock at a depth of 13 feet, a stable geologic unit. The site
does contain undocumented fill consisting of dense silty gravel and stiff clay to approximately
eight feet below existing grade, followed by five feet of very stiff clay and alluvial deposits.
The Applicant indicates that an intention to export approximately 6,118 cubic yards of material
and re-compact approximately 6,694 cubic yards of material from the site. The City Engineer
(Mr. Sam Bautista, May 7, 2013) and Cotton Shires Associates (March 22, 2013) have indicated a
concern with respect to site stability in absence of details regarding re-compacting of the soil.
Specifically Cotton Shires notes:
“…concerns about the proposed use of undocumented fill materials for passive
resistance or support of slabs-on-grade (even with the propped 12 inches of over
excavation). The Standard of Practice in the City is to remove and replace
undocumented fill or to obtain support for new structures (including slab-on-grade
floors) with foundations that exceed through undocumented fill and into
competent native materials. The Standard of Practice in the [c]ity also does not
include reliance on undocumented fill for passive resistance.”
The Project would have less than significant impacts with respect to a geologic unit
becoming unstable with implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACT 1: REUSE OF IMPROPERLY COMPACTED OR INCOMPETENT SOIL ON THE SITE
COULD RESULT IN UNSTABLE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION 1: A state licensed registered engineering geologist
and principal geotechnical engineer shall be on site during grading and site preparation to
supervise and inspect conditions and shall certify to the City that the soil has been properly
compacted and emplaced to the City’s Standards or that all undocumented fill was removed
from the site prior to construction commencing.
d) Expansive Soils
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on
expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-53
Project soils were identified as having a PI of 16 in the 2003 geotechnical report (Furgo West).
According to Cotton Shires Associates, the City’s geotechnical consulting firm, a PI of 16 is a
low plasticity level and suitable for the proposed development (Ted Sayre, Principal Engineering
Geologist, May 1, 2013). Issues related to expansive soils typically occur when the PI exceeds 25
(op., cit). The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to expansive
soils because it would be located on soils with a low potential of expansion (PI 16).
e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involved
construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alternate waste disposal systems.
The Project site is connected to the city’s sanitary sewer system. The Project would have no
impact on soils due to septic systems as the project is connected to the City’s sanitary
system.
Finding: There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the San Andreas
Fault, located about three miles northeast. The hazard from fault rupturing on the site is
considered to be low (Furgo West, 2003). Therefore, the Project would have a less than
significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known
earthquake fault. Conformance with the latest CBC would ensure that the impact of seismic
ground-shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant.
The Geotechnical Report concludes that the liquefaction potential necessary for liquefaction of
materials under the Project site is low. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant
impact with respect to liquefaction of subsurface materials. There is no threat of landslides on
the Project site; therefore the Project would have no impact with respect to landslides.
Erosion control measures are required as a matter of law and as a result this impact is considered
to be less than significant.
The Project would have less than significant impacts with respect to a geologic unit becoming
unstable with implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1.
The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the project is connected to
the City’s sanitary system. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to
expansive soils because it would be located on soils with a low potential of expansion (PI 16).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-54 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS — Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the Project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?
X
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?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-55
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 11 in the 1997 IS/MND required the applicant to obtain letters from both
Santa Fe Pipeline and Shell Oil, indicating that sufficient construction and operational safeguards
have been included as part of the construction plans and specifications to ensure no damage to
either facility. 1997 Mitigation Measure 11 is superseded by Hazards Mitigation 1.
SETTING
The site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, in the southeastern corner of the City at 195
North Access Road. North Access Road and San Bruno Canal are immediately south of the site.
South of North Access Road is another parking structure. San Francisco International Airport
(SFO) is approximately 1,300 feet south of the site with their property beginning approximately
200 feet south of the site. San Francisco Bay is directly east, the City of South San Francisco
wastewater treatment facility is to the north and an aviation fuel tank farm is to the west. The
site has access from South Airport Boulevard, I-280 to 380 to North Access Road and U.S. 101
to North Access Road (see Figures 2.1 Project Location and 2.3 Project Area).
Prior to 2001, the 1.25-acre Project site supported industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the City’s Water
Quality Control Plant. The site was unused from 2001 to 2007 when the City leased the
property to the Project sponsor. The Project site has been paved and used for a surface parking
lot as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007.
The 2013 Project would demolish the surface parking lot and construct a seven-level 549,626
square foot parking structure connecting to the existing seven-level 477,048 square foot parking
structure constructed in 1998. The 2013 Project would increase on-site parking from 1,901 up
to 3,194 spaces. After completion, there would be 2,833 garage spaces and 361 surface parking
spaces.
There are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project boundary. Residential land uses
are approximately 3,300 feet (0.65 miles) to the west of the Project site (west of Route 101 and
north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (0.75 miles) to the southwest of the Project site (west of
Route 101 and south of Interstate 380). The closest school is Belle Air Elementary which is 1.1
miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from the Project site. San Francisco International Airport is
located approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the Project site (although airport-owned
property is within 200 feet of the Project site).
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
The South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) requires businesses using or transporting
hazardous substances to provide a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) for their review
and approval. SSFFD reviews development and entitlement applications, levies and enforces
code requirements for fire prevention and safety and conducts periodic inspections of business
activities.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-56 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal would be governed by the following standards
and permits at both the federal and state level.
FEDERAL
• Toxic Substances Control Act, administered by the EPA, Regulation 40 CFR 720.
• Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, administered by the Department of
Transportation, Regulation 49 CFR 171-177.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 4 USC 6901-6987.
• Hazardous Waste Management Standards for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Facilities,
administered by EPA, 40CFR 260-2625.
STATE
• California Hazardous Waste Control Act. California Health and Safety Code, Division 20,
Chapter 6.5.
• California Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. California Administrative Code, Title
22. Social Security, Division 4. Environmental Health, Chapter 30.
• Occupation Safety and Health Act, 29 USC 651.
• Workplace Exposure Limits, administered by Occupational Health and Safety
Administration. 29CFR 1900-1910.
• California Occupational Safety and Health Act.
TYPICAL SITE REMEDIATION MEASURES
Hazards Table 1 outlines the type of hazardous material impacts and standard and acceptable
remediation measures, typically levied by the San Mateo Department of Environmental Health
(SMCDEH) as the lead permitting agency through various memoranda of understandings with
federal and state agencies and local government.
IMPACTS
a) and b) Hazardous Materials
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment.
The Project is located in an area zoned for light industrial land uses. The Project would not handle hazardous materials as a course of conducting business operations. There are no
sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project boundary. Residential land uses are approximately 3,300 feet (0.65 miles) to the west of the Project site (west of Route 101 and
north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (0.75 miles) to the southwest of the Project site (west of Route 101 and south of Interstate 380). The closest school is Belle Air Elementary which is 1.1
miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from the Project. SFO main operations are located
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-57
approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the Project (although airport-owned property is within
200 feet).
HAZARDS TABLE 1 STANDARD REMEDIATION PRACTICES
Media Hazardous
Materials
Approach
Soil Remediation (ex-situ) Fuels • Reuse on Site (if concentration is less than 100 ppm).
• Haul and Dispose at appropriate landfill.
• Capping and vapor barrier.
• Treat on site (see below).
Soil Remediation (ex-situ) VOCs (gasoline
fuels, solvents)
• Consult the SMCEHD for requirements.
• Haul and Dispose.
• Aeration – requires a notification to BAAQMD, daily volumes are limited.
• Vapor Stripping – apply vacuum system to covered piles, notify BAAQMD.
• Bioremediation - apply bio-treatment materials, moisture and “work” soil piles.
• Thermal Desorption – various vendors provide mobile treatment units.
• Capping and vapor barrier.
Soil Remediation
(ex-situ)
Inorganics
(metals)
• Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements.
• Haul and Dispose.
• Chemical Stabilization.
• Sorting – reduce waste volume by screening to target contaminant particle size.
Soil Remediation
(in-situ)
VOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements.
• Soil Vapor Extraction – apply vacuum to vapor wells,
notify BAAQMD.
• In-situ chemical oxidation.
• In-Situ Vitrification – use electricity to melt waste and surrounding soils.
Soil Remediation
(in-situ)
SVOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements.
• Bioremediation – saturate soils with bio-treatment materials.
• Chemical Stabilization – saturate soils with chemicals to immobilize contaminants.
• In-Situ Vitrification.
• Capping .
Groundwater - Investigation All • If contaminants are detected in the 20 foot below ground surface soil sample an additional boring should be completed to groundwater.
• Analyze sample for contaminants detected in soil.
• Report results to the SMCEHD and consult on
remedial alternatives.
Groundwater Remediation VOCs • Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements.
• Pump and Treat – pump from wells, treat and discharge
treated water.
• Air Sparging – inject air to volatilize contaminants and
create aerobic groundwater conditions suitable for natural bioremediation. Generally applied in
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-58 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Media Hazardous
Materials
Approach
conjunction with Soil Vapor Extraction to control released volatiles.
• Bioremediation – inject bio-treatment materials into affected groundwater.
• Chemical Oxidation – inject oxidation chemicals into affected groundwater.
Groundwater Remediation SVOCs • Consult BAAQMD for requirements.
• Pump and Treat.
• Bioremediation.
• Chemical Oxidation.
Groundwater Remediation Inorganics • Consult BAAQMD for requirements.
• Pump and Treat.
• Chemical Immobilization – inject chemicals to precipitate or chemically fix contaminants to soil particles.
Operational Impacts
Any hazardous materials incident on the site would first be responded to by the South San Francisco Fire Department. As with all development and entitlement review applications, and as
described in Chapter 1, project plans are routed to various City Departments for review and comment. These departments include the Planning and Building Divisions, Public Works,
Water Quality Control, Engineering, Police and Fire. The South San Francisco Fire Department (Fire Marshal, Luis DaSilva in a letter to applicant and Ms Linda Ajello, Associate Planner, June
25, 2012) reviewed the plans for the Project and is requiring the following as conditions of approval:
1. Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section
1003.3. 2. Install a standpipe system per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan
check and permit. 3. Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell.
4. Elevator if provided shall not contain shunt-trips. 5. At least one elevator shall be sized for a gurney the minimum size shall be in accordance
with the CFC. 6. Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San Francisco
Municipal Code. 7. Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building.
8. All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications. 9. Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load of
75,000 pounds. 10. Road gradient and vehicle turning widths shall not exceed maximum allowed by
engineering department. 11. Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be determined.
12. Provide fire hydrants with an average spacing of 400 feet between hydrants. 13. The fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 3000 gallons per minute at 20
pounds per square inch residual pressure for duration of four (4) hours.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-59
14. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code
section 15.24.100.
15. Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors,
electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined.
16. The minimum road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code.
17. Local Fire Code and vehicle specifications and templates available at
http://www.ssf.net/depts/fire/prevention/fire_permits.asp
18. All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in
compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code.
The Project through the entitlement process and routine inspection is required as a matter of law
to operate under all applicable federal, state and local guidelines governing hazardous waste, the
impact of the Project with regards to hazardous waste would therefore Project operational
impacts would be less than significant.
Construction
The Project sponsor did not submit civil drawings, or a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(Phase 1 ESA), as apart of the application materials. Civil drawings show the location of utility
and other easements, such as off-and on-site monitoring wells, underground fuel lines and right-
of-ways. Shell Oil24 owns and operates a fuel tank farm adjacent to and northwest of the 2013
Project. Review on the National Pipeline Mapping System (www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov) indicates
that Shell Oil and Santa Fe25 pipelines may cross the 2013 Project site (viewed on January 29,
2013). The mapping system is a macro-based service and as such shall not be deemed
completely reliable for the location of pipelines and other underground utilities; civil drawings or
a Phase I ESA would provide this information.
Review of Geotracker (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/) accessed on January 29, 2013
indicates that there are two closed hazardous spill sites on the 2001 Project site, but none on the
2013 portion of the Project. One was an underground storage tank which leaked gasoline and
was closed in 1992. The other was a sump that contained volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
The site was closed and the monitoring wells destroyed in 2011. SMCDEH Director Dean
Peterson issued a notice of case closure on August 8, 2011.
Geotracker also indicates that some off-site monitoring wells from the Shell Oil Tank Farm may
be located on the 2013 Project site. The wells appear to be northwest of the 2001 Project
parking structure, on the 2013 Project portion of the site along its western boundary. The
architectural drawings do not show the location of the wells and civil drawings were not
provided. The location of the monitoring wells and access thereto, must be shown on civil
drawings to assure as-built conditions allow access to the wells. Absence of access to the
monitoring wells would be a significant impact.
24 Map Viewer identifies Deborah Price at (713) 241-2035 as the contact person for Shell Oil. Local records indicate that Eric
Hansen at (650) 761-1424 is the contact.
25 Map Viewer identifies Mark Jensen at (714) 560-4862 as the contact person for Santa Fe pipelines.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-60 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Grading, emplacing foundations and construction on the 2013 Project site could result in a
significant impact if activities were to rupture gasoline and fuel pipelines or monitoring wells.
Construction over fuel line easements would preclude maintenance or emergency repair.
Implementation of Hazards Mitigation Measure 1 would reduce impacts to less than
significant.
HAZARDS IMPACT 1: PROJECT PLANS DO NOT INCLUDE CIVIL DRAWINGS THAT INDICATE THE LOCTION OF
POTENTIAL ON- AND OFF-SITE MONITORING WELLS, GAS AND FUEL PIPELINES, UTILITY
EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS AND ACCURATE PROPERTY LINES. CONSTRUCTING OVER THESE
TYPES OF FACILITIES WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER ACCESSS FOR MAINTENANCE WOULD BE A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. MOREOVER, GRADING AND FOUNDATION EMPLACEMENT COULD RUPTURE
PIPELINES RESULTING IN A LEAK OR OTHER HAZARDOUS CONDITION.
HAZARDS MITIGATION 1: The Applicant, contractor or Project sponsor shall provide
civil engineering (wet stamped by a California licensed civil engineer) drawings identifying all
utility and access easements as well as the location of all underground facilities, including
monitoring wells and fuel lines and property lines, prior to issuance of any grading, demolition
or building permits by the City. Project construction plans shall comply with the access
requirements for underground utility maintenance. Santa Fe Pipeline and Shell Oil
representatives shall be contacted and provided an opportunity to review the 2013 Project plans
to assure adequate access is provided for their facilities. Written confirmation of their review,
approval and/or modifications shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any grading,
demolition or construction permits. The construction drawings shall be altered as necessary to
provide adequate access and depending upon the magnitude of alteration may require the
Project to undergo subsequent design and entitlement review.
Prior to beginning any underground excavation or drilling work, the contractor shall outline the
location using white paint (for paved surfaces), flags, stakes, or whiskers (for unpaved surfaces).
The contractor shall then contact USA North at (800) 227-2600 for a dig ticket at least two
working days prior to the start of excavation work so that underground utility owners can clear
the location of underground utilities or mark the location of their facilities within the excavation
area footprint. Facilities that are in conflict with the excavation are to be located with hand tools
and protected before power equipment is used. The dig ticket shall be kept active until the
completion of underground work. The contractor shall contact the City Engineering Division to
inspect the flagging and marking required by this mitigation measure prior to initiating any
underground excavation or drilling work. 2013 Project construction impacts would be less
than significant with the implementation of Hazards Mitigation 1.
c) and d) Hazardous Materials Presence
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, or if it was located on a site which is
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-61
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 (“Cortese List”).
There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile
of the 2013 Project site. As noted above, residential land uses are approximately 3,300 feet (0.65
miles) to the west (west of Route 101 and north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (0.75 miles) to
the southwest of the Project (west of Route 101 and south of Interstate 380). The closest school
is Belle Air Elementary which is 1.1 miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from the Project site.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of
hazardous materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental contamination
posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List.
e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located
within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport), if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the Project area; or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it
would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area.
The 2013 Project site is located 200 feet from SFO property and approximately 1,300 feet from
SFO operations and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC)
jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development within ALUC boundaries, provided that
development is below a prescribed height limit. The City, in concert with the ALUC and in
coordination with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), established height limits in the South San Francisco General Plan in compliance with the ALUC and FAA. The South San Francisco General
Plan indicates the maximum height for the Project is below the 160.9 contour. SFO has a
website that provides additional height information. The 2013 Project site is between the 150
and 175 foot height contour airport-related height limit restriction as noted on SFO’s website
(Http://ialp.airplanonline.com).
The maximum height of the Project, including the light poles on the roof level would be 100
feet. The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet in height including the stairwells and elevator.
The Project would not encroach in the 150 -175 foot zone. Potential safety impacts
associated with airports and airstrips is considered to be less than significant.
g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair
implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. The
Project is required to have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance
with Section 510 of the California Fire Code (Fire Marshal, Luis DeSilva letter to Planning
Department, June 25, 2012), see a and b above. The Project would have no impact on the
implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-62 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or area. The Project would have no
impact with respect to wildland fires.
Finding: The Project through the entitlement process and routine inspection is required as a
matter of law to operate under all applicable, federal, state and local guidelines governing
hazardous waste. The Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous
materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental contamination posed by the sites
listed on the Cortese List. The impact of the Project with regards to hazardous materials would
be less than significant with respect to operational activities. The Project would have a less than
significant impact on the potential to emit hazardous materials during construction with
implementation of Hazards Mitigation 1.
There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile
of the Project site.
The Project would be 100 feet in height including the light poles at the roof top parking level.
The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet including the stairwells and elevator. The Project
would be 50 feet below the lowest range of the maximum permitted height determined by the
ALUC and FAA.
There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore
the Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan. The South San Francisco Fire Department is in the process
of initiating a study to identify offensive capabilities in the Project area. The Project would be
required through conditions of approval to provide a fair share financial contribution to the
department’s study and improvements.
There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or area. The Project would have no
impact with respect to wildland fires.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-63
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X
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)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
X
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?
X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
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?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
1997 IS/MND Mitigation Measure 3 identified in the 1997 ISMND requiring a hydrological analysis is not
required for the 2013 Project because it is replaced by the City’s standard conditions of approval
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-64 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
identified in Chapter 1 Section 1.5.4 and a, below. Mitigation Measure 4 requiring compliance
with the NPDES and RWQCB permitting processes is not required of the 2013 Project because
it is replaced and by the City’s conditions of approval requiring NPDES and RWQCB
compliance with more conservative measures (see Setting Section below and Chapter 1
Section 1.5.4). Mitigation Measure 5 requiring stormwater to be directed to the storm drain
system is not required because the 2001 Project is constructed and complies with this measure.
The 2013 Project is required to comply with the storm drain measure through the standard
conditions of approval that are required by law (see Setting Section below and Chapter 1
Section 1.5.4). Mitigation Measure 6 requires the car wash water run-off to be directed to the
City’s sanitary sewer facility and the 2001 Project as built complies with this requirement.
Therefore the mitigation measure is implemented.
SETTING
Colma Creek, the City’s main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of
about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in the County. The basin is
bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two relatively straight
mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a low ridge at the northern boundary of the area. The valley enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast
where it drains into San Francisco Bay.
Flooding potential is evaluated by use of the Federal Emergency Mapping Agency (FEMA)
Community Maps. South San Francisco’s Community Panel Number is 0044E, Map
#06081C00H4E and dated October 16, 2012. Flood risk is based upon a one percent (1%)
annual chance of a 100 year flood, also known as the base flood, which is the flood that has a
one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year known as the Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA areas include flood zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V and VE.
The base flood elevation is the water surface elevation of the one percent annual chance flood.
The Project site is 11 feet above MSL and located in a Flood Zone A (minimal flooding) and no
base flood elevation level has been determined. The site is adjacent to Flood Zone AE with a 10
foot base flood level elevation at this location. The City’s Building Official is the Flood
Administrator whom is responsible for ensuring that construction complies with FEMA
regulations.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Discharge Permit: As
identified in Chapter 1 Section 5.4, the City of South San Francisco is a member of the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of
the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit.
STOPPP's goal is to prevent polluted storm water from entering creeks, wetlands, and the San Francisco Bay. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-65
and Low Impact Development (LID) measures for new development and construction as part
of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project
approval.
The City requires the implementation of BMP’s and LID measures to ensure the protection of
water quality in storm runoff from the Project site. In brief, the measures presented in the BMP
handbook address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g.
structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and
subcontractor training, etc. The handbook also provides direction for the control of erosion and
sedimentation as well as the establishment of monitoring programs to ensure the effectiveness
of the measures. The City also requires an agreement with the applicant that ensures the
permanent and on-going maintenance of water quality control improvements by the applicant
and/or project site owner(s). Refer to the Bay Area Storm Water Management Agencies
Association (BASMAA) Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality
Protection (available from BASMAA @ 510-622-2465 for a comprehensive listing of required
measures. Typical storm water quality protection measures are identified in Chapter 1, Section
1.5.4 of this document. The City’s requirements are in compliance with state and federal laws
and regulations that are designed to mitigate potential hydrological and stormwater impacts
associated with project construction and on-going operational activities.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
State Water Quality Control Board’s General Permitting Requirements: As identified
above and in Chapter 1 Section 1.5.4, the City of South San Francisco requires through
conditions of project approval, project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board’s
general permitting requirements which require the applicant to secure a Construction Activities
Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain
approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The state issues a Waste
Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The
applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San
Francisco, Public Works Department Division of Water Quality, prior to issuance of building
and/or grading permits. The conditions of approval identified in the Introduction Chapter 1
Section 1.5.4 apply to the Project as a matter of law. These measures are required in order to
reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
IMPACTS
a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in any violation of existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
The Project as a matter of law is required to comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP). The City requires the implementation of LIDs and BMPs for new development
and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard
City conditions of project approval by the Water Quality Control Division of the Public Works
Department. Rob Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance Inspector for the City of South San
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-66 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Francisco reviewed the proposed plans and provided the following requirements (memorandum
dated July 3, 2012) pursuant to the City’s review procedures:
The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater
and/or pretreatment programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a permit:
1. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be
submitted.
