HomeMy WebLinkAbout250_E_Grand_Draft_EIR
D Aa-':~ E lV. AO lme l'~a 11 Jac'~ Re JO A'~
/
~
CO_\JTE_\JTS
Page
C ha pte r 1: In trod uctio n.................................................................................................................... 1-1
Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report.................................................................................. 1-1
E IR Rev i e w Pro c e s s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 - 1
Content and Organization of the EIR............................................................................................... 1-2
Chapter 2: Executive Summary and Impact Overview................................................................. 2-1
Pr 0 po sed Pr oj e ct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 1
Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................... 2-1
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts That Cannot be Mitigated to a Level of Less Than
Significant.................................................................................................................... ..............2-1
Impacts Determined Not to be Significant................................................................................ 2- 2
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes....................................................................... 2- 2
Growth - Induc ing Impacts.......................................................................................................... 2- 3
Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................... 2- 3
Chapter 3: Project Description ................................................................................................. .......3-1
Proj ect Location and Site Conditions............................................................................................... 3-1
Proj ect Description................................................................................................................... ........3-1
Proj ect 0 bj ectives ............................................................................................................................ 3 - 2
Intended Uses of This EIR ............................................................................................................... 3 - 2
C ha pte r 4 : Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................ 4-1
In tr 0 d u c ti 0 n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1
Setting........................................................................................................................ ......................4-1
Impact Analysis...................................................................................................................... ..........4-6
S c en i c Vis ta .............................................................................................................................. . 4 - 6
Scenic Highways...................................................................................................................... .4-6
V isual Character ........................................................................................................................ 4- 7
L i gh t an d G I ar e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 8
Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts................................................................................................... 4- 9
C ha pte r 5: Air Quality...................................................................................................................... 5-1
In tr 0 d u c ti 0 n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 1
Setting........................................................................................................................ ...................... 5-1
Met eo r 0 logy an d C I im at 0 logy ................................................................................................... 5 - 1
Re gulatory Setting..................................................................................................................... 5 - 2
Existing Air Quality................................................................................................................... 5-4
Impact Analysis...................................................................................................................... .......... 5 - 5
Standards of Significance .......................................................................................................... 5 - 5
Conflict with Air Quality Plan................................................................................................... 5 - 6
Air Quality Standards................................................................................................................ 5 - 7
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Cumulatively Air Quality Impacts.......................................................................................... 5 -12
Sensitive Receptors................................................................................................................. 5 -13
o do rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 - 14
Chapter 6: Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 6-1
In tr 0 d u c ti 0 n .............................................................................................................................. . . . . . .. 6 - 1
Setting........................................................................................................................ ...................... 6-1
Regional Seismicity.................................................................................................................. 6-1
Re gional Geo 10 gy...................................................................................................................... 6-2
Sit e G eo logy an d S 0 i Is. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 - 3
Lands Ii ding and S lope Stability ................................................................................................ 6- 3
Primary Seismic Hazards - Surface Fault Rupture ...................................................................6-4
Secondary Seismic Hazards...................................................................................................... 6-4
Re gulatory Setting..................................................................................................................... 6- 5
Impact Analysis...................................................................................................................... ......... 6- 7
Standards of Significance.......................................................................................................... 6- 7
Surface Fault Rupture............................................................................................................... 6-8
Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking........................................................................... 6-9
Seismically Induced Ground Failure, incl. Liquefaction & Ground Surface Settlement ........ 6-10
Lands Ii de s .............................................................................................................................. . 6-11
Volcanic Hazards.................................................................................................................... 6-11
Unstable Soil Materials........................................................................................................... 6-11
Expansive Soils....................................................................................................................... 6-12
Soil Erosion....................................................................................................................... ...... 6-12
Septic Systems....................................................................................................................... . 6-13
Loss of Mineral Resources...................................................................................................... 6-13
Unique Geo logical Features.................................................................................................... 6-14
Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts.................................................................................. 6-14
Chapter 7: Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 7-1
In tr 0 d u c ti 0 n .............................................................................................................................. . . . . . .. 7 - 1
Setting........................................................................................................................ ...................... 7-2
Re gulatory Setting..................................................................................................................... 7-2
Site His to ry .............................................................................................................................. . 7 - 4
V ic inity Hazardous Materials Sites........................................................................................... 7-5
Current Contamination Levels and Health Risks...................................................................... 7-6
Impact Analysis...................................................................................................................... ......... 7-7
Standards of Significance.......................................................................................................... 7-7
Hazardous Materials Use, Transport......................................................................................... 7-8
Accidental Hazardous Materials Release................................................................................ 7-10
Hazardous Materials Sites....................................................................................................... 7-11
Hazardous Materials Near Schools......................................................................................... 7-15
Airport Land Use Plan............................................................................................................ 7-1 7
Adopted Emergency Response Plan ....................................................................................... 7-1 7
Wi I d I an d F ires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 - 1 7
Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts.......................................................... 7-18
C ha pte r 8: Hyd rology ....................................................................................................................... 8-1
In tr 0 d u c ti 0 n .............................................................................................................................. . . . . . .. 8 - 1
Setting........................................................................................................................ ...................... 8-1
Climate and Topography........................................................................................................... 8-1
Re gi onal Hydro logy .................................................................................................................. 8- 2
Site Hydro logy .......................................................................................................................... 8 - 2
PAGE ii
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CONTENTS
Groundwater................................................................................................................... ........... 8- 2
F 100 ding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 - 3
Re gulatory Setting..................................................................................................................... 8- 3
Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................................. . 8- 7
Standards of Significance.......................................................................................................... 8- 7
Water Quality Standards or Water Discharge Requirements.................................................... 8- 8
Groundwater Depletion/Recharge........................................................................................... 8-12
Increased Erosion or Siltation to Receiving Waters................................................................ 8-13
C h an g e s in S to rm w at e r Runoff ............................................................................................... 8 - 1 4
Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality ..................................................................... 8-14
Housing Within a 100- Year Flood Hazard Area..................................................................... 8-15
Significant Risk Involving Flooding ....................................................................................... 8-15
Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow ........................................................................... 8-15
Cumulative Hydrology Impact Analysis................................................................................. 8-16
C ha pte r 9: Land Use......................................................................................................................... 9-1
In tr 0 d u c ti 0 n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 1
Setting........................................................................................................................ ...................... 9-1
Hi s tory .............................................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . 9 - 1
Existing Uses......................................................................................................................... .... 9- 2
Re gulatory Setting..................................................................................................................... 9- 2
Impact Analysis...................................................................................................................... .......... 9- 3
Standards of Significance.......................................................................................................... 9- 2
D i vi d in g E s tab lis h e d Co mm un i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 2
Conflict with Plans and Policies ................................................................................................9-2
Conflict with Conservation Plan................................................................................................ 9-6
C ha pte r 10: Noise........................................................................................................................ .... 10-1
In tr 0 d u c ti 0 n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 0 - 1
Setting........................................................................................................................ .................... 10-1
Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise.................................................................. 10-1
Existing No ise Environment.................................................................................................... 1 0- 2
Re gulatory Setting................................................................................................................... 10-2
Impact Analysis...................................................................................................................... ........ 10- 5
Standards of Significance ........................................................................................................ 1 0- 5
Permanent Noise Increases...................................................................................................... 10-6
Noise, Groundborne Vibration................................................................................................ 10-6
A irp 0 rt s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 0 - 7
Cumulative Noise Impacts....................................................................................................... 10- 7
Chapter 11: Transportation and Circulation ...............................................................................11-1
Introduction.................................................................................................................. .................. 11-1
Setting........................................................................................................................ .................... 11-1
Road way s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 - 1
Intersection Operation............................................................................................................. 11- 5
Intersection Signalization Requirements................................................................................. 11-6
V e h i c Ie Que u in g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 - 9
Freeway Operation................................................................................................................ 11-10
Off-Ramp Operation at Diverge From Freeway Mainline.................................................... 11-12
On-Ramp Operation .............................................................................................................. 11-13
Transit & Shuttle Service....................................................................................................... 11-14
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...........................................................................................11-16
City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Program....................... 11-17
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE iii
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Future Base Case (Without Project) Conditions ................................................................... 11-18
Year 2015 Base Case Operating Conditions......................................................................... 11-19
Impact Analysis...................................................................................................................... ..... 11-24
Significance Criteria.............................................................................................................. 11-24
Proj ect Trip Generation......................................................................................................... 11-26
Project Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 11-26
On - S ite Circulation and Access ............................................................................................ 11-27
Parkin g .............................................................................................................................. . . .. 11- 3 0
Rail Safety......................................................................................................................... .... 11-30
Proj ect and Cumulative Intersection Operation.................................................................... 11-31
Project and Cumulative Vehicle Queuing............................................................................. 11-38
Cumulative Freeway Mainline and On/Off-Ramp Operation............................................... 11-42
C ha pte r 12 : Utilities.................................................................................................................... .... 12-1
In tr 0 d u c ti 0 n .............................................................................................................................. . . . .. 12 - 1
Setting........................................................................................................................ .................... 12-1
Water S u pp I y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12-1
Wastewater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12-2
Re gulatory Setting................................................................................................................... 12-4
Storm Drainage F ac ilitie s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12- 6
Solid Waste........................................................................................................................ ..... 12-6
Impact Analysis...................................................................................................................... ....... 12- 7
Standards of Significance........................................................................................................ 12- 7
Increase in Wastewater Flows................................................................................................. 12- 7
Effects on Groundwater, Water Quality, and Public Health................................................... 12-9
Utility Infrastructure Capac ity ................................................................................................ 12- 9
Landfill Capacity................................................................................................................... 12-10
Energy .............................................................................................................................. ..... 12-10
Cumulative Utili tie s Impacts................................................................................................. 12-11
C ha pte r 13: Alte rnatives ............................................................................................................... 13-1
In tr 0 d u c ti 0 n .............................................................................................................................. . . . .. 13 - 1
Proj ect 0 bj ectives .......................................................................................................................... 13 - 2