2. Fire sprinkler test discharge line must be connected to the sanitary sewer.
3. Trash area(s) shall be covered and have a drain(s) that is connected to the sanitary
sewer.
4. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide
Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay).
5. Install a separate water meter for landscaping.
6. Garage floors 1 through 6 drainage must be discharged to an oil/water separator,
properly sized (calculations must be submitted) with minimum liquid capacity of
2000 gallons and it must be plumbed to the sanitary sewer.
7. The top floor drainage shall be discharged to the storm water system.
Stormwater from the entire site must be included in the treatment system design.
Stormwater treatment systems must be designed to treat stormwater runoff from the
entire site. Rainwater harvesting and infiltration feasibility will be used to the
maximum extent feasible. Storm water pollution preventions devices are to be
installed. Clustering of structures and pavement; directing roof runoff to vegetated
areas; use of micro-detention, including distributed landscape-based detention; and
preservation of open space are preferred. Treatment devices must be sized according
Provision C.3.d Numeric Sizing Criteria for Stormwater Treatment Systems of
NPDES No. CAS613008.
8. The applicant must submit a signed Operation and Maintenance Information for
Stormwater Treatment Measures form for the stormwater pollution prevention
devices installed.
9. The applicant must submit a signed maintenance agreement for the stormwater
pollution prevention devices installed. Each maintenance agreement will require the
inclusion of the following exhibits:
a. A letter-sized reduced-scale site plan that shows the locations of the
treatment measures that will be subject to the agreement.
b. A legal description of the property.
c. A maintenance plan, including specific long-term maintenance tasks and a
schedule. It is recommended that each property owner be required to
develop its own maintenance plan, subject to the municipality’s approval.
Resources that may assist property owners in developing their maintenance
plans include the operation manual for any proprietary system purchased by
the property owner.
10. Applicant must complete the C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist prior to
issuance of a permit and return to the Technical Services Supervisor at the WQCP.
11. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use
on the Project site:
a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat
stormwater runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-67
infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are
tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be
specified.
b. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics
such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight,
prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological
consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment.
c. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and
incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
d. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the
responsibility of the property owner.
e. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be
encouraged as part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent
practicable. Examples of IPM principles and techniques include:
i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site.
ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the
site. In making these selections, consider future conditions when
plants reach maturity, as well as seasonal changes.
iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the
selected plants.
iv. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants.
v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation
from affecting the entire landscaping plan.
vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep
beneficial insects.
12. Source control measures must include:
• Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration where possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and
incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping.
• Appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas, loading docks, repair/maintenance bays, and fueling areas.
• Covered trash, food waste, and compactor enclosures. Plumbing of the following discharges to the sanitary sewer, subject to the local
sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards:
• Dumpster drips from covered trash and food compactor enclosures.
• Discharges from outdoor covered wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and
accessories.
13. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and
approved prior to the issuance of a permit.
14. A copy of the NOI filed with the state must be submitted to the WQCP.
15. Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and location of
entrance/outlet of tire wash.
16. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted.
17. The applicant must file a Notice of Termination with the WQCP when the Project is
completed.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-68 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
18. The applicant must pay sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated
flow, BOD and TSS calculations.
The Project would present no impact with respect to violation of water quality standards
or waste discharge standards as the result of the City’s permitting requirements which
are in compliance with regional, state and federal laws designed to mitigate hydrological
including stormwater impacts both on individual projects and as well as cumulative
impacts.
b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially
depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
The 2013 1.25-acre Project site is currently paved with minimal pervious surfaces consisting of
small landscape areas. The conceptual landscape plan indicates additional planting along the perimeter of the 2013 Project and Biology Mitigation Measure 3 requires native landscaping
improvements. The Project would not increase or decrease impervious surfaces appreciably as the expanded parking garage would be emplaced in an area currently paved. The Project would
have no impact with regards to groundwater depletion. The Project would continue to receive its water supply from existing local infrastructure, not groundwater and would not
increase impermeability of the site from existing conditions.
c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation.
The Project would be built on a site previously developed in a suburban, industrial area. The Project is required to comply with current NPDES and SWPPP measures, as noted in a, above.
The regulations mandate the Project to treat all stormwater runoff from the entire Project on-site; use plants that are suited for the site including insectary plants to attract beneficial insects
and a diversity of plants among other items (Mr. Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance Inspector, Water Quality Control Plant, July 3, 2012 memorandum to Linda Ajello, Associate
Planner). There would be no impact related to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the Project site as a result of the NPDES and SWPPP measures required by the City and the
requirement noted in a above to retrofit the entire site, i.e., the 2001 Project and 2013 Project.
d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Flooding Effects
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-69
The Project would improve the existing drainage pattern of the site as noted in c above and as
such would not increase the amount of surface runoff. The Project would result in no impact
related to an increase of surface runoff.
e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity/Increase Polluted Runoff
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
The Project, as a matter of law, is required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer and the Water Quality Control
Division prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project.
The SWPPP as noted in the Chapter 1.5.4, the Setting Section above and in a, above is
required to include storm water pollution control devices to treat all stormwater on site and use
stormwater onsite for landscaping to prevent pollutants from entering the City’s storm drain
system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer and the City’s Water Quality Control Plant coordinator.
Water quality measures are required to be included in the building permit packet; therefore all
contractors are as a matter of law made aware of the requirements. Additionally, the
Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as well as the Water Quality Control
Plant Compliance Inspector conducts routine inspections of this and all project sites to insure
compliance. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs would result in the
issuance of correction notices, citations and/or a Stop Work Order. Plans for the Project
would as a matter of law include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from
entering the storm drain system. Implementation of the measures required as a matter of
law would reduce the Project’s impact runoff to a level of less than significant.
f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
degrade water quality.
The Project, as required by law, would treat all stormwater on site. The Project would result in
a less than significant impact on water quality from point source water pollution.
g – i) Flood Hazards
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to place
any housing units within a designated 100-year flood hazard area; if it placed any structures in a
manner which would impede or redirect flood flows; or if it were to result in the exposure of
people or structures to flooding hazards.
The Project site is located in a Flood Zone A (minimal flooding) and no base flood elevation
level has been determined (Community Panel Number is 0044E, Map #06081C00H4E, October
16, 2012). The site is adjacent to Flood Zone AE with a 10 foot base flood level elevation at this
location. The City’s Building Official is the Flood Administrator whom is responsible for
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-70 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
ensuring that construction complies with FEMA regulations. By law, the Project is required to
be constructed one foot above base flood level, or 11 feet in elevation. The site meets this
requirement and additional mitigation is not required (Mr. Jim Kirkman, Chief Building Official,
May 1, 2013). The Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to
flooding.
j) Tsunami Hazards
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in the exposure of people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
The Project site is located in a low-lying adjacent to San Francisco Bay. An earthquake could
cause tsunamis (tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in the Bay.
The City’s general plan estimates that potential wave run-up of a 100-year tsunami would be
approximately 4.3 feet above mean sea level (msl) and approximately 6.0 feet above msl for a
500-year tsunami (Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999, page
250). The Project site is 11 feet above MSL, would be outside the runup zone subject to
inundation by a 500-year tsunami and would be outside any potential tsunami hazard zone26.
The State of California emergency mapping website shows the 1.25-acre site outside of and
adjacent to the tsunami inundation zone. Additionally, the Project would conform to the latest
building code requirements. The Project is not within an inundation zone therefore the
impact of potential inundation by tsunami or seiche is considered to be less than
significant.
Finding: The City’s standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local
regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any potential water quality impacts as
a result of Project construction or occupation. The site is not within a flood zone or an area
subject to seiche or tsunami inundation or run-up zones. No mitigation measures, above those
required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The Project would not
result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources.
26 Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California South San Francisco Quadrangle, April 2,
2013.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-71
3. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
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?
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
SETTING
The site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, in the southeastern corner of the City at 195
North Access Road. North Access Road and San Bruno Canal are immediately south of the site.
South of North Access Road is another parking structure. San Francisco International Airport is
property is 200 feet south of the site with its main operations approximately 1,300 feet south of
the site. San Francisco Bay is directly east, the City of South San Francisco wastewater treatment
facility is to the north and an aviation fuel tank farm is to the west. The site has access from
South Airport Boulevard, I-280 to 380 to North Access Road and U.S. 101 to North Access
Road (see Figures 2.1 Project Location and 2.3 Project Area in Chapter 2).
The Project, on approximately seven acres (6.96), consists of a 5.71 acre parcel supporting the
existing parking garage (Park SFO) constructed in 2001 and the adjacent 1.25 acre parcel
currently containing surface parking. The surface lot was paved for parking 166 vehicles in 2007.
Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse
and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting area for the City’s Water
Quality Control Plant.
The City received a development application in 1997 that triggered environmental, legislative
and entitlement review to construct the existing Park SFO facility. The 1997 review resulted in
the City adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (MND) and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for site development and use, and
amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan, East of 101 Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance
to designate and zone the site as Mixed Industrial (MI) to allow a parking facility that includes
surface and structured parking and parking on the unused dry docks.
Other actions included authorization and execution of a development agreement and land lease
agreements; a lot line adjustment; and use permit and design review approvals, with conditions
of approval. The project was approved in April, 1998 and constructed in 2001 (2001 Project).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-72 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
The 2001 Project also included relocation of portion of the Bay Trail and construction of a park
(+/-32,000 square feet) on the southern-most dry dock (see Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2).
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
South San Francisco General Plan
The Project site is within the area subject to the provisions of the “East of 101” Planning Sub-
Area of the South San Francisco’s General Plan. The general plan designates the Project site for
“Mixed Industrial” uses, and gives the following summary:
This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial lands for a wide
range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage and distribution and service commercial uses. The maximum floor area
is 0.4, with an increase to 0.60 for development seeking a FAR bonus with a Transportation Demand Management Program in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. Table 2.2-1 (page 32 General Plan) footnote (1) states that commercial parking structures are excluded from the FAR restrictions.
ZONING CLASSIFICATION
The Project site is zoned “Mixed Industrial” (MI) and is consistent with the general plan
designation. The MI District provides for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage and distribution and service commercial uses. Industries
that use or produce substantial amounts of hazardous materials or generate noise, odor, or other pollutants are not permitted. The maximum floor area is 0.4, with an increase to 0.60 for
development providing specified off-site improvements save for structured commercial parking as noted above. A complete list of permitted and conditional uses is identified in Chapter 20.110
of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. IMPACTS
a and b) Division of an Established Community and Conflicts with Land Use Plan and
Zoning
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to physically divide an established community and/or the Project would have a significant
environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
The Project is located within a mixed industrial land use designation and an area developed as such. The 2013 Project would expand airport-related parking consistent with the South San
Francisco General Plan and zoning designation and classification and existing land use. The Project meets the development guidelines of the East of 101 Area Plan as described in Section 3.1
Aesthetics and is under the ALUC and general plan height limitations. As mitigated in Section 3.5 Biology, the 2013 Project would comply with the East of 101 Area Plan conservation
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-73
policies. Thus, the Project would have no impact on dividing an established community
and would continue to be consistent with City’s general plan and zoning. The Project
would conform to all applicable land use plans and zoning regulations and, therefore,
would have no impact.
c) Conflict with Conservation Plan
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan.
There are no conservation or natural community conservation plans that govern the Project site
(or area) as identified in Section 3.5, Biological Resources. Therefore, the Project would
have no impact on conservation plans.
Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The site is
planned for mixed industrial and the Project is consistent with the planned uses. There are no
conservation or natural community conservation plans that govern the Project site or area. The
Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts.
3.11 Mineral Resources
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
1997 IS/MND No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
SETTING
The Project is located in a largely mixed industrial area. The site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area, in the southeastern corner of the City at 195 North Access Road. North Access
Road and San Bruno Canal are immediately south of the site. South of North Access Road is another parking structure. San Francisco International Airport is property is 200 feet south of
the site with its main operations approximately 1,300 feet south of the site.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-74 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
IMPACTS
a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state, or if it were to result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan.
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. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on any known mineral resource, or
result in the loss of availability of any locally important resource recovery site.
Finding: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources.
The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral
resources.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-75
3.12 NOISE
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. NOISE — Would the Project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?
X
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?
X
f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
X
1997 IS/MND No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
SETTING
The Project site is located in the southern area of the City, within an industrial area. SFO
property is 200 feet south of the site and SFO operations are approximately 1,300 feet south.
The area is dominated by aircraft and roadway noise. The site is within the 65 dB noise contour
for both roadway and aircraft sources (Figure 9-2 Projected Rail and Road Noise, page 283, and
Figure 9-1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program page 279, South San Francisco General Plan).
SFO’s website shows the site at the 65 dB contour (ialp.airplaneonline.com).
NOISE DEFINED
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when
and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound
(loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above
background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important
to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During
nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-76 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further,
most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion.
Noise attenuates (reduces in level) the further it travels from the source. Typically noise
attenuates 6 dB per doubling distance in hard surface environments (paving, hardscape). The
shell of a building (sometimes referred to as the envelope) does attenuate noise 15 to 25 dB
depending on the type construction and insulation contained therein.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Residential, schools, child care facilities and convalescent facilities are typically considered noise
sensitive land uses. There are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project boundary. Residential land uses are approximately 3,300 feet (0.65 miles) to the west of the Project site
(west of Route 101 and north of Interstate 380) and 4,050 feet (0.75 miles) to the southwest of the Project site (west of Route 101 and south of Interstate 380). The closest school is Belle Air
Elementary which is 1.1 miles (approximately 6,000 feet) from the Project site. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is located approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the Project site
(although airport-owned property is within 200 feet of the Project site). REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The South San Francisco Noise Element contains land use criteria for noise as it pertains to
various land uses. 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. Noise levels over 85 dBA are acceptable for airport-related
development only; less than 75 dBA is acceptable for industrial and open space land uses; and
75-85 dBA is conditionally acceptable for industrial land uses and open space uses not involving
high concentrations of people or animals (Table 9.2-1 Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, South San Francisco General Plan, page 280)
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 Building Division enforces the noise limits at the time of building permit issuance by
informing applicant’s of the requirement and if necessary requiring quieter equipment. The
Building Division also conducts routine site inspections prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or finalization of the building permit. The inspections monitor building and
municipal code compliance.
Noise attenuates approximately 6 dB per doubling distance from the source in hardscape areas
such as paved sites. Noise can also be reduced by structures that break the line of sight from the
noise source to the receiver. For example, a building between a construction site and a park can
reduce the noise levels reaching the park in addition to the attenuation afforded by distance.
Noise can also be reduced 15 to 25 dB by the shell or as it is commonly referred to “envelope of
the building.” Older buildings and open windows reduce noise less than newer buildings with
closed windows.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-77
Projects can result in an increase in noise (unwanted sound) from demolition and construction
and operational activities. Demolition and construction are typically short-term in nature
depending upon the construction schedule. Operational impacts run with the life of the project
and largely result from increased traffic, ventilation systems and/or land use activities that are
conducted external to a building.
PROJECT OPERATIONS
The 2001 and 2007 portions of the Project operate a parking and shuttle bus service. There are
three shifts, eight hours in length and nine employees per shift. There are three cashiers and six
shuttle bus drivers per shift.
Currently patrons hold their tickets until they return to their cars and exit the structure at which
time they pay a cashier in a kiosk. The kiosks are enclosed and insulated. A new method of
payment, to be enacted within the next few months, would offer patrons two payment options.
One option would be to pay through an automated machine and the other to a cashier within
the office. The office is enclosed and insulated. The new system is called “pay-on-foot” (John
Fugle, Applicant’s Representative, e-mail July 26, 2013).
IMPACTS
a – d) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards,
Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project
Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project.
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
South San Francisco General Plan or the City’s Noise Ordinance.
PROJECT DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
The noise environment in the Project area is industrial and dominated by aircraft, traffic and trucking activities. Noise levels over 85 dBA are conditionally acceptable for airport-related
activities, less than 75 dBA is acceptable for industrial land uses and 75-85 dBA is conditionally acceptable for industrial land uses (Table 9.2-1 Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, General
Plan, page 280). As stated above, the City’s noise ordinance regulates noise exposure at the property line to 90 dB.
Noise levels associated with various types of demolition and grading equipment, using the Leq
sound metric at 50 feet, range from 87 to 86 dB for a hoe ram attachment, grader and scrapers; 84 dB for bulldozers; 83 dB for excavators; 80 to 81 dB for backhoes and loaders; 101 dB for
pile drivers; impact wrenches and rock drills 85 to 98 dB. Generators and compressors can range from 72 to 87 dB at 50 feet. Water trucks and street sweepers can reach 77 dB at 50 feet.
Back up warning alarms required on construction equipment (California Occupational Safety Health Administration or Cal OSHA) range from 87 to 112 dB at four feet (Federal Highway
Administration, 2006).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-78 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Project demolition and construction activities are expected to take approximately 16 months.
There would be three main phases of construction: (1) demolition, excavation, and foundation
construction, (2) deck and vertical structure forming and construction, and (3) finishing. The
first and last phases are expected to take approximately four (4) months each, with the second
phase taking approximately eight (8) months.
Noise Levels Reaching the Property Lines
The worst case equipment noise level could exceed 90 dB at the property line to the west, north
and east in particular during heavy grading and demolition activities associated with removal
abandoned building pads noted in Section 3.7 Geology and Soils and pavement and concrete
demolition. Noise levels that could be experienced south of the site and southeast at the park on
the first dry dock and the Bay Trail would attenuate to approximately 81 dB to 79 dB due to the
2001 Project blocking the line of sight and distance from the source.
NOISE IMPACT 1: NOISE LEVELS MAY EXCEED 90 DB AT THE PROPERTY LINE IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY’S NOISE
ORDINANCE.
NOISE MITIGATION 1.A: At the discretion of the Building Official a waiver may be applied
for and secured given that the Project is not located in a noise sensitive area and there are no
sensitive receptors within 0.65 miles of the site,
or,
NOISE MITIGATION 1.B: Erect temporary sound barriers, select quieter equipment and
locate the noisiest equipment further from the property lines whenever possible to increase
noise attenuation.
The Applicant indicates that construction work would be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to
5:00 PM, five (5) days a week, with occasional deliveries on Saturday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
A possible exception to this would be to accommodate concrete pours which requires a
consistent and constant delivery of cement until the pour is completed. Typically, concrete
pours would occur on Thursdays or Fridays to take advantage of weekend downtime allowing
the concrete to adequately cure before construction resumes on the following Monday. Should
Saturday pours be necessary, the activity would occur between the hours of 8:30 AM and 5:00
PM.
Saturday Work Schedules
The weekday hours of construction are in conformance with the City’s noise ordinance outlined
in Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.5.5 and above in the Setting Section which limits
weekday construction from 8 AM to 8 PM.27 The proposed Saturday hours of operation would
27 Construction noise is regulated through the Municipal Code (8.32.050(d)). Hours of construction are limited to 8
A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays and 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on Sundays and
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-79
be in violation the City’s permitted hours of construction in absence of a waiver by the Chief
Building Official.
The Project is located in an area dominated by aircraft and traffic noise. There are no sensitive
receptors such as residential, school, day care, convalescent uses within a quarter mile. The
Project Sponsor may opt to not begin construction or delivery activities until 9 AM on Saturdays
or in the case of an emergency secure a temporary waiver.
NOISE IMPACT 2: THE PROJECT PROPOSES SATURDAY CONSTRUCTION TO BEGIN AT 8:30 AM IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY’S
NOISE ORDINANCE START TIME OF 9 AM.
NOISE MITIGATION 2.A: The Project sponsor shall note on the approved building and job
copy plans that Saturday operations shall not begin prior to 9 AM.
NOISE MITIGATION 2.B: At the discretion of the Building Official: The Project Sponsor
or contractor shall apply for and secure a waiver to the Saturday start time.
Employee Noise Exposure
Three on-site cashiers would be exposed to demolition and construction noise during an eight
hour shift. The cashiers would be located inside either insulated and enclosed kiosks or the
office that is also insulated and enclosed. The 2001 Project was constructed in 2001 and may
attenuate noise 15-20 dB depending on the quality of construction. The shuttle bus drivers
would not experience a continuous eight hour exposure to noise as they would be on and off
site periodically throughout an eight hour shift.