Alternatives Analysis..................................................................................................................... 13 - 2
No Proj ect Alternative............................................................................................................. 13 - 3
Reduced Intensity Alternative................................................................................................. 13-4
Reduced Parking Alternative .................................................................................................. 13 - 8
Environmentally Superior Alternative......................................................................................... 13 -12
C ha pte r 14: Refe rences .................................................................................................................. 14-1
Report Preparers ............................................................................................................................ 14-1
References .............................................................................................................................. ....... 14-1
Appendices
Appendix A - Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comments
Appendix B - Initial Study
Appendix C - Air Quality Analysis
Appendix D - Traffic Analysis
Appendix E - Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
PAGE iv
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CONTENTS
Figures
3-1: Site Location and Vicinity ......................................................................................................3-5
3 - 2 : Sit e P I an. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 7
4-1 : Site Photo 1 ............................................................................................................................ 4- 3
4- 2: Site Photo 2 ............................................................................................................................ 4- 3
4- 3: Site Photo 3 ............................................................................................................................ 4-4
4-4: Site Photo 4 ............................................................................................................................ 4-4
4- 5: Site Photo 5 ............................................................................................................................ 4- 5
4-6: Site Photo 6 ............................................................................................................................ 4- 5
4- 7: Perspective Drawing Looking East Along Landscape Mall................................................... 4- 7
4-8: Perspective Drawing Looking South from E. Grand Ave. Toward Entry.............................. 4-8
12-1 : Proj ect Area Sanitary Sewer System.................................................................................... 12-4
2-1 :
5-1:
5-2:
7-1:
7-2:
8-1:
8-2:
1 0-1 :
10-2:
11-1:
11-2:
11-3:
11-4 :
11-5 :
11-6 :
11-7:
11-8 :
11-9 :
11-10:
11-11:
11-12:
11-13:
11-14:
11-15:
11-16:
13-1:
13-2:
13-3 :
13 -4 :
Tables
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures .........................................................2-4
Summary of Criteria Air Pollution Monitoring Data .............................................................5-5
Predicted 8-Hour Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Levels (in PPM) .....................................5-11
Select General Plan Policies Regarding Hazardous Materials............................................... 7-4
Current Shallow Soils Contamination Levels........................................................................ 7-6
Potential Pollutants from Industrial Activities....................................................................... 8-8
Impervious vs. Pervious Surface Areas................................................................................ 8-13
Definition of Acoustical Terms ............................................................................................10-3
Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry..................................... 10-4
Intersection Levels of Service Existing & Year 2015 AM Peak Hour................................. 11-7
Intersection Levels of Service Existing & Year 2015 PM Peak Hour .................................11-8
Intersection Signalization Requirements Existing & Year 2015 .......................................... 11-9
Summary of Existing U. S. 101 Freeway Operation........................................................... 11-11
Detailed u.S. 101 Freeway Existing Operating Conditions Dec. 2005 .............................11-11
Off-Ramp Capacity & Volumes at Diverge from Freeway Mainline ................................11-12
On-Ramp Capacity & Volumes Existing and Year 2015 ................................................... 11-13
Transit Service - South San Francisco............................................................................... 11-14
Alliance Shuttle Service - South San Francisco................................................................ 11-15
Trip Generation - Approved & Planned Local Area Development By 2015..................... 11-18
95th Percentile Vehicle Queues - Year 2015......................................................................11-21
Year 2015 U. S. Freeway Existing Operating Conditions................................................... 11-24
Project Trip Generation ......................................................................................................11-26
Year 2015 Proj ect Traffic Distribution............................................................................... 11-26
Year 2015 Base Case + Project 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues........................................ 11-29
Mitigated Intersection Level of Service Year 2015............................................................11-33
Trip Generation - No Project Alternative............................................................................ 13-4
Trip Generation - Reduced Intensity Alternative................................................................. 13-8
Comparison of Parking Provisions - Reduced Parking Alternative..................................... 13-9
Summary Comparison of Impacts, Proposed Project and Alternatives.............................. 13-13
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE v
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE vi
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
1
I \JTRODLCTIO \J
PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The California Environmental Quality Act and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder
(together "CEQA") require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared for any
project which may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an informational
document, the purposes of which, according to CEQA are". . . to provide public agencies and
the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is
likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a
project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project." The information
contained in this EIR is intended to be objective and impartial, and to enable the reader to
arrive at an independent judgment regarding the significance of the impacts resulting from
the proposed project.
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential environmental impacts that
may be associated with the Britannia Pointe Grand II Modification Project at 250-270 East
Grand Avenue in the City of South San Francisco, California (the "Project"). The Project
applicant is Slough Estates International and the Lead Agency is the City of South San
Francisco. The applicant is seeking modifications to the existing Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Permit, Use Permit and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan in addition
to Design Review to enable the demolition of four existing 1 & 2 story buildings and the
construction in their place of three 3-story and 5-story office/R&D buildings, an eight-level
parking garage and landscape improvements. Approval must be given by the City of South
San Francisco before any work can begin.
E I R REVI EW PROCESS
This EIR is intended to enable City decision makers, public agencies and interested citizens
to evaluate the broad environmental issues associated with the overall character and concept
of the proposed Project. An EIR does not control the agency's ultimate discretion on the
project, however, as required under CEQA, the agency must respond to each significant
effect identified in the EIR by making findings and if necessary, by making a statement of
overriding considerations. In accordance with California law, the EIR on the Project must be
certified before any action on the Project can be taken.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 1-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Together, this Draft EIR (DEIR) and the Final EIR (FEIR) will constitute the EIR for the
Project. During the review period for this Draft EIR, interested individuals, organizations and
agencies may offer their comments on its evaluation of project impacts and alternatives. The
comments received during this public review period will be compiled and presented together
with responses to these comments in the Final EIR. The South San Francisco City Council
will review the EIR documents and will determine whether or not the EIR provides a full and
adequate appraisal of the Project and its alternatives.
In reviewing the Draft EIR, readers should focus on the sufficiency of the document in
identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts associated with the Project.
Readers are also encouraged to review and comment on ways in which significant impacts
associated with this Project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when
they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better
ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts. Reviewers should explain the
basis for their comments and, whenever possible, should submit data or references in support
of their comments.
The 45 day review period for the Draft EIR is from December 21, 2007 to February 4,
2008. Comments should be submitted in writing during this review period to:
Chadrick Smalley, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Please contact Chadrick Smalley at 650-877-8535 if you have any questions. After reviewing
the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and following action to certify the EIR as adequate and
complete, the South San Francisco City Council will be in a position to approve the Project
as currently proposed, revised, or rejected. This determination will be based upon
information presented on the entirety of the Project, its impacts and probable consequences,
and the possible alternatives and mitigation measures available.
CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR
A Notice of Preparation (NaP) was issued in September, 2006 to solicit comments from
public agencies and the public regarding the scope of the environmental evaluation for the
Project. The Nap and all written responses, as well as the Initial Study are presented in
Appendix A. The responses were taken into consideration during the preparation of the Draft
EIR.
Pursuant to CEQA, the Initial Study prepared for the Project identified effects determined not
to be significant and focused the EIR on the effects determined to be potentially significant.
Project-related impacts to the following CEQA topics were determined not to be significant
PAGE 1-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
and no additional analysis is included in this Draft EIR: Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. For
analysis of these topics, please refer to the Initial Study included in Appendix A. As reflected
in the content of this Draft EIR, the following CEQA topics were determined to have impacts
that were potentially significant and required further analysis in this Draft EIR: Aesthetics,
Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology, Land Use,
Noise, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities and Service Systems.
Following this brief introduction to the EIR, the document's ensuing chapters include the
following:
Chapter 2: Executive Summary and Impact Overview
Chapter 3: Project Description
Chapter 4: Aesthetics (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Vis")
Chapter 5: Air Quality (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Air")
Chapter 6: Geology and Soils (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Geo")
Chapter 7: Hazardous Materials (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Haz")
Chapter 8: Hydrology (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Hydro")
Chapter 9: Land Use
Chapter 10: Noise (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Noise")
Chapter 11: Transportation and Circulation (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Traf')
Chapter 12: Utilities and Service Systems (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Util")
Chapter 13: Alternatives
Chapter 14: References
Appendices
In Chapters 4 through 12, existing conditions are discussed in the Setting, followed by an
evaluation of environmental impacts that may be associated with the Project and the
mitigation measures or standard conditions of approval that would reduce or eliminate these
impacts.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 1-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 1-4
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
2
EXECL TIVE SLMMARY A \JD IMPACT OVERVIEW
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed Project is a modification and expansion of an existing Research and
Development Business Park that would involve the demolition of four existing 1 & 2 story
buildings located within the Britannia Pointe Grand II Development totaling 1 77,938 square
feet, and the construction of one 3-story and two 5-story office/R&D buildings totaling
461,500 square feet and an eight-level parking garage. The Project would include notable
landscaping improvements, including new landscaped plazas and a landscaped pedestrian
mall to increase the walkability of the site.
IMPACTS A \lD MITIGATIO\l MEASURES
The analyses in Chapters 4 through 12 of this document provide a description of the existing
setting, potential impacts of Project implementation, and recommended mitigation measures
to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts that could occur as a result of Project
implementation. Table 2.1 at the end of this chapter lists a summary statement of each impact
and corresponding mitigation measures, as well as the level of significance after mitigation.
Significant impacts require the implementation of mitigation measures, or alternatives, or a
finding by the Lead Agency that the measures are infeasible for specific reasons. For some
of the significant impacts, mitigation measures may not be effective in reducing the impacts
to a less than significant level. These impacts are designated significant and unavoidable.
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A
LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The following Project related impact has been identified as significant and unavoidable:
Impact Traf-21: Freeway Mainline Operation. The following U.S.I0l mainline segment
would receive a significant impact due to the addition of project traffic to
year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-12):
· U.S.I0l Southbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interchange)
This impact is more fully discussed in Chapter 11: Transportation and Circulation.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
IMPACTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The following impact topic areas related to the 250-270 East Grand Avenue Project would be
considered to have no impact or a less than significant impact with no mitigation required
and were scoped out in the Initial Study (attached as Appendix A) with no additional analysis
included in this Draft EIR:
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing,
Public Services, and Recreation.
The following impact topic areas were analyzed in this Draft EIR and determined to have no
impact, a less than significant impact, or to be less than significant after mitigation:
Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazardous Materials, Hydrology, Land Use,
Noise, and Utilities and Service Systems.
The only CEQA topic area not listed above is Transportation and Circulation, which included
a significant and unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Impact analysis is included in Chapters 4 through 12 of this Draft EIR. Impacts and
mitigation measures are summarized in Table 2-1 at the end of this chapter.
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could be caused
by the proposed Project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable
resources, and secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to
similar uses. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such
current consumption is justified. The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of
significant irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use which would commit future
generations to specific uses; 2) irreversible changes from environmental actions; and 3)
consumption of non-renewable resources.
Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations
The Project would not change the land use at the Project site, but would remain a business
park targeting research and development/office uses.
Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions
Irreversible changes to the physical environment could stem from the accidental release of
hazardous materials associated with development and/or on-going use of the site as a
research facility. However, compliance with hazardous materials regulations and policies as
outlined in Chapter 7 of this document, Hazardous Materials, is expected to maintain this
potential impact at a less-than-significant level.
PAGE 2-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion
of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. No agricultural lands would be
converted and no access to mining reserves would be lost with implementation of the Project.
The Project would result in the consumption of some nonrenewable resources during
construction and operation, such as electricity and construction materials. While this would
require additional energy of several types for construction and on-going use, it would not
require the construction of major new lines to deliver energy, and it is anticipated service
providers can provide the capacity to serve this Project.
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed Project would not be expected to result in a direct increase in the local
population, since it would not result in the construction of any new housing units. The
proposed Project would not require any major increases in the capacity of local infrastructure
which might later be used to support new housing development, and would not result in the
extension of infrastructure into areas which might ultimately support new housing.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact consists of an
impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR
together with other projects causing related impacts. The Cumulative scenario used in this
EIR was the same as that used for the Genentech Corporate Master Plan EIR 1. Of course the
Genentech project was included in the cumulative scenario for this EIR while this Project's
impact was analyzed (so this Project was not included in the base case scenario). More
specific information regarding the cumulative scenario can be found at the beginning of
Appendix D of this document.
"Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered
together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The
cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from
the incremental impact of the Project when added to other closely related past, present, and
reasonable foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
Cumulative impacts were analyzed within each topic area in Chapters 4 through 12 of this
document and found to be less than significant with the following exception.
The development of the Project site as proposed would contribute to reduced freeway Levels
of Service, representing a significant and unavoidable adverse cumulative impacts. This
impact is more fully discussed as Impact Traf-21 in Chapter 11 of this document.
1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by EIP Associates and Korve Engineering, Genentech Corporate
Facilities Master Plan Draft EIR, December 2006.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Traf-21: Freeway Mainline
Operation. The following U.S.lOl mainline
segment would receive a significant impact due
to the addition of proj ect traffic to year 2015
Base Case volumes (see Table 11-12).
. U.S.lOl Southbound (to the north of the
Oyster Point interchange)
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-21: Improvements for Freeway Mainline
Operation.
U.S.lOl Southbound (to the North of the Oyster Point
Interchange, AM Peak Hour)
Mitigation of this impact would require widening the
current freeway or construction of a new freeway.
Given the location of the mainline freeway and its
close proximity to surrounding development, such
mitigation is not feasible. Additionally, such
mitigation would be prohibitively expensive in
relation to the types of land uses it would benefit.
Given these specific concerns, mitigation of Impact 8
is not feasible as defined by CEQA. (See Pub.
Resources Code ~2l 061.1 (defining "feasible" as
"capable of being accomplished. . . taking into account
economic... and technological factors.").) Under
CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to
balance public objectives, including specific economic
concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub.
Resources Code ~2l081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA
Guidelines, ~ 15021. subd. (d).) Where economic
concerns render a particular mitigation measure
infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure.
(See Pub. Resources Code ~2l081. subd. (a)(3).)
As there are no feasible mitigation measures that can
reduce the significance of Impact Traf-2l to a less
than significant level, this impact would be considered
a significant and unavoidable impact.
Significant
and
Unavoidable
1m pact Air-I: Construction Dust and
Exhaust. Construction activity involves a high
potential for the emission of air pollutants.
Construction activities would generate exhaust
emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive
particulate matter emissions that would affect
local air quality. This would be a potentially
significant impact.
Air-I: Dust Suppression and Exhaust Reduction
Procedures. The following basic, enhanced and
additional measures are recommended for inclusion in
construction contracts to control fugitive dust
emissions during construction. Measures to reduce
construction exhaust will additionally reduce
particulate matter form the exhaust of diesel-powered
construction vehicles.
Basic Measures
. Water all active construction areas at least twice
daily.
. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply
(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-4 250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
roads, parking areas and staging areas at
construction site.
. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or
other materials that can be blown by the wind.
. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other
loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least two feet of freeboard.
. Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all
paved access road, parking areas and staging
areas at construction sites.
. Sweep streets daily (preferably with water
sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
. Limit construction equipment idling time.
. Properly tune construction equipment engines,
and install particulate traps on diesel equipment.
Enhanced Measures
. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to
inactive construction areas (previously graded
areas inactive for ten days or more).
. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-
toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt,
sand, etc.).
. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures
to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly
as possible.
Additional Measures
. Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or
wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and
equipment leaving the site.
. Suspend excavation and grading activity when
winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.
Measures to Reduce Construction Exhaust
The measures listed below should be implemented to
reduce diesel particulate matter and NOx emissions
from on-site construction equipment:
. At least 50 percent of the heavy-duty, off-road
equipment used for construction shall be CARB-
certified off-road engines or equivalent, or use
alternative fuels (such as biodiesel or water
emulsion fuel) that result in lower emissions.
. Use add-on control devices such as diesel
oxidation catalysts or particulate filters.
. Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate
emissions from off-road diesel powered
equipment. The project shall ensure that
emissions from all construction diesel powered
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
1m pact Air-3: Cum ulative Air Quality
1m pacts. The proposed Proj ect would
contribute to regional air quality emissions but
would not exceed BAAQMD emissions
thresholds for ROG, NOx and PMlO. This
would be considered a less than significant
impact.
While the Proj ect is not expected to have a
significant impact on cumulative air quality, the
following mitigation measure has been
proposed to ensure that cumulative air quality
impacts remain less than significant.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
equipment used on the project site do not exceed
40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in
anyone hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40
percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be
prohibited from use on the site until repaired.
. The contractor shall install temporary electrical
service whenever possible to avoid the need for
independently powered equipment (e.g.,
compressors ).
. Diesel equipment standing idle for more than two
minutes shall be turned off. This would include
trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate
or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete
trucks could keep their engines running
continuously as long as they were on site.
. Properly tune and maintain equipment for low
emissions.
With the implementation of appropriate mitigation
measures, impacts related to construction dust and
exhaust would be reduced to a less than significant
level.
Issues of toxic air contaminants related to construction
activities are further addressed with mitigation
measures Haz-3b and Haz-4a.
Air-3: Transportation Demand Management
Program. Implementation of an updated
Transportation Demand Management Program is
required, as described in Mitigation Measure Traf-l.
This Plan would reduce the number of vehicle trips to
and from the Project site. The following components
should be considered for inclusion in the updated Plan
to further reduce project impacts to air quality:
. Support shuttle service to BART and Caltrain.
There are currently shuttles that serve employers
in the area.
. Provide bicycle amenities so that employees
could bicycle to the proj ect. Such amenities could
include safe onsite bicycle access and convenient
storage (bike racks). Amenities for employees
could include secure bicycle parking, lockers, and
shower facilities
. The project should include sidewalks with shade
trees that provide safe and convenient access to
the proj ect and any shuttle or future bus stops that
serve the proj ect.