The new pay-on-foot program would result in all three shift workers being inside a standard-
construction (metal studs and drywall) office located inside the parking structure further
protecting the employees from excessive noise. New construction can reduce interior noise
levels up to 25 dB.
The entry kiosk is approximately 100 feet from the northern wall of the facility where the
addition is proposed to be constructed (Architectural Sheet A102). Assuming a conservative
analysis, noise could attenuate 6 dB from the northern wall to the kiosk resulting in an 84 dB
noise level. The intermittent sound from the required back-up alarms would be higher and
could be as much as 106 dB at the kiosk. The kiosk itself would be expected to attenuate some
noise if it is indeed entirely closed and of solid construction. Noise exposure to an employee
located in the kiosk could be 80-84 dB with a periodic Lmax of 106 dB for the day shift, and
potentially a portion of the evening shift.
The Applicant’s representative indicates that the pay-on-foot program is anticipated to be in
place prior to commencing construction on the 2013 Project should the project be approved.
holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these regulations. Exceptions to the hours of construction may be granted by the Chief Building Official.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-80 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
The noise exposure would be annoying and in some cases startling and disruptive to a cashier in
a kiosk.
NOISE IMPACT 3: Noise exposure to the cashiers during the day and early evening shifts
could be annoying, disruptive and distracting at levels around 84 dB
with periodic Lmax levels that could reach 106 dB.
NOISE MITIGATION 3: The Applicant shall install the pay-on-foot program prior to the
City issuing and grading, demolition or construction permits for the 2013 Project. The kiosks
and office shall be designed and constructed to attenuate noise by at least 25 dB.
OPERATIONAL NOISE
The operation of a Project could increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through the creation of additional traffic on local roadways and the operation of exterior mechanical equipment.
Typically, traffic volumes need to double in order to result in a barely perceptible increase in noise levels (i.e., 3-5 dB).
A traffic study was prepared for the Project (Crane Transportation Group, September, 2012) as
a part of the scope of services for this initial study. The Project area is dominated by roadway traffic from U.S. 101 and Interstate 380, South Airport Boulevard and other surface streets (see
Traffic and Circulation Section 3.16). U.S. 101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the Project area extending from downtown San Francisco and Northern California to Los
Angeles and Southern California running in the north-south direction. U.S.101 is approximately 0.38 miles west of the Project site. U.S.101 is over 1,500 miles long and runs between Los
Angeles and Olympia, WA, and is a major regional freeway on the peninsula. The freeway has an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of approximately 229,000 vehicles south of I-380
including 15,900 vehicles during the peak hour. North of I-380 the AADT is approximately 204,000 vehicles and 14,700 vehicles during the peak hour.
The 2013 Project would be expected to generate 56 AM peak hour trips and 77 PM peak hour
trips. The Project is largely a traffic mitigation measure in that it provides shuttle services to and
from the airport. The addition of 133 trips during AM and PM peak hours is insignificant with
respect to adding to noise associate with traffic on the roadways. The 2013 Project would have
no impact with respect to increasing the noise levels in the Project area associated with traffic.
The Project would not individually increase noise levels in the area nor would the Project
contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to noise and as such noise impacts
associated with the Project would result in no impact.
e) and f) Aircraft Noise
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located
within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose
people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels.
The site is located the 65 dB contour interval and is an airport related use which is long-term parking. The Project would have no impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-81
exposure as it is an airport-related use consisting of long term parking and contains no
sensitive receptors or land uses.
Finding: Demolition and construction related noise impacts would be considered a less than
significant with implementation of the Noise Mitigation Measures 1-3.
The Project would not individually increase noise levels in the area related to traffic nor would
the Project contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to noise and as such noise impacts
associated with the Project would result in no impact. The site is located the 65 dB contour
interval and is an airport related use which is long-term parking. The Project would have no
impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure as it is an airport-related use consisting of
long term parking and contains no sensitive receptors or land uses.
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
SETTING
The Project site is a 1.25 acre parcel currently developed with a paved parking lot which was
constructed in 2007. The Project site is adjacent to the 5.96-acre Park SFO parking garage and would become an integral part of that garage, if approved.
IMPACTS
a) Population Growth
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce either directly of indirectly substantial population growth.
The Project is designed and proposed to provide long term parking for airport commuters. The
Project is not proposing a large office or industrial complex that would employ a quantity of people. The Project currently requires three shifts and nine employees per shift. The 2013
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-82 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Project expansion would largely be served by the existing number of staff as the entrance and
exit points would remain the same. The Project would not add to the growth assumptions
contained in the City’s general plan and its impact on population growth would be less
than significant.
b) and c) Displacement of Housing or People
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result
in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people living at the
project site.
There are no residential units on the Project site. The Project would not require the
displacement of any existing residential units or persons living on the site and therefore
would have no impact on the displacement of housing or people.
Finding: The Project is consistent with the development and growth assumptions contained in
the South San Francisco General Plan in that it would be an expansion of the existing airport-related
facility, and not a significant contributor to the job market. The Project site does not include
housing and would not displace housing units or residents.
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES —
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
1997 IS/MND
Mitigation Measure 12 requiring video surveillance, security and safety elements and adequate
lighting reflects the as-built conditions of the 2001 Project. The 2013 Project is updated by a
condition of approval required by Sergeant Campbell of the South San Francisco Police
Department. The condition requires the 2013 Project to comply with the provisions of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code which requires surveillance and lighting through building
permit review.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-83
SETTING
The Project would connect to and expand the existing 2001 Project parking facility and would
not be an employment generator as identified in Section 3.13 Population and Housing. Land
use and development density is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning, as noted
above in Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning.
IMPACTS
a – d) Public Services
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or other
government facilities.
As described above, in Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.13 Population
and Housing, the Project is not anticipated to increase the City of South San Francisco’s
population. School impact fees are required for new construction and paid for at the time of
building permit issuance; although the 2013 Project would not increase the population of South
San Francisco. The South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments commented on the
Project through the City’s standard review process identified in Chapter 1 Sections 4 and 5.
The required conditions of Project approval (many identified within Section 3.8 Hazardous
and Hazardous Materials) are standard. Neither department identified staffing or service
issues associated with redevelopment of and intensification of development on the site. The
Police Department identified requirements for building security. The condition of approval
required by Sergeant Scott Campbell reads:
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the
Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised
May, 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional
security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed / revised
building plans.
Any increased demand for public services as a result of the Project would not require
construction of new facilities and would be considered less than significant.
Finding: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in
the South San Francisco General Plan. Redevelopment of the Project site would not increase the
demand for public services individually or cumulatively.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-84 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
3.15 RECREATION
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. RECREATION —
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
1997 IS/MND
No mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 IS/MND.
SETTING
The 2013 Project is a 1.25 acre parcel currently developed with a paved parking lot that was
constructed in 2007 and would connect to the 2001 Project, if approved. The whole of these actions constitute the 2013 Project.
The Project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning, as noted above in Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.13 Population and Housing.
IMPACTS
a) and b) Recreation
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities, the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on the environment.
The 2001 Project created a public park on the southern-most dry dock, and relocated and improved the Bay Trail. The 2013 Project would not result in a significant increase in the use of
existing parks or recreational facilities as the site would not be used for residential, office or industrial purposes. Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the
population and development projections contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The 2013 Project is consistent with these development assumptions and would not increase the
population of the City, as noted in Sections 3.10 Land Use and Planning and 3.13 Population and Housing. The 2013 Project impact on recreational facilities and the need
to construct new facilities would be less than significant.
Finding: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is consistent with
planning projections and needs assessments based upon the projections contained in the general plan and is not a population or employment generator. The Project would not result in an
individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-85
3.16 Transportation and Traffic
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — Would the Project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into accounts all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relative components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program including but not limited to the level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
X
1997 IS/MND Mitigation Measure 8 requiring the north leg of the North Access/East Access intersection to be
restriped is complete. Mitigation Measure 9 requiring the final design of the parking structure to meet all police, fire and public works policies and standards for internal streets and corner radii
have been met as part of the 2001 Project.
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
The following traffic and circulation analysis is summarized from the Traffic Impact Report, Park SFO, Long Term Parking Expansion, for the City of South San Francisco and Allison Knapp Consulting, by
Mark D. Crane, P.E. California Registered Traffic Engineer (#1381), Crane Transportation Group, dated September 13, 2012 (Traffic Report). The complete Traffic Report is included in
Appendix A.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-86 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
The Traffic Report and the following section evaluates the local area circulation impacts due to
expansion of the Park SFO long term parking facilities for San Francisco International Airport
along North Access Road in South San Francisco (2013 Project). The existing surface parking
constructed in 2007, would be demolished and a seven-level parking structure constructed in its
place, connecting to the existing Park SFO facility constructed in 2001. Total on-site parking
would increase from 1,901 to 3,194 spaces.28
Access to all parking would remain in its existing location along North Access Road. A
circulation impact evaluation has been conducted for existing, year 2015 and year 2035
conditions, both with and without the 2013 Project. Locations evaluated are the two
South Airport Boulevard intersections with I-380 ramps, the North Access Road intersection
with the eastbound end of the I-380 freeway just south of the Park SFO site and the North
Access Road/parking facility access driveway intersections.
SETTING
The existing Park SFO (2001 and 2007 Projects) long term parking operation (serving the San
Francisco International Airport-SFO) is located in the southern section of the City of South San
Francisco adjacent to and north of North Access Road. The eastbound end of the I-380
freeway terminates at a signalized intersection with North Access Road just south of the Project
site. Access between the site and the I-380 freeway is provided at two locations: via North
Access Road just south of the site and via South Airport Boulevard to the west of the site. The
I-380 ramps connecting to South Airport Boulevard also provide access to a northbound on-
ramp to the U.S.101 freeway. The I-380 freeway connecting to North Access Road just south of
the Project site also provides full access to the U.S.101 freeway via a series of north and
southbound on- and off-ramps (see Traffic Figure 1 Area Map and Traffic Figure 2 Project Vicinity Roadways. Note: All figures are located at the end of the Traffic Section while
tables are provided throughout the text).
The existing Park SFO facility has a total of 1,901 long term parking spaces: 1,276 in the garage
and 625 in surface parking lots to the north and east of the garage. Access to both garage and
surface parking is provided via two side-by-side driveways on the outside of a 90-degree curve
along North Access Road, about 180 and 270 feet north of the signalized North Access Road/I-
380 end of freeway intersection. The southerly driveway connection is used by both in and
outbound traffic, while the northerly driveway is used primarily by outbound traffic (see
Appendix Traffic Figure 1 – Existing Site Plan). The 2013 Project would result in 2,833
garage spaces and 361 surface parking spaces. Customer and shuttle bus access would remain
via the two existing driveways along North Access Road (see Appendix Traffic Figure 2 – Proposed Project Site Plan).
28 Existing parking numbers reflect what was surveyed in the field as a part of the Traffic Report. Project plans and
narratives provide differing numbers. This initial study uses 1,901 spaces as the existing number of parking stalls on
the 2013 Project portion of the site.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-87
ROADWAY SYSTEM AND EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION
A. Roadways
Direct access to the Project site is provided via North Access Road. North Access Road
connects to the I-380 and U.S.101 freeways via the end of I-380 freeway connection just south of the Project site and via two intersections with South Airport Boulevard to the west of the site.
Each roadway is briefly described below (see Traffic Figure 2).
North Access Road extends easterly from a signalized intersection with South Airport Boulevard and an I-380 westbound on-ramp. Approximately 900 feet to the east it curves 90
degrees to the south and Tees into a signalized intersection with the end of the freeway (the west leg of the intersection). North Access Road then continues around the north and east edges of
San Francisco International Airport (as the east leg of the intersection). North Access Road adjacent to the Project site has two north (west) bound through travel lanes, a single east (south)
bound through travel lane, and a single east (south) bound left turn lane serving vehicles turning into the existing Park SFO facility as well as continuing to the I-380 signalized intersection south
of the site. Class II striped bike lanes are along the segment of North Access Road between South Airport Boulevard and the I-380 ramp intersections. These lanes are part of the Bay Trail.
South Airport Boulevard is primarily a four-lane arterial roadway in South San Francisco
running parallel to and just east of the U.S.101 freeway. Additional through and turn lanes are provided on the approaches to its signalized intersections with an I-380 eastbound off-ramp and
an I-380 westbound on-ramp & North Access Road. Traffic Figure 3 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control provides a schematic presentation of approach lanes and control at major
intersections near the Project site.
U.S. 101 is an eight-lane north-south freeway that provides access to the Project area extending from downtown San Francisco and Northern California to Los Angeles and Southern California.
U.S.101 is approximately 0.38 miles west of the Project site. U.S. 101 is a major regional freeway on the peninsula. The freeway has an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of approximately
229,000 vehicles south of I-380 including 15,900 vehicles during the peak hour. North of I-380 the AADT is approximately 204,000 vehicles and 14,700 vehicles during the peak hour.
B. Volumes
Existing weekday AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM) turn movement
counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group on Wednesday, August 27, 201229 at the following locations.
• South Airport Boulevard/I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp (signal)
• South Airport Boulevard/I-380 Westbound On-Ramp/North Access Road (signal)
• North Access Road/Eastern End of the I-380 Freeway (signal)
• North Access Road/Park SFO Two Driveways
29 Wednesday preceding the Labor Day weekend holiday.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-88 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
The local street system peak traffic hours were 8:00-9:00 AM and 4:45-5:45 PM. Traffic
Figure 4 shows the existing AM and PM peak hour volumes. While the Park SFO facility peak
hours were 7:00-8:00 AM and 4:00-5:00 PM, volumes on the local system were significantly
lower during these hours. The highest overall combined hours of ambient plus Park SFO
traffic, 8:00-9:00 AM and 4:45-5:45 PM, were used for analysis purposes in this study.
C. Intersection Level of Service
1. Methodology
Transportation engineers and planners commonly use a grading system called level of service (LOS) to measure and describe the operational status of the local roadway network. LOS is a
description of the quality of a roadway facility’s operation, ranging from LOS A (indicating free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing oversaturated
conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays). Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the
capacity controlling locations for any circulation system.
Signalized Intersections. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council) methodology was utilized for signalized intersections. Operations
are defined by the level of service and average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for the entire intersection with this methodology. Control delay is the portion of the total delay
attributed to traffic signal operation for a signalized intersection. This includes delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Traffic Table 1
summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for signalized intersections.
2. Minimum Acceptable Operation
The City of South San Francisco uses Level of Service D (LOS D) as the minimum acceptable
operation for signalized intersections.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-89
TRAFFIC TABLE 1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA
Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
(Seconds Per Vehicle)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression
and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or
short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable
progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity (V/C)
ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long
cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.1 to 80.0
F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to
oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board).
3. Existing Operation
Traffic Table 2 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity to the Project site
are operating acceptably during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours (LOS B or better).
TRAFFIC TABLE 2
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
South Airport Blvd./North Access Road/I-380 WB On-Ramp (Signal) B-10.3(1) B-19.4
South Airport Blvd./I-380 EB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-16.8(1) A-6.1
North Access Rd./I-380 End of Freeway (Signal) B-10.0(1) A-9.4
(1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. Source: Crane Transportation Group
FUTURE CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION WITHOUT 2013 PROJECT
A. Year 2015
1. Volumes
Year 2015 “without Project” AM and PM peak hour volumes were developed utilizing the City’s East of 101 traffic model, which was updated in 2012 to reflect revised land uses in the 328
Roebling Road and 475 Eccles Avenue projects. Resultant year 2015 without Project weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figure 5.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-90 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
2. Intersection Level of Service
Traffic Table 3 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity to the Project site would be operating acceptably in 2015during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours (LOS B or
better). A small increase in traffic to/from Park SFO has been assumed for this horizon year even without any garage expansion.
TRAFFIC TABLE 3
YEAR 2015 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (WITHOUT & WITH PROJECT)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection W/O Project With Project W/O Project With Project
South Airport Blvd./
North Access Rd./I-380 WB
On-Ramp (Signal)
B-12.5(1) B-13.2 C-23.8 C-24.3
South Airport Blvd./
I-380 EB Off-Ramp (Signal)
B-16.8(1) B-16.8 B-10.1 B-10.1
North Access Rd./I-380 End of Freeway (Signal) B-10.2(1) B-10.4 A-9.6 B-10.3
(1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
B. Year 2035
1. Volumes
Year 2035 “without Project” AM and PM peak hour volumes were developed utilizing the City’s
East of 101 traffic model. Resultant year 2035 “without Project” weekday AM and PM peak
hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figure 6.
2. Intersection Level of Service
Traffic Table 4 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity to the Project site
would be operating acceptably during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours (LOS D or
better). A small increase in traffic to/from Park SFO has been assumed for this horizon year
even without any garage expansion. All locations would be operating at either LOS A or B, with
the exception of the South Airport Boulevard/I-380 westbound on-ramp/North Access Road
intersection, which would have LOS D operation during the PM peak hour.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-91
TRAFFIC TABLE 4 YEAR 2035 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
(WITHOUT & WITH PROJECT)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Existing Existing With Project Existing Existing With Project
South Airport Blvd./ North Access Rd./I-380 WB On-Ramp (Signal)
C-20.6(1) C-21.0 D-38.0 D-38.4
South Airport Blvd./ I-380 EB Off-Ramp
(Signal)
C-21.9(1) C-21.9 B-12.8 B-12.9
North Access Rd./I-380 End
of Freeway (Signal)
B-10.5(1) B-10.9 A-10.0 B-10.6
(1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. Source: Crane Transportation Group
IMPACTS
a and b) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Street System
Capacity
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause
an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system. Standards of Significance have been measured based on CEQA, City of South
San Francisco and C/CAG Guideline thresholds. Therefore, project impacts would be
significant if they result in any of the following conditions.
a. The Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system
(C/CAG criteria only).
b. Signalized intersection operation would change from Level of Service (LOS) A, B, C or
D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased
by at least two percent.
c. The Project would increase total volumes passing through an intersection by two percent
or more with signalized operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F.
2013 Project Trip Generation and Characteristics
The Project would add approximately 1,293 parking spaces to the existing Park SFO facility,
with parking increased from 1,901 up to 3,194 spaces. Trip generation associated with the 2013
Project was projected utilizing trip rates per parking space developed from the existing operation
on Wednesday, August 27, 2012; the week preceding the Labor Day holiday weekend.
Traffic Table 5 shows the trip rates for the existing Park SFO facility counted in August, 2012.
The 2013 Project would be expected to generate 21 inbound and 15 outbound trips during the
AM peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation system, with 15 inbound and 32
outbound trips during the PM peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation system (see Traffic Table 6).
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-92 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
The existing Park SFO operation peak traffic hours during the AM and PM commute peak
periods are offset by about an hour from times of peak traffic on the local circulation system.
The times of peak traffic on the local circulation system produce the overall poorest operation at
all analysis intersections and have therefore been used for evaluation purposes, although Park
SFO is not at its maximum generation during these hours. Additionally, in order to evaluate a
conservative worst case analysis and to allow for daily and seasonal variations in activity the
expected number of new customer vehicles has been increased by 100 percent for the Project.
Using this 100 percent safety factor increase in customer vehicles, the 2013 Project increase in
parking spaces would be expected to generate 35 inbound and 21 outbound trips during the AM
peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation system, with 22 inbound and 55 outbound
trips during the PM peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation system (see Traffic
Table 7). These volumes have been used for the analysis.
TRAFFIC TABLE 5 EXISTING PARK SFO WEEKDAY TRIP RATES
AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic
(8:00-9:00)
PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic
(4:45-5:45)
Existing Volume Rate/100 Total Spaces Volume Rate/100 Total Spaces
Totals In Out In Out In Out In Out Auto
20
Auto
8
1.052 0.421 Auto
9
Auto
33
9.473 1.736
Shuttle
10
Shuttle
12
0.526 0.631 Shuttle
11
Shuttle
13
0.579 0.684
Trip Rate Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon existing Park SFO operations
TRAFFIC TABLE 6 PARK SFO PROPOSED PROJECT WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION INCREMENT
DURINGPEAK HOURS OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC (1,293 NET NEW SPACES)
AM Peak Hour (8:00-9:00) PM Peak Hour (4:45-5:45)
In Out In Out
Rate/100 New Spaces Volume Rate/100 New Spaces Volume Rate/100 New Spaces Volume Rate/100 New Spaces Volume
Auto 1.052 14 0.421 6 0.473 7 1.736 23
Shuttle 0.526 7 0.631 9 0.579 8 0.684 9
Total 21 15 15 32 Trip Rate Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon existing Park SFO operations
TRAFFIC TABLE 7 PARK SFO PROPOSED PROJECT WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION INCREMENT
WITH 100 % AUTO TRIP GENERATION INCREASE SAFETY FACTOR (1,293 NET NEW SPACES)
AM Peak Hour (8:00-9:00) PM Peak Hour (4:45-5:45)
In Volume Out Volume In Volume Out Volume Auto 28 12 14 46
Shuttle 7 9 8 9
Total 35 21 22 55
Trip Rate Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon existing Park SFO operations
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-93
2013 Project Trip Distribution
The increment of traffic from the 2013 Project was distributed to the local roadway system in
the same pattern as existing Park SFO traffic (see Traffic Figure 7). The vast majority of
customer and employee traffic accesses the site from the I-380 connection to North Access
Road, just south of the garage. All inbound shuttles use this route, while the majority of
outbound shuttles travel to the west to South Airport Boulevard. Overall, the 2013 Project
would be expected to result in less new traffic accessing South Airport Boulevard than I-380 just
south of the site based upon extrapolation of existing conditions.
The AM and PM peak hour Project traffic increment is presented in Traffic Figure 8, while
2015 and 2035 “with Project” AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic
Figures 9 and 10.
Year 2015 Project Intersection Impacts
The addition of Project traffic would result in no significant impacts at any signalized
intersection near the Project site in the year 2015. Operation of the South Airport Boulevard
intersections with the I-380 ramps would remain LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak
hours, while the North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection just south of the garage
would be operating at LOS B during both commute peak traffic hours. Project traffic would
produce only a 0.7 second or less increase in delay at the three analysis intersections.
Year 2035 Project Intersection Impacts
The addition of Project traffic would result in no significant impacts at any signalized
intersection near the Project site in the year 2035. Operation of the South Airport Boulevard
intersections with the I-380 ramps would remain LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak
hours, with the exception of South Airport Boulevard at the I-380 westbound on-ramp which
would be operating at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour (with or without the
Project). The North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection just south of the garage
would be operating at LOS B during both commute peak traffic hours. Project traffic would
produce a 0.6 second or less increase in delay at the three analysis intersections.
The 2013 Project would result in a less than significant impact at the three intersections
closest to the Project. The Project would not degrade an intersection identified in a
Congestion Management Plan. The Project would not result in a project-or cumulative-
level impact to the closest intersections to the site. The analysis accounted for a
doubling of traffic volumes measured at the existing Park SFO facility and represents a
conservative worst case analysis accounting for daily and seasonal variations. The East
of 101 Traffic Impact fee is a condition or 2013 Project approval (as with all projects in
the East of 101 Area). The fee is used to improve circulation conditions and
infrastructure in the East of 101 Area.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-94 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks
Air Navigation Hazards are discussed in Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Project site is located 200 feet from SFO property and approximately 1,300 feet from SFO
operations. The Project site is within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development within ALUC boundaries, provided that
development is below a prescribed height limit. The City, in concert with the ALUC and in coordination with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), established height limits in the South
San Francisco General Plan in compliance with the ALUC and FAA. The South San Francisco General Plan indicates the maximum height for the Project is below the 160.9 contour. SFO has a
website that provides additional height information. The Project site is between the 150 and 175 foot height contour airport-related height limit restriction as noted on SFO’s website
(Http://ialp.airplanonline.com).
The Project would be 100 feet in height including the light poles at the roof top parking level.
The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet including the stairwells and elevator. The Project
would be 50 feet below the maximum permitted height, measured from ground level. The
Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and, consistent
with the previous discussion, the Project would have no impact.
d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to increase traffic
hazards due to its design or the introduction of incompatible traffic.
The two project access intersections along North Access Road would remain in their existing
locations along the outside of a 90-degree curve. Sight lines are good from either driveway to
both the west (almost 500 feet) and to the south (from 180 to 270 feet depending on the
driveway, to the I-380 end of freeway signalized intersection). Vehicles making left turns from
either site driveway are infrequently delayed during PM commute conditions due to northbound
North Access Road backups extending past the site frontage from a red signal at the I-380 end
of freeway intersection. However, these backups clear quickly and would be expected to
continue to clear relatively quickly as area traffic increases.30 The 2013 Project would result in
a less than significant impact at the access driveway intersection and roadways.
30 It should be noted, however, that should northbound PM peak hour backups from the I-380 freeway signalized
intersection extending in front of the garage driveways ever become a problem, signal timing adjustments could be made to significantly reduce these queues. The North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection will be operating at good levels of service during both commute peak traffic hours in 2035, and Caltrans and the City
would be able to easily adjust timing without significantly degrading level of service.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-95
e) Emergency Access
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have inadequate emergency access.
There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. The
Project is required to have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code (Fire Marshal, Luis DaSilva letter to Planning
Department, June 25, 2012). The Project would keep the existing site access patterns, has been reviewed by South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments and with the
required conditions of approval would have a less than significant impact on emergency access.
f) Alternative Transportation
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks).
The Project supports alternative transportation modes by offering a shuttle service to and from the airport and long term parking. The Project would have no impact on alternative
transportation use and provides shuttle bus service an alternative to privately owned vehicle single-occupancy travel.
Finding: The 2013 Project would not result in a significant impact to the three intersections
closest to the Project. The Project would not degrade an intersection identified in a Congestion Management Plan. The Project would not result in a project-or cumulative-level impact to the
closest intersections to the site and as such would not impact intersections further from the site. The analysis accounted for a doubling of traffic volumes measured at the existing Park SFO
facility and represents a conservative worst case analysis accounting for daily and seasonal variations. The Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and the
Project would have no impact with respect to air traffic hazards. The Project would have no impact on alternative transportation use and provides shuttle bus service as an alternative to
privately owned vehicle single-occupancy travel. The Project would keep the existing site access patterns, has been reviewed by South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments and with the
required conditions of approval would have a less than significant impact on emergency access. The 2013 Project would result in a less than significant impact at the access driveway
intersection and roadways.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-96 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 1
AREA MAP
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-97
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 2
PROJECT VICINITY ROADWAYS
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-98 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 3
LANE GEOMETRICS AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-99
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 4
EXISTING AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-100 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 5
2015 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-101
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 6
2035 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-102 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 7
2015 OR 2035 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT DISTRIBUTION
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-103
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 8
AM AND PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT INCREMENT
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-104 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 9
2015 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-105
Source: Crane Transportation Group
FIGURE 10
2035 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-106 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the Project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
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?
X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X
1997 IS/MND Mitigation Measure 13 requiring a hydrologic study represents as-built conditions. The
conditions of approval identified in Chapter 1.2.4 and 5 are required as a matter of law by the City and therefore replace Mitigation Measure 13 with updated requirements for the 2013
Project.
SETTING
The Project site is a 1.25 acre parcel currently developed with a paved parking lot which was
constructed in 2007. The Project site is adjacent to and will become an extension of the 5.96-
acre Park SFO parking garage constructed in 2001, if approved. The whole of these actions are
the 2013 Project.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-107
IMPACTS
a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB).
The City’s storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted by the RWQCB. The
South San Francisco Municipal Code (Title 14) contains regulations related to stormwater
management. As identified in Chapter 1.2.4 and 5 and in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water
Quality as a matter of law, projects are required to implement BMPs and LID measures and
comply with SWPPP regulations. Mr. Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance Coordinator for
the City reviewed the Project, identified conditions of approval, and did not identify and
extraordinary measures or significant impacts with respect to wastewater. The City is in
compliance with their RWQCB permit. Therefore, the Project would not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, resulting in a less than significant
impact.
b) and e) Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result
in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which may serve the Project that it has
inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments.
All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City’s Water
Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of
San Francisco Bay, just north of the Project site. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of
South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities.
The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the Town of Colma
and a portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. The City’s wastewater
treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01. The Project as a matter of law would be required to
pay wastewater improvement fees.
The City of South San Francisco has a current allocation of 8.74 million gallon per day (MGD),
is currently generating 5.6 MGD and projects 6.2 MGD upon build-out of recent plan
amendments that increase permitted density along the south El Camino Corridor. The capacity
allocated to the City of South San Francisco is based upon the growth projections identified in
the City’s general plan and the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (2009). The
2013 Project is not requesting a variance to floor area or density regulations, and is within the
development assumptions and designations identified in the City’s general plan. As a result, the
amount of wastewater generated by the Project is within the general plan growth projections and
associated wastewater treatment capacity allocations. The wastewater treatment plant has
capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. Therefore, the Project
would have a less than significant impact with respect to wastewater treatment.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-108 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
The Project is connected into the stormwater facilities, and required by law to improve the
existing hydrologic conditions on the entire seven acre site including installing and implementing
BMP and LID measures, as identified in the Introduction Chapter 1.5.4 and Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality (verified by Mr. Rob Lecel, e-mail May 10, 2013. As a result of
these design features and measures, the 2013 Project would not increase water runoff.
Therefore, the Project would not require the construction of new or expanded storm
drainage facilities, resulting in a less than significant impact.
b) and d) Water Treatment Facilities and Supply
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to
require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources.
Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was adopted in 2001 and became effective January 1, 2002. SB 610
requires cities to consider water supply assessments to determine whether projected water
supplies can meet a project’s water demand. SB 610 and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15083.5)
identify residential projects generally exceeding 500 units and commercial or industrial projects
employing more than 1,000 persons as potential impact thresholds.
Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco by the California Water Service
Company (CWSC) and the Westborough County Water District (WCWD). CWSC provides
water to the area east of Interstate 280 (I-280) in South San Francisco, including the Project site,
and its service areas includes the Town of Colma and the Broadmoor area. WCWD serves the
portion of South San Francisco west of I-280. CWCS receives water from the City and County
of San Francisco, through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.
CWSC drafted and adopted an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2006. The UWMP
was established in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act,
(Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water Code, Section 10610-10656). Water Code Section 10910 subd.
(c)(2), Government Code, Section 66473.7, subd. (c)(1) notes that it is acceptable to use the most
recently adopted UWMP to assess water supply in accordance with the California Urban Water
Management Planning Act and SB 610. Between sources guaranteed by a settlement agreement
and the purchase of the Los Trancos County Water District CWSC has a total Supply Assurance
Allocation of 35.5 million gallons a day (MGD) of water indefinitely.31 The UWMP projected
that the South San Francisco District population would increase from 55,024 in 2000 to 64,050
in 2020; an increase of approximately 0.8 percent per year.
The population of the CWSC service area is projected to be 64,050 by 2020. South San
Francisco’s total population is anticipated to be approximately 69,810 in 2020. The service area
population projections for CWSC are approximately 82 percent of the entire population of
31 CWSC, 2006 Urban Water Management Plan for South San Francisco, December 15, 2006.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-109
South San Francisco. Therefore, in 2020 it is anticipated that the CWSC service population area
will be 57,678 providing adequate water supply for existing and projected development.32 The
significance threshold set by Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, Section
15083.5 identifies the addition of 1000 employees as the threshold for additional assessment of
potential water impacts. The Project currently employs nine people per shift. There are three
shifts, for 24 employees associated with the 24 hour/365 day operation. The Project is also
converting to a walk-and-pay method that is not likely to require the addition of many
employees to service the expansion. Even a doubling of the existing staff (to 50 employees) the
2013 Project would not represent a significant increase in water consumption on both Project
and cumulative levels.
The 2013 Project is consistent with the development and employee assumptions identified in the
general plan, including the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and the UWMP
which builds upon the development and growth assumptions in planning documents in the
entire service area. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with
respect to water supply and would not result in a cumulatively considerable or Project
related impacts. The Project would not result in a need to obtain new water allocations
to serve existing, Project or the development projections contained in the South San
Francisco General Plan.
f) and g) Solid Waste
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to be
served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste
disposal needs, or if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) manages the waste generation
and disposal data for South San Francisco. Non-recyclable or non-compostable waste is
disposed at Ox Mountain landfill near Half Moon Bay. The closure date of Ox Mountain is
2023.
CIWMB notes South San Francisco’s solid waste generation is 7.76 pounds per resident per day.
Solid waste projected at build-out (year 2020) is anticipated to be 276 tons per day. The Ox
Mountain landfill has a maximum permitted disposal rate of 3,598 tons per day for South San
Francisco. The total projected solid waste disposal needs for South San Francisco, based upon
cumulative projections, is 7.7 percent of the daily permitted waste intake.33 Construction and
operation of the 2013 Project would generate a less than significant amount of solid
waste, and operation of the Project would be in full compliance with all federal, state and
32 UWMP, 2006 and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and EIR, City of South San Francisco, Dyatt
and Bhatia, November, 2009, updated by Knapp Consulting October, 2012 in the 475 Eccles EIR and initial study.
33 South San Francisco’s existing and projected waste stream generation include an approximate 50 percent
demonstrated diversion rate (South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and EIR, City of South San
Francisco, Dyatt and Bhatia, November, 2009, updated by Knapp Consulting, October, 2012 in the 475 Eccles EIR
and initial study).
.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-110 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Project is within the
development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan and
adequate waste capacity has been planned for and acquired.
Finding: The City’s wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01. The Project as a
matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. The wastewater
treatment plant has capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. The UWMP,
adopted in 2006, shows adequate water is available for the Project and projected cumulative
development. There is adequate capacity at Ox Mountain landfill for Project and cumulative
solid waste and the City is meeting its 50 percent solid waste diversion mandate. Demolition,
construction and operations of the Project would be required to incorporated LIDs and BMPs
for stormwater treatment; an improvement over existing conditions. Stormwater is required to
be treated on-site. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively to water,
wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, or utility impacts.
3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE —
a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.)
X
c) Does the Project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
a) Quality of the Environment
All environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, health risks, cultural resources including important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, hydrology and water quality, land use and
planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, traffic and circulation with the payment of the East of 101 Traffic Impact fee required by ordinance, and
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-111
utilities and service systems are considered less than significant without additional mitigation
measures.
The Project would have a less than significant impact with implementation of the identified
mitigation measures to 1) biological resources including 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; 3)
geology and soils with respect to the quality of undocumented fill; 3) the release of hazardous
and hazardous materials during construction; and, 4) noise during construction.
b) Cumulative Impacts
The Project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable
with the implementation of the biology mitigation measures.
c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings
The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly with the implementation of the hazards and
hazardous materials and noise mitigation measures.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
NOTE: All referenced mitigation measures follow in Section 3.19 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
AESTHETICS: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on the
site or in the area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic,
visual quality or light and glare associated with the Project with implementation of Biology
Mitigations 2 and 3. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
AGRICULTURAL AND TIMBER RESOURCES: Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported
industrial land uses, ship repair, warehouse and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was
used as a composting area for the City’s Water Quality Control Plant. The Project site has been
paved and used for surface parking as part of the Park SFO facility since 2007. The Project
would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations as none exist on the site. The
Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively and is not in any
Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), or in Williamson
Act Contract. The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as such, and would not
cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section51104(g)). No mitigations
from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-112 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
AIR QUALITY/HAZARD RISKS: The Project would not result in a significant impact to air
quality and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria nonattainment
pollutants (ozone precursors, PM10, and PM2.5). The annual PM2.5 concentration due to
implementation of the Project would be 0.02 µg/m3 below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3
µg/m3, and hence is considered less than significant. The City’s building permit procedure
captures the BAAQMD permitting regulations, as well as BAAQMD’s recommended emission
control measures. The Project would be below the daily and annual operational criteria pollutant
thresholds and would not result in significant or cumulative impacts. Odor impacts associated
with construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant.
The Project would be below the thresholds of significance for health risks. The chronic HI
would be 0.01 well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would
therefore be less than significant. The acute HI would be 0.01. The acute HI would be below
the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than
significant.
The cumulative impacts are below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Given that the
Project would not result in increased health impacts exceeding the Project-level thresholds, the
Project would also not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to localized health risk
and hazard impacts, resulting in a less than significant cumulative air quality impact. No
mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
GREENHOUSE GAS: The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative
impact with respect to GHG emissions. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to
the 2013 Project.
BIOLOGY: The Project would expand the existing parking structure over an existing surface
parking lot that does not serve as an important movement corridor for native wildlife. The new
structure is not expected to interfere substantially with native wildlife corridors or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites. Species common in the vicinity would continue to forage in
the open water habitat of the former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal. No
approved Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan encompasses,
governs or regulates the site. Therefore the Project would not conflict with any approved
Habitat Conservation Plans and as such would have no impact.
Implementation of the Biology Mitigation 1 would reduce potential Project impacts to nesting
birds to less-than-significant. The Project would have no impact on any sensitive natural
communities or jurisdictional wetlands as it would be completely located in uplands, and would
not directly affect any sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional wetlands or open waters of
the former drydocks and the basin area of San Bruno Canal. Implementation of Biology
Mitigation 2 would reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant with respect to habitat
quality and policy compliance. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 3 would reduce the
lighting impact to less-than-significant. Implementation of Biology Mitigation 4 would reduce
the permitting and policy impact to less-than-significant. The Project would have a less-than-
significant impact with implementation of Biology Mitigations 1-4. 1997 Mitigation 10 is not
applicable to the 2013 Project and has been redefined and replaced by Biology Mitigations 1 and
3.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-113
CULTURAL RESOURCES: Prior to 2001, the 1.25 acre Project site supported industrial land uses,
ship repair, warehouse and freight forwarding, and from 2001-2003 was used as a composting
area for the City’s Water Quality Control Plant. There is no evidence of archaeological or
paleontological resources on the site as witnessed during previous grading and construction
activities in 1999 and 2007 and in the boring logs. In light of Title 14 California Code of
Regulations, Public Resources Code Section 4852.1, there are no historic resources on the
entirety of the Project site. The Project would have no impact on cultural resources. Mitigation
measure 15 from the 1997 IS/MND is not carried forward to the 2013 Project as it is
unnecessary.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS: There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the
San Andreas Fault, located about three miles northeast. The hazard from fault rupturing on the
site is considered to be low (Furgo West, 2003). Therefore, the Project would have a less than
significant impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known
earthquake fault. Conformance with the latest CBC would ensure that the impact of seismic
ground-shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant. The Geotechnical Report concludes
that the liquefaction potential necessary for liquefaction of materials under the Project site is
low. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to liquefaction of
subsurface materials. There is no threat of landslides on the Project site; therefore the Project
would have no impact with respect to landslides. Erosion control measures are required as a
matter of law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant. The Project
would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the project is connected to the City’s
sanitary system. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to expansive
soils because it would be located on soils with a low potential of expansion (PI 16).
The Project would have less than significant impacts with respect to a geologic unit becoming
unstable with implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1. No mitigations
from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: The Project would have no impact from the
emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental
contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. The impact of the Project with
regards to hazardous materials would be less than significant with respect to operational
activities. The Project would have a less than significant impact on the potential to emit
hazardous materials during construction with implementation of Hazards Mitigation 1. No
mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile
of the Project site. The maximum height of the Project, including the light poles on the roof
level would be 100 feet. The building itself would be 80 to 90 feet in height including the
stairwells and elevator. The Project would not encroach in the 150 -175 foot zone. There are
no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore the
Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan. The South San Francisco Fire Department is in the process of
initiating a study to identify offensive capabilities in the Project area. The Project would be
required through conditions of approval to provide a fair share financial contribution to the
department’s study and improvements. There is no wildland in the vicinity of the Project site or
area. The Project would have no impact with respect to wildland fires.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-114 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: The City’s standard conditions of approval which
implement state, federal and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to address
any potential water quality impacts as a result of Project construction or occupation. The site is
not within a flood zone or an area subject to seiche or tsunami inundation or run-up zones. No
mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this
initial study. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to
hydrology or water quality resources. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the
2013 Project.
LAND USE AND PLANNING: The Project would not physically divide an established
community. The site is planned for light industrial uses and the Project is consistent with the
planned uses. There are no conservation or natural community conservation plans that govern
the Project site or area. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively
considerable impacts. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
MINERAL RESOURCES: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant
mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative
impact to mineral resources. No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013
Project.
NOISE: Demolition and construction related noise impacts would be considered a less than
significant with implementation of the Noise Mitigation Measures 1-3. No mitigations from
the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
The Project would not individually increase noise levels in the area related to traffic nor would
the Project contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to noise and as such noise impacts
associated with the Project would result in no impact. The site is located the 65 dB contour
interval and is an airport related use which is long-term parking. The Project would have no
impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure as it is an airport-related use consisting of
long term parking and contains no sensitive receptors or land uses.
POPULATION AND HOUSING: The Project is consistent with the development and growth
assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan in that it would be an expansion of
the existing airport-related facility, and not a significant contributor to the job market. The
Project site does not include housing and would not displace housing units or residents. No
mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
PUBLIC SERVICES: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions
contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. Redevelopment of the Project site would not
increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. No mitigations from the
1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
RECREATION: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development
assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is consistent with
planning projections and needs assessments based upon the projections contained in the South San Francisco General Plan and is not a population or employment generator. The Project would
not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. No
mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-115
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: The 2013 Project would not result in a significant
impact to the three intersections closest to the Project. The Project would not degrade an
intersection identified in a Congestion Management Plan. The Project would not result in a
project-or cumulative-level impact to the closest intersections to the site and as such would not
impact intersections further from the site. The analysis accounted for a doubling of traffic
volumes measured at the existing Park SFO facility (2001 and 2007 Projects) and represents a
conservative worst case analysis accounting for daily and seasonal variations. The Project would
not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and the Project would have no impact
with respect to air traffic hazards. The Project would have no impact on alternative
transportation use and provides shuttle bus service an alternative to privately owned vehicle
single-occupancy travel. The Project would keep the existing site access patterns, has been
reviewed by South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments and with the required conditions
of approval would have a less than significant impact on emergency access. The 2013 Project
would result in a less than significant impact at the access driveway intersection and roadways.