. Impact Traf-ll of the Transportation and
Circulation Section discusses the on-site
pedestrian and bicycle circulation incorporated
into the proj ect. Mitigation Measure Traf-ll
would require pedestrian connections to adjacent
roadways and between proposed and existing
buildings in the Britannia Pointe Grand II
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-6 250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
business park to ensure adequate pedestrian
circulation.
. F or all buildings, provide outdoor electrical
outlets and encourage the use of electrical
landscape maintenance equipment. Also, provide
electrical outlets for recharging electrical vehicles
in commercial and industrial parking
lots/structures. Provide 110 and 220 V 011 outlets
at all loading docks and prohibit trucks from
using their auxiliary equipment powered by diesel
engines for more than 5 minutes.
. Provide new trees that would shade buildings and
walkways in summer to reduce the cooling loads
on buildings.
Implementation of this mitigation measure helps
further minimize an already less-than-significant
impact.
Impact Geo-2: Seismic Ground Shaking.
There is a high probability that the proposed
development will be subj ected to strong to
violent ground shaking from an earthquake
during its design life. Strong to violent seismic
ground shaking is considered a potentially
significant impact.
Geo-2a: Compliance with California Building
Code. Project development shall meet requirements of
the California Building Code V ols. 1 and 2, 2001
Edition, including the California Building Standards,
2001 Edition, published by the International
Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by
the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by
the City of South San Francisco, California.
Incorporation of seismic construction standards would
reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground
shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will
not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically
induced ground shaking.
Geo-2b: Compliance with a design level
Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a
Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with
Structural Design Plans as prepared by a
Registered Structural Engineer. Proper foundation
engineering and construction shall be performed in
accordance with the recommendations of a Registered
Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural
Engineer.
The structural engineering design shall incorporate
seismic parameters as outlined in the California
Building Code as estimated below. The project
Geotechnical Investigation shall verify the seismic
design parameters in accordance with requirements of
the California Building Code.
Geo-2c: Obtain a building permit and com plete
final design review. The Project applicant shall obtain
a building permit through the City of South San
Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned
buildings and structures shall be completed by the
Building Division for adherence to the seismic design
criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Less than
Significant
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact Geo-3: Liquefaction, Densification,
and Ground Surface Settlement. The
Association of Bay Area Governments
identifies the proj ect area as an area of high
hazard for liquefaction. Liquefaction or
densification of soils underlying the site could
result in settlement and differential settlement
of site improvements including buildings,
pavements, and utilities and pose a threat to
human health. The potential for liquefaction of
site soils is considered a potentially significant
impact.
Impact Geo-4: Unstable Soils and Bay Mud.
Undocumented fill soils are present on most of
the subject site. Due to the presence of soil
Recommended Mitigation Measures
the East of 101 Area of the City of South San
Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan,
Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be
subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable
seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in
the event of damage following a strong earthquake.
Conformity with these mitigation measures would
reduce the impact of strong seismic ground shaking to
a level of less than significant.
Geo-3a: Compliance with recommendations of a
Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance
with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level
Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the
site under the direction of a California Registered
Geotechnical Engineer and shall include analysis for
liquefaction potential of the underlying sediments.
Proper foundation engineering and construction shall
be performed in accordance with the recommendations
of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical
Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the
City's Geotechnical Consultant and by the City
Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer shall
prepare proj ect structural design plans. Structures shall
be designed to minimize the affects of anticipated
seismic settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer shall
review the Structural Design Plans and provide
approval for the Geotechnical elements of the plans.
The design plans shall identify specific mitigation
measures to reduce the liquefaction potential of
surface soils. Mitigations measures may include
excavation and replacement as engineered fill, reduced
foundation loading, and ground improvement by
methods such as stone columns or pressure grouting.
Geo-3b: Obtain a building permit and complete
plan review. The Project applicant shall obtain a
building permit through the City of South San
Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned
buildings and structures shall be completed by the
Building Division for adherence to the seismic design
criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in
the East of 101 Area of the City of South San
Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan,
Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be
subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable
seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in
the event of damage following a strong earthquake.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would
reduce the impact of seismic ground shaking to a less
than significant level.
Geo-4: Investigate unstable fill soils and Bay Mud.
A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be
performed to determine the depth and extent of
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Less than
Significant
Less than
significant
PAGE 2-8
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
contamination at the site, these soils have not
been reworked to provide a stable foundation
for buildings, pavements and utilities. Fill soils
of unknown quality are present in the proposed
building and parking areas. Fill soils may settle
due to new building loads. Bay Mud and
alluvial soil deposits are present on adjacent
sites and also constitute areas of potentially
unstable soils. Bay Mud is likely present under
portions of the project site and may settle under
design loading conditions resulting in
differential settlement of structures. The
presence of unstable soil and Bay Mud is a
potentially significant impact.
potentially unstable fill soil and Bay Mud. Based on
results of this study the Geotechnical Engineer shall
determine appropriate measures to stabilize the
unstable soils present underlying the site.
Consolidation testing of the Bay Mud soils shall be
performed, as part of the Design Level Geotechnical
Investigation, and estimates of settlement for the site
shall be developed.
Methods of unstable soil stabilization may include
construction of driven pile foundations that support
structures on materials located below fill soils and Bay
Mud, and other methods as recommended by the
Geotechnical Engineer. Buildings constructed on the
adjacent properties have utilized driven pile
foundations to support the structures.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures will
reduce the impact of unstable or potentially unstable
soils and Bay Mud to less than significant.