No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: The City’s wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in
2000-01. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees.
The wastewater treatment plant has capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected
wastewater. The UWMP, adopted in 2006, shows adequate water is available for the Project and
projected cumulative development. There is adequate capacity at Ox Mountain landfill for
Project and cumulative solid waste and the City is meeting its 50 percent solid waste diversion
mandate. Demolition, construction and operation of the Project would be required to
incorporated LIDs and BMPs for stormwater treatment; an improvement over existing
conditions. Stormwater is required to be treated on-site. The Project would not contribute
individually or cumulatively to water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, or utility impacts.
No mitigations from the 1997 IS/MND carry over to the 2013 Project.
3.19 MITIGATION MONITORING/REPORTING PROGRAM
DEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
“Applicant” shall mean the applicant, proponent, agent or otherwise representative for the
Project. A “cost pass-through agreement” shall mean a legally executed agreement between
Applicant and City to reimburse the City for costs associated with implementing and monitoring
the mitigation measures contained herein.
All mitigation measures required herein shall be noted by the Applicant, or its designated representative, on the set of plans submitted to the City for demolition,
grading and/or construction permits, however phased. The Planning Division shall review the plans for compliance to these requirements prior to any demolition, grading
and/or construction permits, being issued by the Building and/or Engineering Divisions of the City. The requirements shall be on the approved set of plans for the
City and the job site. The General Contractor shall sign the sheet of plans noting the mitigation measures and attesting to understanding the measures and enforcing the
measures.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-116 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
No mitigation measures carry forward from the 1997 IS/MND. The mitigations are either
implemented or redefined significantly in the following MMRP.
MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION
BIOLOGY IMPACT 1: POTENTIAL PRESENCE OF ACTIVE BIRD NESTS IN PROXIMITY TO CONSTRUCTION COULD RESULT IN
A TAKE OF A PROTECTED SPECIES
There is a remote potential for presence of active nests in close proximity to the construction
site. Construction activities could disturb or result in a take if nesting birds are present.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 1.A: Outside of Nesting Season: Vegetation and tree removal
shall be scheduled to take place outside of the nesting season (which occurs from February 1 to
August 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds; or,
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 1.B: During Nesting Season: A qualified biologist (Biologist) shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird (both passerine and raptor) survey within seven
days prior to the commencement of construction if construction is unavoidable during the nesting season. The survey shall be within 300 feet of the limits of proposed construction and
shall be performed by a Biologist. If no nesting birds are observed no further action is required and grading and ground breaking activities shall occur within one week of the survey to prevent
take of individual birds that could begin nesting after the survey.
Another nesting survey shall be conducted if more than seven days elapse between the initial nest search and the beginning of tree removal and construction activities. The Biologist shall
determine the disturbance-free buffer zone to be established around the nest tree(s) until the young have fledged, as determined by the Biologist if active bird nests (either passerine and/or
raptor) are observed during the pre-construction survey.
A qualified biologist shall determine the radius of the required buffer zone. Buffer zones vary depending on the species, (i.e., 75-100 feet for passerines and 300 feet for raptors). The
dimensions of the zone shall be determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Orange construction fencing, flagging, or other marking system shall be installed to delineate the
buffer area at the specified radius from nest location(s) within which no cranes or other equipment associated with the parking structure construction shall intrude. Continued use of
the surface parking areas for parking and parking lot maintenance may continue within this setback zone.
There would be no restrictions on grading or construction activities outside the prescribed
buffer zone after the no-construction zone has been identified.
A survey report of findings verifying that any young have fledged shall be submitted for review and approval by the Chief Planner at the City of South San Francisco Planning Division prior to
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-117
initiation of any grading or other construction activities within the buffer zone. Following
approval by the Chief Planner, grading and construction in the nest-buffer zone may proceed.
Implementation/Timing: Applicant, at City’s review and approval, shall PRIOR to issuance
of demolition, grading or building permits retain the services of a biologist to conduct the survey
if tree removal is conducted during nesting season. The cost of services shall be borne by the
Applicant. A cost pass-through agreement, if necessary, shall be executed between the City and
the Applicant prior to issuance of building and/or grading permit issuance.
Responsible Party(ies): City Planning Division, consulting biologist and Applicant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE ARE NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN AND THE EAST OF 101
AREA PLAN POLICIES THAT DIRECT THE PROTECTION OF HABITAT, REMOVAL OF INVASIVE
EXOTIC PLANTS AND PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE VEGETATION TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES AND SUCCESSFUL ESTABLISHMENT OF
NATIVE ENHANCEMENT PLANTINGS.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION MEASURE 2: The landscape plan for the Project shall be
revised to include an “Invasive Species Removal Program”, eliminating pampas grass, French
broom, and other invasive species listed as having a “high” or “moderate” rating for “Invasive
Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands in California” according to the electronic Inventory
of the California Invasive Species Council (Cal IPC). All invasive species shall be removed from
the site and the adjacent segment of the Bay Trail along the north side of the San Bruno Canal
on the south side of the existing parking structure.
The landscape plan shall also be revised to include a “Native Species Enhancement Program”; a
plan to provide for installation of additional native species in areas where existing landscape
plantings are absent or performing poorly. Of particular concern is the area south of the
existing parking structure, between the concrete Bay Trail and top of bank to San Bruno Creek;
an area planted with non-native species that are performing poorly or dead. Concrete rubble
and non-organic fills shall be removed from the ground surface and a layer of top soil installed
to a minimum depth of six inches to provide a growing substrate for new plantings. The entire
area shall be planted with native creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides) installed from plugs on
approximately one-foot centers to provide a continuous groundcover. Any shrubs or trees
planted in this location shall be restricted to native species indigenous to the South San
Francisco area. All new native plantings shall be provided short-term irrigation for a minimum
of three years during the dry season to ensure successful establishment, and any plantings that
die shall be replaced during this establishment period.
All native plantings installed as part of the Native Species Enhancement Program shall be
monitored annually, for a period of three years, by a qualified landscape architect or biologist.
The annual monitoring report shall summarize the condition of the native enhancement
plantings, status of invasive species removal, and include recommendations for any corrective
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-118 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
work necessary. Copies of the annual monitoring reports shall be provided to the Chief Planner
at City of South San Francisco Planning Division by December 31 of each reporting year. If
native enhancement plantings have not become successfully established or target invasive
species are still present on the site and adjacent corridor of the Bay Trail, the applicant shall be
required to submit a remedial enhancement plan and extend the monitoring period and annual
reporting until successful establishment has been achieved.
A report of successful completion of the Native Species Enhancement Program shall be
provided for review and approval by the Chief Planner of the City of South San Francisco at the
end of the three year monitoring period. The row of non-native Lombardy poplar proposed as
part of the Landscape Plan along the east side of the new parking structure is appropriate to
screen the building in views from the east; however, the area between the row of poplar
plantings and shoreline of the drydock shall be planted exclusively with native species to
enhance this area as part of the Native Species Enhancement Program.
Future landscape maintenance of the site shall include the routine monitoring and annual
removal of any target invasive species identified in the Invasive Species Removal Program. The
maintenance and monitoring shall include the native species enhancement area on the south side
of the existing parking structure.
Implementation/Timing: Applicant shall implement this mitigation by providing the
landscape plans in conformance with this mitigation. The plans shall be reviewed (modified if
necessary) and approved by the City. The plans shall be provided, reviewed and approved
PRIOR to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits for the Project. A consulting
biologist (retained by the City and paid for by the Applicant) shall monitor the landscape
improvements on the site annually for a period of three years and provide the report to the
Chief Planner. Corrections and modifications to the landscape and an extension to the
monitoring period may occur if the performance objectives are not being met. The cost of
services shall be borne by the Applicant. A cost pass-through agreement, if necessary, shall be
executed between the City and the Applicant prior to issuance of building and/or grading permit
issuance.
Responsible Party(ies): City Planning Division, consulting biologist and Applicant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 3: SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN LIGHT ONTO BAY LANDS MAY REDUCE THE HABITAT VALUE OF THE TIDAL
AREA (WETLAND HABITAT) AND WOULD CONFLICT WITH EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN POLICY CON-7.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 3: All lighting in the new parking structure and any modifications
to existing lighting shall be shielded and oriented onto the site to prevent off-site illumination
and glare into the adjacent wetland habitat along San Bruno Canal and the former drydocks.
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-119
Implementation/Timing: Applicant shall provide the City with a lighting plan to be reviewed
by the Chief Planner and Police Department. The lighting plan shall conform to and implement
this mitigation measure. The plans shall be provided, reviewed and approved PRIOR to
issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits for the Project.
Responsible Party(ies): City Planning Division, Police Department, Applicant.
BIOLOGY IMPACT 4: PROJECT COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO APPROVAL OR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
FROM THE BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW AND EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN POLICY CON:-7.
BIOLOGY MITIGATION 4: No building, grading or construction permit shall be issued by the City in absence of written approvals/conditional approvals for the development analyzed in
this Initial Study by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game. Written approvals from the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game shall be provided to the Chief Planner and Building Official PRIOR to issuance of any demolition, grading or
construction permits for the Project. Any plan modifications required by the permitting agencies shall be incorporated into the Project plans and reviewed by the Chief Planner, prior to
issuance of any demolition, grading on construction permits for the Project.
Implementation/Timing: Applicant shall contact the identified permitting agencies and secure Project approval. Written approvals shall be provided to the City PRIOR to issuance of
any demolition, grading or building permits for the Project.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant, City Planning, and Building Divisions.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACT 1: REUSE OF IMPROPERLY COMPACTED OR INCOMPETENT SOIL ON THE SITE
COULD RESULT IN UNSTABLE CONDITIONS.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION 1: A state licensed registered engineering geologist
and principal geotechnical engineer shall be on site during grading and site preparation to supervise and inspect conditions and shall certify to the City that the soil has been properly
compacted and emplaced to the City’s Standards or that all undocumented fill was removed from the site prior to construction commencing.
Implementation/Timing: Applicant shall contact retain the services of the state licensed
registered engineering geologist and principal geotechnical engineer and a grading plan shall be
prepared in conformance with Geology and Soils Mitigation 1. The grading plan shall be
reviewed by the City’s consulting geotechnical engineers and modified and approved as
necessary PRIOR to a demolition or grading permit being issued by the City. The certification
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3-120 PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY
of as-built compaction shall be provided PRIOR to issuance of construction permits by the
Building Division.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant, Public Works, and Building Divisions.
HAZARDS IMPACT 1: PROJECT PLANS DO NOT INCLUDE CIVIL DRAWINGS
THAT INDICATE THE LOCTION OF POTENTIAL ON- AND OFF-SITE MONITORING WELLS, GAS AND FUEL
PIPELINES, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS AND ACCURATE PROPERTY LINES.
CONSTRUCTING OVER THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER ACCESSS FOR
MAINTENANCE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. MOREOVER, GRADING AND FOUNDATION
EMPLACEMENT COULD RUPTURE PIPELINES RESULTING IN A LEAK OR OTHER HAZARDOUS
CONDITION.
HAZARDS MITIGATION 1: The Applicant, contractor or Project sponsor shall provide
civil engineering (wet stamped by a California licensed civil engineer) drawings identifying all
utility and access easements as well as the location of all underground facilities, including
monitoring wells and fuel lines and property lines, prior to issuance of any grading, demolition
or building permits by the City. Project construction plans shall comply with the access
requirements for underground utility maintenance. Santa Fe Pipeline and Shell Oil
representatives shall be contacted and provided an opportunity to review the 2013 Project plans
to assure adequate access is provided for their facilities. Written confirmation of their review,
approval and/or modifications shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of any grading,
demolition or construction permits. The construction drawings shall be altered as necessary to
provide adequate access and depending upon the magnitude of alteration may require the
Project to undergo subsequent design and entitlement review.
Implementation/Timing: Applicant and Applicant’s Civil Engineer shall provide the civil
drawings PRIOR to City issuance of demolition or grading permits for the Project. Written
confirmation of Santa Fe Pipeline and Shell Oil review, approval and/or modifications shall be
provided to the City PRIOR to issuance of any grading, demolition or construction permits.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant, and City Planning and Building Divisions.
NOISE IMPACT 1: NOISE LEVELS MAY EXCEED 90 DB AT THE PROPERTY LINE IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY’S NOISE
ORDINANCE.
NOISE MITIGATION 1.A: At the discretion of the Building Official a waiver may be applied for and secured given that the Project is not located in a noise sensitive area and there
are no sensitive receptors within 0.65 miles of the site,
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PARK SFO– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 3-121
or,
NOISE MITIGATION 1.B: Erect temporary sound barriers, select quieter equipment and
locate the noisiest equipment further from the property lines whenever possible to increase
noise attenuation.
Implementation/Timing: PRIOR to the City issuance of demolition and grading permits
compliance with Noise Mitigation 1.A or 1.B shall be secured by an approved waiver or the
types of quieter equipment and/or temporary sound walls shall be noted on the plans submitted
to the Building Division for grading and demolition permits.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant and Building Division.
NOISE IMPACT 2: PROJECT PROPOSES SATURDAY CONSTRUCTION TO
BEGIN AT 8:30 AM IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY’S NOISE ORDINANCE START TIME OF 9 AM.
NOISE MITIGATION 2.A: The Project sponsor shall note on the approved building and job
copy plans that Saturday operations shall not begin prior to 9 AM.
NOISE MITIGATION 2.B: At the discretion of the Building Official: The Project Sponsor
or contractor shall apply for and secure a waiver to the Saturday start time.
Implementation/Timing: PRIOR to the City issuance of demolition and grading permits
compliance with Noise Mitigation 2.A or 2.B shall be secured by an approved waiver or the
types of quieter equipment and/or temporary sound walls shall be noted on the plans submitted
to the Building Division for grading and demolition permits.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant and Building Division.
NOISE IMPACT 3: Noise exposure to the cashiers during the day and early evening shifts
could be annoying, disruptive and distracting at levels around 84 dB
with periodic Lmax levels that could reach 106 dB.
NOISE MITIGATION 3: The Applicant shall install the pay-on-foot program prior to the
City issuing and grading, demolition or construction permits for the 2013 Project. The kiosks
and office shall be designed and constructed to attenuate noise by at least 25 dB.
Implementation/Timing: PRIOR to the City issuance of demolition and grading permits Noise Mitigation 3 shall be constructed and operational.
Responsible Party(ies): Applicant and Building Division.
PARK SFO APPENDIX
1 KBE AIR QUALITY ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES
2 KBE CALEMOD
3 FURGO WEST GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, 2003
4 FURGO WEST GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, FEBRUARY 12, 2013
5 FURGO WEST GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, JULY 15, 2013
6 CSA PEER REVIEW GEOTECHNICAL, NOVEMBER, 2012
7 CSA PEER REVIEW GEOTECHNICAL, MARCH 22, 2013
8 CRANE TRAFFIC STUDY, 2012
9 CRANE TRAFFIC STUDY/FIGURES, 2012
Appendix A-1
Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies
Construction Activities
The Project proposes to expand the existing parking structure of seven levels and
approximately 1,900 spaces. The expansion would remove surface parking and construct a
549,626 square foot expansion to park an additional 1,300 cars for a total of approximately
3,200 parking spaces.
Air quality assessment methodologies in this section generally conform to those identified by
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Construction emissions were estimated using the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model
version 2011.1.1) incorporating project elements within the project description and corresponding
construction equipment schedule and usage. BAAQMD acknowledges CalEEMod as an
appropriate tool for assessment of air quality impacts relative to CEQA. Construction of the project
is expected to begin in 2013 and would occur over a period of approximately sixteen months.
Operations
The proposed Project plans to begin operation by 2015. CARB’s CALEEMod was also used to
estimate operational emissions that would be associated with lighting, natural gas space and water
heating, landscape maintenance, vehicle traffic, shuttle buses, delivery trucks, and employee
vehicles, and incorporate estimated trip generation for the Project. Specifically, the daily trip rate is
estimated to be 650 (or 1.2 per 1,000 square foot per day)1. Twenty-five percent of the trip
generation is related to the shuttle bus fleet. CalEEMod does not contain energy, wastewater, and
natural gas usage defaults for parking facility; assumptions were made for these parameters based
on historical data.
Health Risk Assessment
A health risk assessment (HRA) is accomplished in four steps; hazards identification, exposure
assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. These steps cover the estimation of air
emissions, the estimation of the air concentrations resulting from a dispersion analysis, the
incorporation of the toxicity of the pollutants emitted, and the characterization of the risk based on
exposure parameters such as breathing rate, age adjustment factors, and exposure duration-- each
depending on receptor type.
The HRA was conducted in accordance with technical guidelines developed by federal, state, and
regional agencies, including US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
1 Based upon trip generation rates found at commercial airports in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition - 2012), pm peak hour trip generation is about 5.6 to 6 percent of daily generation.
Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance2, and the BAAQMD’s Health
Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines.3
According to CalEPA, a HRA should not be interpreted as the expected rates of cancer or other
potential human health effects, but rather as estimates of potential risk or likelihood of adverse
effects based on current knowledge, under a number of highly conservative assumptions and the
best assessment tools currently available.
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
As the practice of conducting a HRA is particularly complex and involves concepts that are not
altogether familiar to most people, several terms and definitions are provided that are considered
essential to the understanding of the approach, methodology and results:
Acute effect – a health effect (non-cancer) produced within a short period of time (few minutes to several days) following an exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC).
Cancer risk – the probability of an individual contracting cancer from a lifetime (i.e., 70
year) exposure to TAC in the ambient air.
Chronic effect – a health effect (non-cancer) produced from a continuous exposure
occurring over an extended period of time (weeks, months, years).
Hazard Index (HI) – the unitless ratio of an exposure level over the acceptable reference dose (RfC). The HI can be applied to multiple compounds in an additive manner.
Hazard Quotient (HQ) – the unitless ratio of an exposure level over the acceptable
reference dose (RfC). The HQ is applied to individual compounds.
Human Health Effects - comprise disorders such as eye watering, respiratory or heart
ailments, and other (i.e., non-cancer) related diseases.
Health Risk Assessment (HRA) – an analysis designed to predict the generation and dispersion of TAC in the outdoor environment, evaluate the potential for exposure of
human populations, and to assess and quantify both the individual and population-wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure.
Incremental – under CEQA, the net difference (or change) in conditions or impacts when
comparing the baseline to future year project conditions.
Maximum exposed individual (MEI) – an individual assumed to be located at the point
where the highest concentrations of TAC, and therefore, health risks are predicted to
occur.
Non-cancer risks – health risks such as eye watering, respiratory or heart ailments, and other non-cancer related diseases.
Receptors – the locations where potential health impacts or risks are predicted (schools, residences and work-sites).
Toxic air contaminants (TAC) – any air pollutant that is capable of causing short-term
(acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic, i.e., cancer causing) adverse human
2 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/pdf/HRAguidefinal.pdf 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2005. BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines (http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/air_toxics/risk_procedures_policies/hrsa_guidelines.pdf), June 2005.
health effects (i.e., injury or illness). The current California list of TAC lists approximately
200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines.
LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES
There are a number of important limitations and uncertainties commonly associated with a HRA
due to the wide variability of human exposures to TACs, the extended timeframes over which the
exposures are evaluated and the inability to verify the results. Among these challenges include the
following:
• The HRA exposure estimates do not take into account that people do not usually reside at
the same location for 70 years and that other exposures (i.e., school children) are also of
much shorter durations than was assumed in this analysis. Therefore, the results of the
HRA are highly overstated for those cases.
• Other limitations and uncertainties associated with HRA and identified by the CalEPA
include: (a.) lack of reliable monitoring data; (b.) extrapolation of toxicity data in animals
to humans; (c.) estimation errors in calculating TACs emissions; (d.) concentration
prediction errors with dispersion models; and (e.) the variability in lifestyles, fitness and
other confounding factors of the human population.
HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
TAC emissions associated with the project would occur from the following project activities:
• Off-road equipment and haul trucks during construction activities
• Customers, shuttles, and employee vehicles within the parking facility and to/from the
facility along nearby roadways
Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of numerous individual gaseous and particulate compounds
emitted from diesel-fueled combustion engines. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is formed
primarily through the incomplete combustion of diesel fuel and is removed from the atmosphere
through physical processes including atmospheric fall-out and washout by rain. Humans can be
exposed to airborne DPM by deposition on water, soil, and vegetation; although the main pathway
of exposure is inhalation.
In August 1998, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) identified DPM as a TAC. The CARB
developed Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled
Engines and Vehicles and Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary
Diesel-Fueled Engines and approved these documents on September 28, 2000. The documents
propose to reduce DPM emissions, with the goal of reducing emissions and the associated health
risk by 75 percent in 2010 and by 85 percent in 2020. The program aimed to require the use of
state-of-the-art catalyzed DPM filters and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel.
In 2001, CARB assessed the state-wide health risks from exposure to diesel exhaust and to other
toxic air contaminants. It is difficult to distinguish the health risks of diesel emissions from those
of other air toxics, since diesel exhaust contains approximately 40 different TACs. The CARB
study detected diesel exhaust by using ambient air carbon soot measurements as a surrogate for
diesel emissions. The study reported that the state-wide cancer risk from exposure to diesel exhaust
was about 540 per million population as compared to a total risk for exposure to all ambient air
toxics of 760 per million. This estimate, which accounts for about 70 percent of the total risk from
TACs, included both urban and rural areas in the state. The estimate can also be considered an
average worst-case for the state, since it assumes constant exposure to outdoor concentrations of
diesel exhaust and does not account for expected lower concentrations indoors, where most of time
is spent.
Asbestos Toxic Air Control Measure
In 2002, the CARB adopted an Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for construction,
grading, quarrying and surface mining operations. New emission control measures, such as dust
suppression, apply to activities such as road construction and road maintenance, construction,
grading, and quarrying and surface mining operations in areas with naturally-occurring
asbestos/serpentine rock. Notably, geologic mapping does indicate the existence of
asbestos/serpentine rock within the project site.
Silica Crystalline Dust
In 2005, the OEHHA added a chronic reference exposure level (REL) for crystalline silica4. Silica
is a hazardous substance when it is inhaled, and the airborne dust particles that are formed when
the material containing the silica is broken, crushed, or sawn pose potential risks. The chronic REL
for crystalline silica was established by the California OEHHA as 3 µg/m3. Notably, geologic
mapping does not indicate the existence of asbestos/serpentine rock within the project site.
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Dispersion is the process by which atmospheric pollutants disseminate due to wind and vertical air
stability. The results of a dispersion analysis are used to assess pollutant concentrations at or near
an emission source. The results of this analysis allow predicted concentrations of pollutants to be
compared directly to air quality standards and other criteria such as health risks.
Dispersion Modeling Approach
This section presents the methodology used for the dispersion modeling analysis. This section
addresses all of the fundamental components of an air dispersion modeling analysis including:
• Model selection and options
• Receptor locations
• Meteorological data
• Source release characteristics
Model Selection and Options
The AERMOD (Version 12060) was used for the dispersion analysis. AERMOD is the US EPA
preferred dispersion model for general industrial sources. The model can simulate point, area,
volume, and line sources and is the appropriate model for this analysis based on the coverage of
simple, intermediate, and complex terrain. It also predicts both short-term and long-term (annual)
4 http://www.oehha.ca.gov
average concentrations. The model was executed using the regulatory default options (stack-tip
downwash, buoyancy-induced dispersion, and final plume rise), default wind speed profile
categories, default potential temperature gradients, and no pollutant decay.
The selection of the appropriate dispersion coefficients depends on the land use within three
kilometers (km) of the project site. The land use typing was based on the classification method
defined by Auer (1978); using pertinent United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale
(7.5 minute) topographic maps of the area. If the Auer land use types of heavy industrial, light-to-
moderate industrial, commercial, and compact residential account for 50 percent or more of the
total area, the US EPA Guideline on Air Quality Models recommends using urban dispersion
coefficients; otherwise, the appropriate rural coefficients are used. Based on observation of the area
surrounding the project site, rural dispersion coefficients were applied in the analysis (urban areas
were only designated within dense city centers such as San Francisco).
Receptor Locations
Some receptors are considered more sensitive to air pollutants than others, because of preexisting
health problems, proximity to the emissions source, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Land
uses such as primary and secondary schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to
be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because the very young, the old, and the infirm are more
susceptible to respiratory infections and other air quality-related health problems than the general
public. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people in
residential areas are often at home for extended periods. Recreational land uses are moderately
sensitive to air pollution, because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high
demand on respiratory system function. Off-site workers are not considered part of the HRA
receptor network.
Sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, and outdoor recreational areas near the Project
were chosen as the receptors to be analyzed. Receptors were placed at a height of 1.8 meters
(typical breathing height). BAAQMD considers the relevant zone of influence for an assessment of
health risks to be those areas within 1,000 feet of the project boundary. There are no sensitive
receptors within 1,000 feet of the project boundary. Residential land uses are approximately 3,300
feet (0.65 miles) to the west of the project site (and to the west of Route 101 and north of Interstate
380) and 4,050 feet (0.75 miles) to the southwest of the project site (west of Route 101 and south
of Interstate 380). The closest school to the site is Belle Air Elementary School which is 1.1 miles
(approximately 6,000 feet) from the Project site. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is
located approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the project site (although airport-owned property
is within 200 feet of the project site).Terrain elevations for receptor locations were used (i.e.,
complex terrain) based on available USGS information for the area. Exhibit 1 displays the location
of the receptors used in the HRA.
EXHIBIT 1 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT RECEPTORS
Meteorological Data
Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of
meteorological conditions and topographic features affecting pollutant movement and dispersal.
Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, and air
temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the
movement and dispersal of air pollutants, and consequently affect air quality.
Hourly meteorological data from BAAQMD’s San Francisco International Airport surface data
station, located approximately two and a half miles to the south of the Project, as well as Oakland
International Airport upper air station were used in the dispersion modeling analysis. The data
from 2005 through 2009 were used. Exhibit 2 displays the wind rose during this period. Wind
directions are predominately from the west and there is a high frequency of calm and low wind
conditions.
EXHIBIT 2 WINDROSE FOR SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Source Release Characteristics
Construction equipment activities were treated as an area source. The release height of the off-road
equipment exhaust was 3.05 meters. Haul trucks and employee trips were treated as a line source
(i.e., volume sources placed at regular intervals) located along the access road. The haul trucks
were assigned a release height of 3.05 meters and an initial vertical dimension of 4.15 meters,
which accounts for dispersion from the movement of vehicles.
Terrain elevations for emission source locations were used (i.e., complex terrain) based on
available USGS DEM for the area. AERMAP (Version 11103) was used to develop the terrain
elevations, although the project site is generally flat.
Dispersion Modeling Results
Using AERMOD, the maximum annual and 70-year average annual concentrations were
determined for DPM emissions for the emission sources of concern. These concentrations were
estimated for a unit emission rate (1 gram per second) and adjusted based on the calculated project-
related emission rate.
The HRA was conducted following methodologies in BAAQMD’s Health Risk Screening Analysis
Guidelines5 and in the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance.6 This was accomplished by applying the highest
estimated concentrations at the receptors analyzed to the established cancer risk estimates and
acceptable reference concentrations (RfC) for non-cancer health effects.
The toxicity values used in this analysis were based on OEHHA guidance regarding carcinogenic
effects and acute/chronic health impacts. The primary pathway for exposures was assumed to be
inhalation and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects were evaluated separately. The
incremental risks were determined for each emission source of TAC and summed to obtain an
estimated total incremental carcinogenic health risk.
The 80th percentile adult breathing rate of 302 liters of air per kilogram of body weight per day
(L/kg-day) was used to determine cancer risks to residents from exposure to TAC. The residential
exposure frequency and duration was assumed to be 350 days per year and 70 years. For children,
OEHHA recommends assuming a breathing rate of 581 L/kg-day to assess potential risk via
the inhalation exposure pathway. This value represents the upper 95th percentile of daily
breathing rates for children. The modeled TAC concentrations were used to represent the
exposure concentrations in the air with an assumed inhalation absorption factor of 1.
Cancer risk estimates also incorporate age sensitivity factors (ASFs). This approach provides
updated calculation procedures that factor in the increased susceptibility of infants and children to
carcinogens as compared to adults. OEHHA recommends that cancer risks be weighted by a factor
of 10 for exposures that occur from the third trimester of pregnancy to 2 years of age, and by a
factor of 3 for exposures from 2 years through 15 years of age. For estimating cancer risks for
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2005. BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines (http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/air_toxics/risk_procedures_policies/hrsa_guidelines.pdf), June 2005. 6 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/pdf/HRAguidefinal.pdf
residential receptors over a 70 year lifetime, the incorporation of the ASFs results in a cancer risk
adjustment factor (CRAF) of 1.7.
Based on OEHHA recommendations, the cancer risk to residential receptors assumes exposure
occurs 24 hours per day for 350 days per year over a 70-year lifetime exposure. For children at
school sites, exposure is assumed to occur 10 hours per day for 180 days (or 36 weeks) per
year over a 9 year exposure duration.
Table 1 provides a summary of the risk assessment exposure parameters used in the analysis.
TABLE 1 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT EXPOSURE PARAMETERS
Receptor Breathing Rate (DBR)
Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor (CRAF)
Daily Exposure Annual Exposure Exposure Duration (ED)
Adult 302 1.7 24 hours 350 days 70 years
Child 581 10 24 hours 350 days 3 years
School 581 3 10 hours 180 days 9 years
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to
carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as the chance in one million of getting cancer
(i.e., number of cancer cases among one million people exposed). The cancer risks are assumed to
occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway. The cancer risk can be estimated by using the
cancer potency factor (milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day [mg/kg-day]), the 70-year
annual average concentration (microgram per cubic meter [µg/m3]), and the lifetime exposure
adjustment. The cancer potency factor for DPM is 1.1 mg/kg-day. The cancer potency factor for
asbestos/serpentine rock is 220 mg/kg-day.
Following guidelines established by OEHHA, the incremental cancer risks attributable to the
project were calculated by applying exposure parameters to modeled TAC concentrations in order
to determine the inhalation dose (mg/kg-day) or the amount of pollutants inhaled per body weight
mass per day. The cancer risks occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway; therefore, the
cancer risks can be estimated from the following equation:
Dose-inh = Cair * {DBR} * A * CRAF * EF * ED * 10-6
AT Where:
Dose-inh = Dose of the toxic substance through inhalation in mg/kg-day
10-6 = Micrograms to milligrams conversion, Liters to cubic meters conversion
Cair = Concentration in air (microgram (μg)/cubic meter (m3))
{DBR} = Daily breathing rate (liter (L)/kg body weight – day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
CRAF = Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor, Age Sensitivity Factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged in days
(25,550 days for a 70 year cancer risk)
To determine incremental cancer risk, the estimated inhalation dose attributed to the project was
multiplied by the cancer potency slope factor (cancer risk per mg/kg-day). The cancer potency
slope factor is the upper bound on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime exposure to a pollutant.
These slope factors are based on epidemiological studies and are different values for different
pollutants. This allows the estimated inhalation dose to be equated to a cancer risk.
Non-cancer adverse health impacts, acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term), are measured
against a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental exposure
concentration from the project to a published reference exposure level (REL) that could cause
adverse health effects as established by OEHHA. The ratio (referred to as the Hazard Quotient
[HQ]) of each non-carcinogenic substance that affects a certain organ system is added to produce
an overall HI for that organ system. The overall HI is calculated for each organ system. If the
overall HI for the highest-impacted organ system is greater than one, then the impact is considered
to be significant.
The HI is an expression used for the potential for non-cancer health effects. The relationship for
the non-cancer health effects is given by the annual concentration (µg/m3) and the REL (µg/m3).
The acute hazard index was determined using the “simple” concurrent maximum approach, which
tends to be conservative (i.e. over predicts).
The relationship for the non-cancer health effects is given by the following equation:
HI = C/REL
where,
HI = Hazard index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects.
C = Annual average concentration (µg/m3) during the 70 year exposure period
REL = The concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated.
The chronic REL for DPM was established by the California OEHHA7 as 5 µg/m3. There is no
acute REL for DPM. However, diesel exhaust does contain acrolein and other compounds, which
do have an acute REL. BAAQMD’s DPM speciation table (based on profile 4674 within the
U.S. EPA Speciate 4.2)8 was used to assess the acute impacts. Acrolein emissions are
approximately 1.3 percent of the total emissions. The acute REL for acrolein was established by
the California OEHHA9 as 2.5 µg/m3. The chronic REL for crystalline silica was established by
the California OEHHA as 3 µg/m3.
7 California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database, 2010. http://www.oehha.ca.gov//. 8 Provides for a speciation faction of 1.3 percent of acrolein per DPM emission rate. http://www.epa.gov////.html. 9 California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database, 2010. http://www.oehha.ca.gov//.
CUMULATIVE SOURCES
The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include standards and methods for determining the
significance of cumulative health risk impacts. The method for determining cumulative health risk
requires the tallying of health risk from permitted sources and major roadways in the vicinity of a
project (i.e., within a 1,000-foot radius of the source or new receptor), then adding the project
impacts to determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded. The maximum
exposed individual receptor is located to the southwest of the project site; approximately 3,300 feet
to the west of the project site (and to the west of Route 101 and north of Interstate 380).
BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted emissions sources throughout the
San Francisco Bay Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool
(dated May 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from permitted sources. Six permitted
sources are located within 1,000 feet of the Project10. Table 2 provides the estimated screening
cancer risk, hazard impacts, and the PM2.5 concentrations for the cumulative permitted source.
Table 3 provides the estimated adjusted cancer risk, hazard impacts, and the PM2.5 concentrations
for the cumulative permitted source.
Information (cancer risks and chronic index) was adjusted for distance from source to receptor,
based on BAAQMD’s Distance Adjustment Multiplier for Diesel Internal Combustion Engine and
the Distance Adjustment Multiplier for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. The cancer risks for the dry
cleaner stationary source were adjusted to reflect the regulation that Perchloroethylene (PCE) is
prohibited from use in the US after 2023. That is, the BAAQMD data were adjusted to 17 percent
(12 years of PCE usage over a 70 year lifetime) of the reported value.
TABLE 2
CUMULATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS – PERMITTED SOURCES Adjustment Factors and Screening Data
Facility # Facility Type Address Adjustment Factor Cancer Risk Hazard Impact PM2.5 Concentration
5876 South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality 195 Belle Air Road 0.04 281.8 0.136 1.27
13863 City of SSF Water Quality Plant 477 South Airport Blvd 0.04 42.88 0.015 0.01
6329 Sing Tao Newspaper 215 Littlefield Ave 1 0 0 0
G10732 Costco Wholesale 479 South Airport Blvd 0.015 10.769 0.018 0
10926 NRI 436 South Airport Blvd 1 0 0 0
1703 Inter-City Cleaners 438 South Airport Blvd 0.17 156 0.415 0
TABLE 3
CUMULATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS – PERMITTED SOURCES Adjusted Data
Facility # Facility Type Address Cancer Risk Hazard Impact PM2.5 Concentration
5876 South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality 195 Belle Air Road 11.3 0.01 0.05
13863 City of SSF Water Quality Plant 477 South Airport Blvd 1.72 0.0006 0.00
6329 Sing Tao Newspaper 215 Littlefield Ave - - -
G10732 Costco Wholesale 479 South Airport Blvd 0.85 0.0003 -
10926 NRI 436 South Airport Blvd - - -
1703 Inter-City Cleaners 438 South Airport Blvd 26.5 0.0706 -
10 Email from Alison Kirk at BAAQMD on July 12, 2012 Stationary Source Inquiry Form Request - Park SFO.
BAAQMD has also developed a geo-referenced database of roadways throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area and has developed the Highway Screening Analysis Tool (dated May 2011) for
estimating cumulative health risks from roadways. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also
require the inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet of the project with annual average daily
traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater11. Route 101 is located approximately 2,000 feet to the west of
the project site. Upon review of nearby roadways, no nearby roadways meet the criteria.
11 BAAQMD County Surface Street Screening Tables, May 2011 and CEHTP Traffic Linkage Service Demonstration, http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp
1 of 26
Energy Mitigation -
Water And Wastewater - BOS CONRAC Facility
Energy Use - BOS CONRAC Facility
Vehicle Trips - Based upon trip generation rates found at commercial airports in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9th
Edition - 2012), pm peak hour trip generation is about 5.6 to 6 percent of daily generation.
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Per Project Description
Construction Phase - Per Project Description
San Mateo County, Annual
Park SFO
1.1 Land Usage
Parking Structure 549.63 1000sqft
Land Uses Size Metric
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5
Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)
2.2
70
1.3 User Entered Comments
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Date: 12/10/2012CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1
2 of 26
2.0 Emissions Summary
2014 2.61 0.36 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 35.06 35.06 0.01 0.00 35.17
2013 0.88 6.05 4.63 0.01 0.27 0.36 0.62 0.15 0.36 0.50 0.00 699.62 699.62 0.07 0.00 701.11
Total 3.49 6.41 4.89 0.01 0.27 0.39 0.65 0.15 0.39 0.53 0.00 734.68 734.68 0.08 0.00 736.28
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction
2.1 Overall Construction
2014 2.61 0.36 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 35.06 35.06 0.01 0.00 35.17
2013 0.88 6.05 4.63 0.01 0.38 0.36 0.73 0.15 0.36 0.50 0.00 699.62 699.62 0.07 0.00 701.11
Total 3.49 6.41 4.89 0.01 0.39 0.39 0.77 0.15 0.39 0.53 0.00 734.68 734.68 0.08 0.00 736.28
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction
3 of 26
2.2 Overall Operational
Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 0.47 0.74 4.60 0.01 0.82 0.04 0.85 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.00 719.43 719.43 0.03 0.00 720.09
Area 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 104.49 104.49 0.00 0.00 105.14
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.40 8.40 0.16 0.00 13.10
Total 1.58 0.75 4.61 0.01 0.82 0.04 0.85 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.00 832.32 832.32 0.19 0.00 838.33
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Operational
4 of 26
2.2 Overall Operational
Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 0.47 0.74 4.60 0.01 0.82 0.04 0.85 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.00 719.43 719.43 0.03 0.00 720.09
Area 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 104.49 104.49 0.00 0.00 105.14
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.40 8.40 0.16 0.00 13.10
Total 1.58 0.75 4.61 0.01 0.82 0.04 0.85 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.00 832.32 832.32 0.19 0.00 838.33
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
5 of 26
3.2 Demolition - 2013
Off-Road 0.11 0.88 0.53 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 85.15 85.15 0.01 0.00 85.34
Total 0.11 0.88 0.53 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 85.15 85.15 0.01 0.00 85.34
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.00 1.84
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.00 1.84
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
6 of 26
3.2 Demolition - 2013
Off-Road 0.11 0.88 0.53 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 85.15 85.15 0.01 0.00 85.34
Total 0.11 0.88 0.53 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 85.15 85.15 0.01 0.00 85.34
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.00 1.84
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.00 1.84
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
7 of 26
3.3 Site Preparation - 2013
Off-Road 0.07 0.60 0.34 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 54.40 54.40 0.01 0.00 54.53
Fugitive Dust 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.07 0.60 0.34 0.00 0.14 0.03 0.17 0.07 0.03 0.10 0.00 54.40 54.40 0.01 0.00 54.53
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 1.32 0.00 0.00 1.32
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 1.32 0.00 0.00 1.32
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
8 of 26
3.3 Site Preparation - 2013
Off-Road 0.07 0.60 0.34 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 54.40 54.40 0.01 0.00 54.53
Fugitive Dust 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.07 0.60 0.34 0.00 0.14 0.03 0.17 0.07 0.03 0.10 0.00 54.40 54.40 0.01 0.00 54.53
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 1.32 0.00 0.00 1.32
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 1.32 0.00 0.00 1.32
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
9 of 26
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.93 2.93 0.00 0.00 2.94
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.93 2.93 0.00 0.00 2.94
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2013
Off-Road 0.13 0.98 0.62 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 95.05 95.05 0.01 0.00 95.27
Fugitive Dust 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.13 0.98 0.62 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.18 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.00 95.05 95.05 0.01 0.00 95.27
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
10 of 26
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.93 2.93 0.00 0.00 2.94
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.93 2.93 0.00 0.00 2.94
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2013
Off-Road 0.13 0.98 0.62 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 95.05 95.05 0.01 0.00 95.27
Fugitive Dust 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.13 0.98 0.62 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.18 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.00 95.05 95.05 0.01 0.00 95.27
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction On-Site
11 of 26
Vendor 0.05 0.41 0.52 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 64.45 64.45 0.00 0.00 64.50
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.48 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 72.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 72.09
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.46 1.00 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 136.45 136.45 0.00 0.00 136.59
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2013
Off-Road 0.41 2.77 1.88 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 293.17 293.17 0.03 0.00 293.87
Total 0.41 2.77 1.88 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 293.17 293.17 0.03 0.00 293.87
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
12 of 26
Vendor 0.05 0.41 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 64.45 64.45 0.00 0.00 64.50
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 72.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 72.09
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.46 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 136.45 136.45 0.00 0.00 136.59
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2013
Off-Road 0.41 2.77 1.88 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 293.17 293.17 0.03 0.00 293.87
Total 0.41 2.77 1.88 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 293.17 293.17 0.03 0.00 293.87
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction On-Site
13 of 26
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.54 0.00 0.00 1.54
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.54 0.00 0.00 1.54
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2013
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.06 0.35 0.22 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 27.78 27.78 0.00 0.00 27.88
Total 0.06 0.35 0.22 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 27.78 27.78 0.00 0.00 27.88
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
14 of 26
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.54 0.00 0.00 1.54
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.54 0.00 0.00 1.54
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2013
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.06 0.35 0.22 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 27.78 27.78 0.00 0.00 27.88
Total 0.06 0.35 0.22 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 27.78 27.78 0.00 0.00 27.88
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction On-Site
15 of 26
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 1.37 0.00 0.00 1.37
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 1.37 0.00 0.00 1.37
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2014
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.05 0.30 0.20 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 25.14 25.14 0.00 0.00 25.22
Total 0.05 0.30 0.20 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 25.14 25.14 0.00 0.00 25.22
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
16 of 26
3.6 Paving - 2014
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.05 0.30 0.20 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 25.14 25.14 0.00 0.00 25.22
Total 0.05 0.30 0.20 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 25.14 25.14 0.00 0.00 25.22
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 1.37 0.00 0.00 1.37
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 1.37 0.00 0.00 1.37
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
17 of 26
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014
Off-Road 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.10 5.10 0.00 0.00 5.12
Archit. Coating 2.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 2.56 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.10 5.10 0.00 0.00 5.12
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.46 3.46 0.00 0.00 3.46
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.46 3.46 0.00 0.00 3.46
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
18 of 26
4.0 Mobile Detail
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.46 3.46 0.00 0.00 3.46
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.46 3.46 0.00 0.00 3.46
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014
Off-Road 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.10 5.10 0.00 0.00 5.12
Archit. Coating 2.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 2.56 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.10 5.10 0.00 0.00 5.12
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated Construction On-Site
19 of 26
Unmitigated 0.47 0.74 4.60 0.01 0.82 0.04 0.85 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.00 719.43 719.43 0.03 0.00 720.09
Mitigated 0.47 0.74 4.60 0.01 0.82 0.04 0.85 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.00 719.43 719.43 0.03 0.00 720.09
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Parking Structure 659.56 659.56 659.56 1,752,572 1,752,572
Total 659.56 659.56 659.56 1,752,572 1,752,572
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Parking Structure 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 100.00 0.00
Miles Trip %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW
5.0 Energy Detail
20 of 26
Electricity
Mitigated
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 97.21 97.21 0.00 0.00 97.82
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.27 7.27 0.00 0.00 7.32
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 97.21 97.21 0.00 0.00 97.82
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.27 7.27 0.00 0.00 7.32
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Parking Structure 136307 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.27 7.27 0.00 0.00 7.32
Total 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.27 7.27 0.00 0.00 7.32
NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Install High Efficiency Lighting
21 of 26
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Parking Structure 334173 97.21 0.00 0.00 97.82
Total 97.21 0.00 0.00 97.82
Electricity Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Parking Structure 136307 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.27 7.27 0.00 0.00 7.32
Total 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.27 7.27 0.00 0.00 7.32
NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated
22 of 26
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
Unmitigated 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Parking Structure 334173 97.21 0.00 0.00 97.82
Total 97.21 0.00 0.00 97.82
Electricity Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated
23 of 26
7.0 Water Detail
Consumer
Products
0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural
Coating
0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Consumer
Products
0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural
Coating
0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated
24 of 26
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.2 Water by Land Use
Parking Structure 5.3 / 0 8.40 0.16 0.00 13.10
Total 8.40 0.16 0.00 13.10
Indoor/Outdoor
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated
Unmitigated 8.40 0.16 0.00 13.10
Mitigated 8.40 0.16 0.00 13.10
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
25 of 26
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Parking Structure 5.3 / 0 8.40 0.16 0.00 13.10
Total 8.40 0.16 0.00 13.10
Indoor/Outdoor
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
tons/yr MT/yr
Category/Year
26 of 26
9.0 Vegetation
Parking Structure 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Waste
Disposed
ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Parking Structure 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Waste
Disposed
ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated
1 of 22
Energy Mitigation -
Water And Wastewater - BOS CONRAC Facility
Energy Use - BOS CONRAC Facility
Vehicle Trips - Based upon trip generation rates found at commercial airports in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9th
Edition - 2012), pm peak hour trip generation is about 5.6 to 6 percent of daily generation.