Impact Geo-6: Soil Erosion. The Project
would involve mass grading in a sensitive area
near the San Francisco Bay. Demolition of
existing structures and pavements could expose
underlying contaminated soil to the elements.
Excavation of soil for construction of new
buildings and pavement sections would also be
performed and temporary stockpiles of loose
soil will be created. Additionally, as part of
proj ect development, a soil cap consisting of
one- foot of imported clean fill will be placed on
the site. Soils exposed during site grading
would be subj ect to erosion during storm
events. Grading would disturb site soils
potentially leading to impacts to the San
Francisco Bay. This would be a potentially
significant impact during and following site
construction activities.
Geo-6a: Erosion Control Plan. The Project
applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be
submitted to the City in conjunction with the Grading
Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall
include winterization, dust control, erosion control and
pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG
Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment
Control Measures. The Erosion Control Plan shall
describe the "best management practices" (BMPs) to
be used during and following construction to control
pollution resulting from both storm and construction
water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of
vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms,
mobilization areas, and planned access routes.
Recommended soil stabilization techniques include
placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and
gravel construction entrance areas or other control to
prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into
storm drains.
Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site
during grading and construction to ensure compliance
with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any
violations, which shall be corrected immediately.
Geo-6b: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the
Applicant shall file a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the start of
construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best
management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is
required to obtain coverage under the General Permit
for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity (Construction General Permit,
99-08-DWQ).
Less than
Significant
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-9
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Implementation of these mitigation measures would
reduce the impact of soil erosion to a level of less than
significant.
1m pact Haz-l: Routine transportation, use
or disposal of hazardous materials. The
proposed development is for construction of a
three-story office and Class-A laboratory
building, two 5-story office and Class-A
laboratory buildings, a parking garage, central
courtyard, and associated landscaping and
infrastructure. Class A refers to a research
laboratory, not merely an instructional
laboratory. Depending upon the nature of
research planned at the proposed facilities, for
which detailed information has not yet been
provided, there are likely to be both hazardous
and potentially hazardous materials stored and
used on the site that will eventually require
disposal. There are likely to be biological
hazards, chemical hazards and risk of fire or
explosion. There is also likely to be
transportation of hazardous materials to and
from the site, probably traveling along Highway
101 and East Grand Avenue. The risk of
accidental upset and environmental
contamination from routine transport, storage,
use and disposal of hazardous and potentially
hazardous materials to the public and
environment is a potentially significant impact.
Haz-Ia: Plan Review for Adherence to Fire and
Safety Codes. Building space must be designed to
handle the intended use, with sprinklers, alarms, vents,
and secondary containment structures, where
applicable. These systems must pass plan review
through the City of South San Francisco Planning,
Building and Fire Departments.
Haz-Ib: Construction Inspection and Final
Inspection Prior to Occupancy. During construction,
the utilities including sprinkler systems shall pass
pressure and flush tests to make sure they perform as
designed. At the end of construction, occupancy shall
not be allowed until a final inspection is made by the
Fire Department for conformance of all building
systems with the Fire Code and National Fire
Protection Agency Requirements. The inspection shall
include testing of sprinklers systems, alarm systems,
ventilation and airflow systems, and secondary
containment systems. The inspection shall include a
review of the emergency evacuation plans. These
plans shall be modified as deemed necessary.
Haz-Ic: Hazardous Materials Business Plan
Program. Businesses occupying the development
must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan
for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The
Business Plan must include the type and quantity of
hazardous materials, a site map showing storage
locations of hazardous materials and where they may
be used and transported from, risks of using these
materials, material safety data sheets for each material,
a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan,
employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines,
and emergency contact information. Businesses
qualify for the program if they store a hazardous
material equal to or greater than the minimum
reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons
for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet
(at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed
gases.
Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-
packaged consumer goods; medical professionals who
store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in
quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each
material, and who store or use no other hazardous
materials; or facilities that store no more than 55
gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for
which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed
275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These
exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-10
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
laboratory facilities.
Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed
development must submit a business plan prior to the
start of operations, and must review and update the
entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or
within 30 days of any significant change, including
without limitation, changes to emergency contact
information, major increases or decreases in hazardous
materials storage and/or changes in location of
hazardous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the
San Mateo County Environmental Health Business
Plan Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363-
4305 for more information. The San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall
inspect the business at least once a year to make sure
that the Business Plan is complete and accurate.
Haz-Id: Hazardous Waste Generator Program.
Applicable businesses shall register and comply with
the hazardous waste generator program. The State of
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
authorized the SMCEHD to inspect and regulate non-
permitted hazardous waste generators in San Mateo
County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law
found in the California Health and Safety Code
Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5.
Regulations require businesses generating any amount
of hazardous waste as defined by regulation to
properly store, manage and dispose of such waste.
Division staff also conducts surveillance and
enforcement activities in conjunction with the County
District Attorney's Office for businesses or individuals
that significantly violate the above referenced law and
regulations.
Haz-Ie: Compliance with Applicable Laws and
Regulations. All transportation of hazardous materials
and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in
accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT),
State of California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), and local laws, ordinances and procedures
including placards, signs and other identifying
information.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures
would reduce the impact of routine transportation, use
or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less
than significant through compliance with existing
regulations, plans and programs as discussed
specifically in mitigation measures Haz-l a through
Haz-l e that act to ensure adequate safety levels are
reached and maintained throughout the life of the
proj ect.