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Per Project Description
Construction Phase - Per Project Description
San Mateo County, Summer
Park SFO
1.1 Land Usage
Parking Structure 549.63 1000sqft
Land Uses Size Metric
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5
Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)
2.2
70
1.3 User Entered Comments
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Date: 12/10/2012CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1
2 of 22
2.0 Emissions Summary
2014 127.82 32.18 21.64 0.03 0.01 2.74 2.75 0.01 2.74 2.75 0.00 3,090.79 0.00 0.48 0.00 3,100.81
2013 10.01 80.10 46.57 0.08 18.08 3.94 22.02 9.94 3.94 13.88 0.00 8,209.40 0.00 0.90 0.00 8,228.34
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
2014 127.82 32.18 21.64 0.03 0.27 2.74 2.97 0.01 2.74 2.75 0.00 3,090.79 0.00 0.48 0.00 3,100.81
2013 10.01 80.10 46.57 0.08 18.34 3.94 22.28 9.94 3.94 13.88 0.00 8,209.40 0.00 0.90 0.00 8,228.34
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction
3 of 22
Energy 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
Mobile 2.67 3.94 25.32 0.05 5.79 0.19 5.99 0.19 0.19 0.38 4,704.70 0.19 4,708.75
Area 6.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 8.77 3.98 25.35 0.05 5.79 0.19 5.99 0.19 0.19 0.38 4,748.63 0.19 0.00 4,752.95
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Operational
2.2 Overall Operational
Energy 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
Mobile 2.67 3.94 25.32 0.05 5.79 0.19 5.99 0.19 0.19 0.38 4,704.70 0.19 4,708.75
Area 6.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 8.77 3.98 25.35 0.05 5.79 0.19 5.99 0.19 0.19 0.38 4,748.63 0.19 0.00 4,752.95
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
4 of 22
3.2 Demolition - 2013
Off-Road 8.86 70.71 42.55 0.07 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 7,510.81 0.80 7,527.57
Total 8.86 70.71 42.55 0.07 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 7,510.81 0.80 7,527.57
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.09 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 176.43 0.01 176.64
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 176.43 0.01 176.64
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
5 of 22
3.2 Demolition - 2013
Off-Road 8.86 70.71 42.55 0.07 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 0.00 7,510.81 0.80 7,527.57
Total 8.86 70.71 42.55 0.07 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 0.00 7,510.81 0.80 7,527.57
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.09 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 176.43 0.01 176.64
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 176.43 0.01 176.64
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
6 of 22
3.3 Site Preparation - 2013
Off-Road 9.90 79.99 45.35 0.07 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93 7,997.69 0.89 8,016.38
Fugitive Dust 18.07 0.00 18.07 9.93 0.00 9.93 0.00
Total 9.90 79.99 45.35 0.07 18.07 3.93 22.00 9.93 3.93 13.86 7,997.69 0.89 8,016.38
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.11 0.11 1.22 0.00 0.27 0.01 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.02 211.72 0.01 211.96
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.11 0.11 1.22 0.00 0.27 0.01 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.02 211.72 0.01 211.96
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
7 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.11 0.11 1.22 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 211.72 0.01 211.96
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.11 0.11 1.22 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 211.72 0.01 211.96
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2013
Off-Road 9.90 79.99 45.35 0.07 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93 0.00 7,997.69 0.89 8,016.38
Fugitive Dust 18.07 0.00 18.07 9.93 0.00 9.93 0.00
Total 9.90 79.99 45.35 0.07 18.07 3.93 22.00 9.93 3.93 13.86 0.00 7,997.69 0.89 8,016.38
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
8 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.09 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 176.43 0.01 176.64
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 176.43 0.01 176.64
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2013
Off-Road 6.36 48.81 31.00 0.05 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 5,240.06 0.57 5,252.04
Fugitive Dust 6.29 0.00 6.29 3.31 0.00 3.31 0.00
Total 6.36 48.81 31.00 0.05 6.29 2.73 9.02 3.31 2.73 6.04 5,240.06 0.57 5,252.04
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
9 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.09 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 176.43 0.01 176.64
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 176.43 0.01 176.64
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2013
Off-Road 6.36 48.81 31.00 0.05 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 0.00 5,240.06 0.57 5,252.04
Fugitive Dust 6.29 0.00 6.29 3.31 0.00 3.31 0.00
Total 6.36 48.81 31.00 0.05 6.29 2.73 9.02 3.31 2.73 6.04 0.00 5,240.06 0.57 5,252.04
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
10 of 22
Vendor 0.59 5.13 5.79 0.01 0.33 0.15 0.48 0.02 0.15 0.17 889.25 0.03 889.93
Worker 0.57 0.57 6.26 0.01 1.38 0.04 1.42 0.05 0.04 0.09 1,082.11 0.06 1,083.37
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.16 5.70 12.05 0.02 1.71 0.19 1.90 0.07 0.19 0.26 1,971.36 0.09 1,973.30
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2013
Off-Road 5.17 34.66 23.45 0.04 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 4,040.62 0.46 4,050.31
Total 5.17 34.66 23.45 0.04 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 4,040.62 0.46 4,050.31
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
11 of 22
Vendor 0.59 5.13 5.79 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.17 0.02 0.15 0.17 889.25 0.03 889.93
Worker 0.57 0.57 6.26 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.09 1,082.11 0.06 1,083.37
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.16 5.70 12.05 0.02 0.07 0.19 0.26 0.07 0.19 0.26 1,971.36 0.09 1,973.30
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2013
Off-Road 5.17 34.66 23.45 0.04 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 0.00 4,040.62 0.46 4,050.31
Total 5.17 34.66 23.45 0.04 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 0.00 4,040.62 0.46 4,050.31
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
12 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.09 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 176.43 0.01 176.64
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 176.43 0.01 176.64
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2013
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 5.53 33.81 20.89 0.03 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 2,917.64 0.50 2,928.05
Total 5.53 33.81 20.89 0.03 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 2,917.64 0.50 2,928.05
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
13 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.09 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 176.43 0.01 176.64
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 176.43 0.01 176.64
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2013
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 5.53 33.81 20.89 0.03 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 0.00 2,917.64 0.50 2,928.05
Total 5.53 33.81 20.89 0.03 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 0.00 2,917.64 0.50 2,928.05
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
14 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.93 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 173.14 0.01 173.33
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.08 0.93 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 173.14 0.01 173.33
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2014
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 5.20 32.09 20.70 0.03 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74 2,917.65 0.47 2,927.48
Total 5.20 32.09 20.70 0.03 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74 2,917.65 0.47 2,927.48
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
15 of 22
3.6 Paving - 2014
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 5.20 32.09 20.70 0.03 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74 0.00 2,917.65 0.47 2,927.48
Total 5.20 32.09 20.70 0.03 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74 0.00 2,917.65 0.47 2,927.48
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 173.14 0.01 173.33
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.08 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 173.14 0.01 173.33
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
16 of 22
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014
Off-Road 0.45 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 281.19 0.04 282.03
Archit. Coating 127.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 127.72 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 281.19 0.04 282.03
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.10 0.10 1.12 0.00 0.27 0.01 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.02 207.77 0.01 207.99
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.10 1.12 0.00 0.27 0.01 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.02 207.77 0.01 207.99
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
17 of 22
4.0 Mobile Detail
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.10 0.10 1.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 207.77 0.01 207.99
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.10 1.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 207.77 0.01 207.99
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014
Off-Road 0.45 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 281.19 0.04 282.03
Archit. Coating 127.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 127.72 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 281.19 0.04 282.03
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
18 of 22
Unmitigated 2.67 3.94 25.32 0.05 5.79 0.19 5.99 0.19 0.19 0.38 4,704.70 0.19 4,708.75
Mitigated 2.67 3.94 25.32 0.05 5.79 0.19 5.99 0.19 0.19 0.38 4,704.70 0.19 4,708.75
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Parking Structure 659.56 659.56 659.56 1,752,572 1,752,572
Total 659.56 659.56 659.56 1,752,572 1,752,572
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Parking Structure 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 100.00 0.00
Miles Trip %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW
5.0 Energy Detail
19 of 22
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Parking Structure 373.445 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
Total 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Install High Efficiency Lighting
20 of 22
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
Unmitigated 6.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated 6.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Parking Structure 0.373445 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
Total 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU lb/day lb/day
Mitigated
21 of 22
7.0 Water Detail
Consumer
Products
4.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural
Coating
1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 6.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Mitigated
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Consumer
Products
4.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural
Coating
1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 6.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated
22 of 22
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
8.0 Waste Detail
9.0 Vegetation
1 of 22
Energy Mitigation -
Water And Wastewater - BOS CONRAC Facility
Energy Use - BOS CONRAC Facility
Vehicle Trips - Based upon trip generation rates found at commercial airports in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9th
Edition - 2012), pm peak hour trip generation is about 5.6 to 6 percent of daily generation.
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Per Project Description
Construction Phase - Per Project Description
San Mateo County, Winter
Park SFO
1.1 Land Usage
Parking Structure 549.63 1000sqft
Land Uses Size Metric
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5
Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)
2.2
70
1.3 User Entered Comments
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Date: 12/10/2012CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1
2 of 22
2.0 Emissions Summary
2014 127.83 32.19 21.60 0.03 0.01 2.74 2.75 0.01 2.74 2.75 0.00 3,075.35 0.00 0.48 0.00 3,085.37
2013 10.02 80.11 46.53 0.08 18.08 3.94 22.02 9.94 3.94 13.88 0.00 8,190.55 0.00 0.90 0.00 8,209.47
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
2014 127.83 32.19 21.60 0.03 0.27 2.74 2.97 0.01 2.74 2.75 0.00 3,075.35 0.00 0.48 0.00 3,085.37
2013 10.02 80.11 46.53 0.08 18.34 3.94 22.28 9.94 3.94 13.88 0.00 8,190.55 0.00 0.90 0.00 8,209.47
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction
3 of 22
Energy 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
Mobile 2.86 4.30 25.78 0.05 5.79 0.19 5.99 0.19 0.19 0.38 4,333.93 0.17 4,337.48
Area 6.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 8.96 4.34 25.81 0.05 5.79 0.19 5.99 0.19 0.19 0.38 4,377.86 0.17 0.00 4,381.68
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Operational
2.2 Overall Operational
Energy 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
Mobile 2.86 4.30 25.78 0.05 5.79 0.19 5.99 0.19 0.19 0.38 4,333.93 0.17 4,337.48
Area 6.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 8.96 4.34 25.81 0.05 5.79 0.19 5.99 0.19 0.19 0.38 4,377.86 0.17 0.00 4,381.68
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
4 of 22
3.2 Demolition - 2013
Off-Road 8.86 70.71 42.55 0.07 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 7,510.81 0.80 7,527.57
Total 8.86 70.71 42.55 0.07 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 7,510.81 0.80 7,527.57
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.98 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 160.72 0.01 160.91
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.10 0.98 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 160.72 0.01 160.91
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
5 of 22
3.2 Demolition - 2013
Off-Road 8.86 70.71 42.55 0.07 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 0.00 7,510.81 0.80 7,527.57
Total 8.86 70.71 42.55 0.07 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 0.00 7,510.81 0.80 7,527.57
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.98 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 160.72 0.01 160.91
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.10 0.98 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 160.72 0.01 160.91
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
6 of 22
3.3 Site Preparation - 2013
Off-Road 9.90 79.99 45.35 0.07 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93 7,997.69 0.89 8,016.38
Fugitive Dust 18.07 0.00 18.07 9.93 0.00 9.93 0.00
Total 9.90 79.99 45.35 0.07 18.07 3.93 22.00 9.93 3.93 13.86 7,997.69 0.89 8,016.38
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.12 0.13 1.18 0.00 0.27 0.01 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.02 192.86 0.01 193.10
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.12 0.13 1.18 0.00 0.27 0.01 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.02 192.86 0.01 193.10
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
7 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.12 0.13 1.18 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 192.86 0.01 193.10
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.12 0.13 1.18 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 192.86 0.01 193.10
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2013
Off-Road 9.90 79.99 45.35 0.07 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93 0.00 7,997.69 0.89 8,016.38
Fugitive Dust 18.07 0.00 18.07 9.93 0.00 9.93 0.00
Total 9.90 79.99 45.35 0.07 18.07 3.93 22.00 9.93 3.93 13.86 0.00 7,997.69 0.89 8,016.38
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
8 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.98 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 160.72 0.01 160.91
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.10 0.98 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 160.72 0.01 160.91
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2013
Off-Road 6.36 48.81 31.00 0.05 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 5,240.06 0.57 5,252.04
Fugitive Dust 6.29 0.00 6.29 3.31 0.00 3.31 0.00
Total 6.36 48.81 31.00 0.05 6.29 2.73 9.02 3.31 2.73 6.04 5,240.06 0.57 5,252.04
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
9 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.98 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 160.72 0.01 160.91
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.10 0.98 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 160.72 0.01 160.91
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2013
Off-Road 6.36 48.81 31.00 0.05 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 0.00 5,240.06 0.57 5,252.04
Fugitive Dust 6.29 0.00 6.29 3.31 0.00 3.31 0.00
Total 6.36 48.81 31.00 0.05 6.29 2.73 9.02 3.31 2.73 6.04 0.00 5,240.06 0.57 5,252.04
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
10 of 22
Vendor 0.64 5.25 6.72 0.01 0.33 0.15 0.48 0.02 0.15 0.17 886.71 0.04 887.45
Worker 0.63 0.64 6.03 0.01 1.38 0.04 1.42 0.05 0.04 0.09 985.73 0.06 986.94
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.27 5.89 12.75 0.02 1.71 0.19 1.90 0.07 0.19 0.26 1,872.44 0.10 1,874.39
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2013
Off-Road 5.17 34.66 23.45 0.04 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 4,040.62 0.46 4,050.31
Total 5.17 34.66 23.45 0.04 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 4,040.62 0.46 4,050.31
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
11 of 22
Vendor 0.64 5.25 6.72 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.17 0.02 0.15 0.17 886.71 0.04 887.45
Worker 0.63 0.64 6.03 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.09 985.73 0.06 986.94
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.27 5.89 12.75 0.02 0.07 0.19 0.26 0.07 0.19 0.26 1,872.44 0.10 1,874.39
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2013
Off-Road 5.17 34.66 23.45 0.04 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 0.00 4,040.62 0.46 4,050.31
Total 5.17 34.66 23.45 0.04 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 0.00 4,040.62 0.46 4,050.31
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
12 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.98 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 160.72 0.01 160.91
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.10 0.98 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 160.72 0.01 160.91
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2013
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 5.53 33.81 20.89 0.03 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 2,917.64 0.50 2,928.05
Total 5.53 33.81 20.89 0.03 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 2,917.64 0.50 2,928.05
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
13 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.98 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 160.72 0.01 160.91
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.10 0.98 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 160.72 0.01 160.91
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2013
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 5.53 33.81 20.89 0.03 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 0.00 2,917.64 0.50 2,928.05
Total 5.53 33.81 20.89 0.03 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 0.00 2,917.64 0.50 2,928.05
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
14 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 157.71 0.01 157.89
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 157.71 0.01 157.89
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2014
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 5.20 32.09 20.70 0.03 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74 2,917.65 0.47 2,927.48
Total 5.20 32.09 20.70 0.03 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74 2,917.65 0.47 2,927.48
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
15 of 22
3.6 Paving - 2014
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 5.20 32.09 20.70 0.03 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74 0.00 2,917.65 0.47 2,927.48
Total 5.20 32.09 20.70 0.03 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74 0.00 2,917.65 0.47 2,927.48
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 157.71 0.01 157.89
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 157.71 0.01 157.89
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
16 of 22
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014
Off-Road 0.45 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 281.19 0.04 282.03
Archit. Coating 127.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 127.72 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 281.19 0.04 282.03
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.11 0.11 1.08 0.00 0.27 0.01 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.02 189.25 0.01 189.47
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.11 0.11 1.08 0.00 0.27 0.01 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.02 189.25 0.01 189.47
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
17 of 22
4.0 Mobile Detail
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.11 0.11 1.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 189.25 0.01 189.47
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.11 0.11 1.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 189.25 0.01 189.47
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014
Off-Road 0.45 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 281.19 0.04 282.03
Archit. Coating 127.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 127.72 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 281.19 0.04 282.03
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
18 of 22
Unmitigated 2.86 4.30 25.78 0.05 5.79 0.19 5.99 0.19 0.19 0.38 4,333.93 0.17 4,337.48
Mitigated 2.86 4.30 25.78 0.05 5.79 0.19 5.99 0.19 0.19 0.38 4,333.93 0.17 4,337.48
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Parking Structure 659.56 659.56 659.56 1,752,572 1,752,572
Total 659.56 659.56 659.56 1,752,572 1,752,572
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Parking Structure 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 100.00 0.00
Miles Trip %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW
5.0 Energy Detail
19 of 22
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Parking Structure 373.445 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
Total 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Install High Efficiency Lighting
20 of 22
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
Unmitigated 6.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated 6.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Parking Structure 0.373445 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
Total 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.93 0.00 0.00 44.20
NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU lb/day lb/day
Mitigated
21 of 22
7.0 Water Detail
Consumer
Products
4.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural
Coating
1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 6.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Mitigated
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Consumer
Products
4.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural
Coating
1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 6.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated
22 of 22
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
8.0 Waste Detail
9.0 Vegetation
FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
1000 Broadway, Suite 440Oakland, California 94607Tel: (510) 268-0461
Fax: (510) 268-0137
A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world.
July 15, 2013
Project No. 04.72130009
REST Parking Facilities
237 Harbor Way, P.O. Box 2505
South San Francisco, California 940831
Attention: Mr. Robert Simms
Subject: Plan Review, REST Parking Facilities, South San Francisco, California
Dear Mr. Simms:
In accordance with your request, Fugro Consultants, Inc., (Fugro) has reviewed the
geotechnical aspects of the Luk and Associates E-1 document dated July 9, 2013. This
plan/grading plans should achieve the removal of the existing undocumented fill below the foot
print of the proposed REST Parking Facilities, to be located at the northeast corner of North
Access Road and south of the South San Francisco Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in
South San Francisco, California. Fugro previously performed a geotechnical investigation for
the parking structure project, the results of which were presented in the report titled,
“Geotechnical Investigation Report, REST Parking Facilities, South San Francisco, California”,
dated March 12, 2003, and an updated Geotechnical Letter study dated February 12, 2013.
It should be noted that in the February 12 update letter, Fugro recommended a partial
reworking of the undocumented fills. As requested by the 3rd party reviewer for South San
Francisco, Fugro is now recommending the entire undocumented fill below the foot print of the
proposed parking structure be removed and reworked.
During the actual grading, Fugro should be on site to verify that the fill has been
completely removed. The undocumented fill that meets the requirements for fills in Section
4.1.4 of our March 2003 geotechnical report can be used to backfill the excavation resulting
from the removal of the undocumented fill. The fill should be placed and compacted as required
in Section 4.1.5 of our March 2003 report.
Rest Parking Facilities July 15, 2013 (Project No. 04.72130009)
G:\JOBDOCS\04.72130009 - REST PARKING FACILITIES UPDATE\PLAN REVIEW LTR-15JULY13.DOC 2
Our services have been limited to the review of the geotechnical aspects of the Luk and
Associates E-1 document dated July 9, 2013, and have been provided in accordance with
generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. Should you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
FUGRO WEST, INC.
Ronald L. Bajuniemi, P.E., G.E.
Principal Consultant
RLB: afp
Copies Submitted: (PDF) Addressee
(PDF) John Fugle (International Parking Design, Inc)
CTG 9/13/12 Park SFO Page 1 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
I. INTRODUCTION
This study evaluates the local area circulation impacts due to expansion of the Park SFO long term
parking facilities for San Francisco International Airport along North Access Road in South San
Francisco (see Traffic Figure 1). The existing parking garage would be expanded and result in total
on-site parking being increased from 1,901 to 3,194 spaces. Access to all parking would remain in
its existing location along North Access Road. Circulation impact evaluation has been conducted
for existing, year 2015 and year 2035 conditions, both with and without the proposed Project.
Locations evaluated are the two S. Airport Boulevard intersections with I-380 ramps, the North
Access Road intersection with the eastbound end of the I-380 freeway just south of the Park SFO
site and the North Access Road/parking facility access driveway intersections.
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1. The Park SFO facility is currently generating the following levels of traffic during the hours
of peak commute traffic on the local area circulation system.
EXISTING PARK SFO TRIP GENERATION (WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2012)*
AM PEAK HOUR OF LOCAL SYSTEM (8:00-9:00)
PM PEAK HOUR OF LOCAL SYSTEM (4:45-5:45)
IN OUT IN OUT
Passenger Vehicles 10 8 9 33
Shuttles 10 12 11 13
Total 20 20 20 46
* Wednesday preceding Labor Day weekend.
2. The proposed Project would be expected to increase Park SFO traffic by the following
increment.
PARK SFO EXPANSION TRAFFIC INCREMENT
AM PEAK HOUR OF LOCAL SYSTEM (8:00-9:00)
PM PEAK HOUR OF LOCAL SYSTEM (4:45-5:45)
IN OUT IN OUT
Passenger Vehicles 14* (28)** 6* (12)** 7* (14)** 23* (46)**
Shuttles 7 9 8 9
Total 21* (35)** 15* (21)** 15* (22)** 32* (55)**
* Trip generation at same rate as existing facility.
** Trip generation with double the surveyed rate for customer traffic. 3. The two signalized intersections at the S. Airport Boulevard/I-380 interchange as well as the
North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection just south of the site are currently operating at good levels of service (Levels A or B) during AM and PM commute peak hour
conditions. All three intersections are projected to remain at LOS A or B conditions in the
CTG 9/13/12 Park SFO Page 2 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
year 2015 during the peak commute traffic hours (without the Project). By 2035, without
Project operation is projected to remain LOS A or B at all locations, with the exception of
the S. Airport Boulevard/North Access Road/I-380 westbound on-ramp intersection, which
would degrade to LOS D during the PM peak hour. However, this would still be considered
acceptable operation.
4. All three analysis intersections would have LOS A or B AM and PM peak hour operation in
the year 2015 with the addition of Project traffic. Intersection delay would be increased by
no more than 0.6 seconds at any of the three locations.
5. Two of the three analysis intersections would have LOS A or B AM and PM peak hour
operation in the year 2035 with the addition of Project traffic. In addition, the S. Airport
Boulevard/North Access Road/I-380 westbound on-ramp intersection would maintain
LOS B AM peak hour and LOS D PM peak hour operation with the addition of Project
traffic. Intersection delay would be increased by no more than 1.1 seconds at any of the
three locations.
6. Both project driveway access intersections along North Access Road should continue to
function acceptably with increased traffic from Project expansion and traffic due to other
local area growth. The 25 to 30 percent growth in non-Project related traffic expected on
North Access Road by 2035 at the Project site should not produce any significant
operational impacts at either Project driveway intersection, although there will be an
increased frequency of northbound traffic on the approach to the I-380 end of freeway
intersection backing up in front of the garage during the PM peak traffic hour. However,
these queues should clear quickly with a green light for northbound traffic. This intersection
will be operating at good levels of service during both AM and PM commute peak hours,
and signal timing adjustments can be made to more rapidly clear traffic backups from in
front of the garage, if ever required.
7. Recommendations: No specific off-site circulation improvements are required. However,
the Project should pay its required East of 101 Capital Improvements Program area traffic
impact fee.
III. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The existing Park SFO long term parking operation (serving the San Francisco International
Airport) is located in the southern section of the City of South San Francisco adjacent to and north
of North Access Road. The eastbound end of the I-380 freeway terminates at a signalized
intersection with North Access Road just south of the Project site. Access between the site and the
I-380 freeway is provided at two locations: via North Access Road just south of the site and via
S. Airport Boulevard to the west of the site. The I-380 ramps connecting to S. Airport Boulevard
also provide access to a northbound on-ramp to the U.S.101 freeway. The I-380 freeway connecting
to North Access Road just south of the Project site also provide full access to the U.S.101 freeway
via a series of north and southbound on- and off-ramps (see Traffic Figure 2).
CTG 9/13/12 Park SFO Page 3 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
The Park SFO existing facility has a total of 1,901 long term parking spaces: 1,276 in a garage and
625 in surface parking lots to the north and east of the garage. Access to both garage and surface
parking is provided via two side-by-side driveways on the outside of a 90-degree curve along North
Access Road, about 180 and 270 feet north of the signalized North Access Road/I-380 end of
freeway intersection. The southerly driveway connection is used by both in and outbound traffic,
while the northerly driveway is used primarily by outbound traffic (see Appendix Traffic Figure 1
– Existing Site Plan).
The proposed Project would increase on-site parking from 1,901 up to 3,194 spaces through
expansion of the parking garage (on property now used for surface parking). After completion,
there would be 2,833 garage spaces and 361 surface parking spaces. Customer and shuttle bus
access would remain via the two existing driveways along North Access Road (see Appendix
Traffic Figure 2 – Proposed Project Site Plan).
IV. EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION
A. Roadways
Direct access to the Project site is provided via North Access Road. It connects to the I-380 and
U.S.101 freeways via the end of I-380 freeway connection just south of the Project site and via two
intersections with S. Airport Boulevard to the west of the site. Each roadway is briefly described
below (see Traffic Figure 2).
North Access Road extends easterly from a signalized intersection with S. Airport Boulevard and
an I-380 westbound on-ramp. About 900 feet to the east it curves 90 degrees to the south and Tees
into a signalized intersection with the end of the freeway (the west leg of the intersection). North
Access Road then continues as the east leg of the intersection around the north and east edges of
San Francisco International Airport. North Access Road adjacent to the Project site has two north
(west) bound through travel lanes, a single east (south) bound through travel lane, and a single east
(south) bound left turn lane serving vehicles turning into the Park SFO facility as well as continuing
to the I-380 signalized intersection south of the site. There are Class II striped bike lanes along the
segment of North Access Road between S. Airport Boulevard and the I-380 ramps intersections.
These lanes are part of the Bay Trail.
S. Airport Boulevard is primarily a four-lane arterial roadway in South San Francisco running
parallel to and just east of the U.S.101 freeway. Additional through and turn lanes are provided on
the approaches to its signalized intersections with an I-380 eastbound off-ramp and an I-380
westbound on-ramp & North Access Road.
Traffic Figure 3 provides a schematic presentation of approach lanes and control at major
intersections near the Project site.
CTG 9/13/12 Park SFO Page 4 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
B. Volumes
Existing weekday AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM & 4:00-6:00 PM) turn movement counts
were conducted by Crane Transportation Group on Wednesday, August 27, 20121 at the following
locations.
• S. Airport Boulevard/I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp (signal)
• S. Airport Boulevard/I-380 Westbound On-Ramp/North Access Road (signal)
• North Access Road/Eastern End of Freeway (signal)
• North Access Road/Park SFO 2 Driveways
The local street system peak traffic hours were 8:00-9:00 AM and 4:45-5:45 PM. Please see Traffic
Figure 4 for existing AM and PM peak hour volumes. It should be noted that while the Park SFO facility had higher volumes at other times during the count (7:00-8:00 AM & 4:00-5:00 PM), volumes
on the local system were significantly lower during these hours. The highest overall combined hours of ambient plus Park SFO traffic (8:00-9:00 AM & 4:45-5:45 PM) were used for analysis purposes in
this study.
C. Intersection Level of Service
1. Methodology
Transportation engineers and planners commonly use a grading system called level of service (LOS) to measure and describe the operational status of the local roadway network. LOS is a description
of the quality of a roadway facility’s operation, ranging from LOS A (indicating free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing oversaturated conditions where traffic
flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays). Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any
circulation system.
Signalized Intersections. For signalized intersections, the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council) methodology was utilized. With this
methodology, operations are defined by the level of service and average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for the entire intersection. For a signalized intersection, control delay is the
portion of the total delay attributed to traffic signal operation. This includes delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Traffic Table 1 summarizes the
relationship between delay and LOS for signalized intersections.
2. Minimum Acceptable Operation
The City of South San Francisco uses Level of Service D (LOS D) as the minimum acceptable operation for signalized intersections.
1 Wednesday preceding the Labor Day weekend holiday.
CTG 9/13/12 Park SFO Page 5 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
3. Existing Operation
Traffic Table 2 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity to the Project site are
operating acceptably during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours (LOS B or better).
V. FUTURE CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATION WITHOUT PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Year 2015
1. Volumes
Year 2015 “without Project” AM and PM peak hour volumes were developed utilizing the City’s
East of 101 traffic model, which has been recently updated to reflect revised land uses in the 328
Roebling Road and 475 Eccles Avenue projects. Resultant year 2015 without Project weekday AM
and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figure 5.
2. Intersection Level of Service
Traffic Table 3 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity to the Project site
would be operating acceptably during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours (LOS B or better). A
small increase in traffic to/from Park SFO has been assumed for this horizon year even without any
garage expansion.
B. Year 2035
1. Volumes
Year 2035 “without Project” AM and PM peak hour volumes were developed utilizing the City’s
East of 101 traffic model, which has been recently updated to reflect revised land uses in the 328
Roebling Road and 475 Eccles Avenue projects. Resultant year 2035 “without Project” weekday
AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figure 6.
2. Intersection Level of Service
Traffic Table 4 shows that all three signalized intersections in close proximity to the Project site
would be operating acceptably during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours (LOS D or better). A
small increase in traffic to/from Park SFO has been assumed for this horizon year even without any
garage expansion. All locations would be operating at either LOS A or B, with the exception of the
S. Airport Boulevard/I-380 westbound on-ramp/North Access Road intersection, which would
have LOS D operation during the PM peak hour.
CTG 9/13/12 Park SFO Page 6 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
VI. PROJECT IMPACTS
A. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Standards of Significance have been measured based on CEQA, City of South San Francisco and
C/CAG Guideline thresholds. Therefore, project impacts would be significant if they result in any
of the following conditions.
a. The project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system
(C/CAG criteria only).
b. Signalized intersection operation would change from Level of Service (LOS) A, B, C or D to
LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at
least two percent.
c. The proposed project would increase total volumes passing through an intersection by two
percent or more with signalized operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F.
B. Trip Generation
The proposed Project will add approximately 1,293 parking spaces to the Park SFO facility, with
parking increased from 1,901 up to 3,194 spaces. Trip generation associated with the expansion has
been projected utilizing trip rates per parking space developed from the existing operation on
Wednesday of the week preceding the Labor Day holiday weekend. As shown in Traffic Table 5,
trip rates have been developed for shuttle buses as well as customer/employee vehicles. In reality, a
total trip rate combining both shuttles and customer vehicles could also have been created which
would have resulted in the same number of net new vehicles being projected due to the expansion.
Based upon the Park SFO weekday trip rates, the proposed expansion would be expected to
generate 21 inbound and 15 outbound trips during the AM peak hour of commute traffic on the
local circulation system, with 15 inbound and 32 outbound trips during the PM peak hour of
commute traffic on the local circulation system (see Traffic Table 6).
As previously detailed, the Park SFO existing operation has its peak traffic hours during the AM and
PM commute peak periods offset by about an hour from times of peak traffic on the local
circulation system. The times of peak traffic on the local circulation system produce the overall
poorest operation at all analysis intersections and have therefore been used for evaluation purposes,
even though Park SFO is not at its maximum generation during these hours. In order to provide a
conservative Project evaluation and allow for daily variations in activity, the expected number of
new customer vehicles has been increased by 100 percent for analysis purposes.
Using this 100 percent safety factor increase in customer vehicles, the proposed increase in parking
spaces would be expected to generate 35 inbound and 21 outbound trips during the AM peak hour
of commute traffic on the local circulation system, with 22 inbound and 55 outbound trips during
the PM peak hour of commute traffic on the local circulation system (see Traffic Table 7). These
volumes have been used for analysis purposes.
CTG 9/13/12 Park SFO Page 7 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
C. Trip Distribution
The increment of traffic from Park SFO expansion was distributed to the local roadway system in
the same pattern as existing Park SFO traffic (see Traffic Figure 7). As shown, the vast majority of
customer/employee traffic accesses the site via the I-380 connection to North Access Road just
south of the garage. All inbound shuttles use this route, while the majority of outbound shuttles
travel to the west to S. Airport Boulevard. Overall, there would be a lesser amount of Park SFO
expansion traffic expected to travel along S. Airport Boulevard than via I-380 just south of the site.
The AM and PM peak hour Project traffic increment is presented in Traffic Figure 8, while 2015
and 2035 “with Project” AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Traffic Figures 9 and 10,
respectively.
D. Year 2015 Project Intersection Impacts
The addition of Park SFO expansion traffic would result in no significant impacts at any signalized
intersection near the Project site. Operation of the S. Airport Boulevard intersections with the I-380
ramps would remain LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak hours, while the North Access
Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection just south of the garage would be operating at LOS B
during both commute peak traffic hours. Project traffic would produce only a 0.7 second or less
increase in delay at the three analysis intersections.
E. Year 2035 Project Intersection Impacts
The addition of Park SFO expansion traffic would result in no significant impacts at any signalized
intersection near the Project site. Operation of the S. Airport Boulevard intersections with the I-380
ramps would remain LOS A or B during the AM and PM peak hours, with the exception of
S. Airport Boulevard at the I-380 westbound on-ramp, which would be operating at an acceptable
LOS D during the PM peak hour (with or without the Project). The North Access Road/I-380 end
of freeway intersection just south of the garage would be operating at LOS B during both commute
peak traffic hours. Project traffic would produce only a 0.6 second or less increase in delay at the
three analysis intersections.
F. Project Driveway Access Intersections
The two project access intersections along North Access Road would remain in their existing
locations along the outside of a 90-degree curve. Sight lines are good from either driveway to both
the west (almost 500 feet) and to the south (from 180 to 270 feet depending on the driveway, to the
I-380 end of freeway signalized intersection). Vehicles making left turns from either site driveway
are infrequently delayed during PM commute conditions due to northbound North Access Road
backups extending past the site frontage from a red signal at the I-380 end of freeway intersection.
However, these backups clear quickly and would be expected to continue to clear relatively quickly
as area traffic increases. No significant impacts would be expected at either project access driveway
intersection with proposed expansion traffic. It should be noted, however, that should northbound
PM peak hour backups from the I-380 freeway signalized intersection extending in front of the
garage driveways ever become a problem, signal timing adjustments could be made to significantly
reduce these queues. The North Access Road/I-380 end of freeway intersection will be operating at
CTG 9/13/12 Park SFO Page 8 MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
good levels of service during both commute peak traffic hours in 2035, and Caltrans and the City
would be able to easily adjust timing without significantly degrading level of service.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
No specific off-site circulation improvements are required. However, the Project should pay its
required East of 101 Capital Improvements Program area traffic impact fee.
This Report is intended for presentation and use in its entirety, together with all of its supporting exhibits, schedules, and appendices. Crane Transportation Group will have no liability for any use of the Report other than in its entirety, such as providing an excerpt to a third party or quoting a portion of the
Report. If you provide a portion of the Report to a third party, you agree to hold CTG harmless against any liability to such third parties based upon their
use of or reliance upon a less than complete version of the Report.
CTG 9/13/12 Park SFO MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Traffic Table 1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA
Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
(Seconds Per Vehicle)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression
and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or
short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable
progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity (V/C)
ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.1 to 55.0
E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. 55.1 to 80.0
F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board).
CTG 9/13/12 Park SFO MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Traffic Table 2
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
S. Airport Blvd./N. Access Rd./ I-380 WB On-Ramp (Signal) B-10.3(1) B-19.4
S. Airport Blvd./I-380 EB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-16.8(1) A-6.1
N. Access Rd./I-380 End of Freeway (Signal) B-10.0(1) A-9.4
(1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Traffic Table 3 YEAR 2015 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
(WITHOUT & WITH PROJECT)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
W/O
Project
With
Project
W/O
Project
With
Project
S. Airport Blvd./ N. Access Rd./I-380 WB On-Ramp (Signal)
B-12.5(1) B-13.2 C-23.8 C-24.3
S. Airport Blvd./ I-380 EB Off-Ramp (Signal)
B-16.8(1) B-16.8 B-10.1 B-10.1
N. Access Rd./I-380 End of Freeway (Signal) B-10.2(1) B-10.4 A-9.6 B-10.3
(1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
CTG 9/13/12 Park SFO MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Traffic Table 4
YEAR 2035 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
(WITHOUT & WITH PROJECT)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection W/O Project With Project W/O Project With Project
S. Airport Blvd./ N. Access Rd./I-380 WB On-Ramp (Signal)
C-20.6(1) C-21.0 D-38.0 D-38.4
S. Airport Blvd./ I-380 EB Off-Ramp
(Signal)
C-21.9(1) C-21.9 B-12.8 B-12.9
N. Access Rd./I-380 End of
Freeway (Signal)
B-10.5(1) B-10.9 A-10.0 B-10.6
(1) Signalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. Source: Crane Transportation Group
CTG 9/13/12 Park SFO MARK D. CRANE, P.E. • CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Traffic Table 5
EXISTING PARK SFO WEEKDAY TRIP RATES
AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic
(8:00-9:00)
PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic
(4:45-5:45)
Existing
Vol
Rate/100 Total
Spaces
Vol
Rate/100 Total
Spaces Totals In Out In Out In Out In Out
Auto 20 Auto 8 1.052 0.421 Auto 9 Auto 33 9.473 1.736
Shuttle 10 Shuttle 12 0.526 0.631 Shuttle 11 Shuttle 13 0.579 0.684
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Traffic Table 6
PARK SFO PROPOSED PROJECT
WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION INCREMENT DURING
PEAK HOURS OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
(1,293 NET NEW SPACES)
AM Peak Hour (8:00-9:00) PM Peak Hour (4:45-5:45)
In Out In Out
Rate/100 New Spaces Volume Rate/100 New Spaces Volume Rate/100 New Spaces Volume Rate/100 New Spaces Volume
Auto 1.052 14 0.421 6 0.473 7 1.736 23
Shuttle 0.526 7 0.631 9 0.579 8 0.684 9
Total 21 15 15 32
Trip Rate Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon existing Park SFO operations Traffic Table 7
PARK SFO PROPOSED PROJECT WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION INCREMENT
WITH 100 % AUTO TRIP GENERATION INCREASE SAFETY FACTOR
(1,293 NET NEW SPACES)
AM Peak Hour (8:00-9:00) PM Peak Hour (4:45-5:45)
In Volume Out Volume In Volume Out Volume
Auto 28 12 14 46
Shuttle 7 9 8 9
Total 35 21 22 55
Trip Rate Source: Crane Transportation Group based upon existing Park SFO operations