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-11
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous
Materials Release. During demolition
operations hazardous materials could be
released from structures at the site or from the
underlying soils. Following construction,
operations at the proposed facilities are
expected to represent a continuing threat to the
environment through accidental release of
hazardous materials since the site is proposed to
include Class A laboratory facilities, where
hazardous materials may be stored, used, and
disposed of. This represents a potentially
significant impact.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A
demolition plan with permit applications shall be
submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building
Department for approval prior to demolition. The
Demolition Plan for safe demolition of existing
structures shall include asbestos dust control and
incorporate recommendations from the site surveys for
the presence of potentially hazardous building
materials, as well as additional surveys when required
by the City. The Demolition Plan shall address both
on-site Worker Protection and off-site resident
protection from both chemical and physical hazards.
All contaminated building materials shall be tested for
contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to
appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to
building demolition, hazardous building materials
such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint
and asbestos containing building materials shall be
removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines,
laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plan shall
include a program of air monitoring for dust
particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control
and suspension of work during dry windy days shall
be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a
demolition permit from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos
demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11,
Rule 2.
Haz-2b: California Accidental Release Prevention
Program (CaIARP). Future businesses at the
development shall check the state and federal lists of
regulated substances available from the San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department
(SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that
pose a major threat to public health and safety or the
environment because they are highly toxic, flammable
or explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to
use in consultation with the SMCEHD.
Should businesses qualify for the program they shall
complete a CalARP registration form and submit it to
Environmental Health. Following registration, they
shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs
are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure
that businesses have the proper information to provide
to emergency response teams if an accidental release
occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a
threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must
develop a RMP and follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public
health and the environment if a regulated substance is
released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-12
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures
for: keeping employees and customers safe, handling
regulated substances, training staff, maintaining
equipment, checking that substances are stored safely,
and responding to an accidental release.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would
reduce the Proj ect' s impact to a level of less than
significant.
Impact Haz-3: Exposure to contaminated
soil and groundwater. During demolition and
construction, workers could be exposed to
contaminated soil and groundwater. Following
site development, future maintenance work is
also likely to penetrate into the subsurface
where contamination remains. Soil and
groundwater disturbance presents an exposure
hazard to workers and trespassers. Disturbance
of the subsurface also increases the potential for
contamination to spread through surface water
runoff, creation of seepage pathways, and
through wind blown dust. These impacts are
potentially significant.
Haz-3a: San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department Closure of Existing Facilities. Any
businesses on the site that are currently registered in
the hazardous materials business plan program shall
submit a closure work plan in accordance with the San
Mateo County Environmental Health Department
Business Closure Policy prior to vacating the property.
The closure plan shall detail any necessary sampling
and remediation. Closure will not be granted until
businesses have demonstrated there is no need for
further remediation, and shall include documentation
of the removal of any hazardous chemicals.
Haz-3b: Development and Implementation of Site
Management Plans. The Site Management Plan shall
build upon the existing draft Site Management Plan
and shall address the exposure risk to people and the
environment resulting from future demolition,
construction, occupancy, and maintenance activities
on the property. The plan shall be in accordance with
recommendations of the Environmental Consultant,
and shall be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Toxic Substances Control, the San
Mateo County Environmental Health Department
Groundwater Protection Program and the City of
South San Francisco Public Works Department. In
accordance with DTSC recommendations from review
of the Draft Site Management Plan there should be
two separate plans: (1) ongoing Operations and
Maintenance Activities, and (2) a specific plan
addressing the future proposed site development based
on actual proposed grading, excavation and
construction. The plans are required to be more
specific than the draft plan.
Specific mitigation measures designed to protect
human health and the environment shall be provided
in the plan. At a minimum, the plan shall include the
following:
1) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety
Plans (HASP) shall be prepared in accordance with
OSHA regulations by all contractors at the project
site. This includes a HASP for all demolition,
grading and excavation on the site, as well as for
future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP
shall include appropriate training, any required
Less than
Significant
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-13
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
personal protective equipment, and monitoring of
contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP
will be reviewed and approved by a Certified
Industrial Hygienist. The plan shall also designate
provisions to limit worker entry and exposure and
shall show locations and type of protective fencing
to prevent public exposure to any hazards during
demolition, site grading, and construction
activities.
2) Standards for treatment of soil excavated from
beneath the soil cap shall be established. Due to the
extent and depth of foundation and utility
excavations, a significant volume of contaminated
soils are likely to be generated during construction,
and to a lesser extent during future maintenance
work. These soils must be characterized for reuse
above the future cap, reburial, or disposal off-site.
Only soil with contaminant levels below the DTSC
California Human Health Screening Levels and
R WQCB Environmental Screening Levels for
Commercial sites shall be allowed for reuse above
the future cap. All other soil must be either re-
capped or disposed of off-site.
To avoid the spread of contamination, on-site soils
excavated from below the cap shall be segregated
from any imported clean fill. Soils shall be placed
on a plastic tarp, covered and bermed to reduce the
risk from windblown dust or surface water runoff
spreading contamination. Then soil must be tested
to determine the levels of remaining contamination
and suitability for re-use. Contaminated soils
unable to be re-buried under at least one-foot of
clean soil must be off-hauled and disposed of by a
licensed hazardous materials contractor under the
proper manifesting documents. A report shall
document the volume, concentration and nature of
contaminants in the off-hauled material.
3) Requirements for site-specific construction
techniques that would minimize exposure to any
subsurface contamination shall be developed. This
shall include treatment and disposal measures for
any contaminated groundwater removed from
excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in
accordance with local and Regional Water Quality
Control Board guidelines. Groundwater
encountered in trenches and other excavations shall
not be discharged into the neighboring storm drain,
but into a closed containment facility, unless
proven to have concentrations of contaminants
below established regulatory guidelines.
Contaminated groundwater will be required to be
stored in Baker tanks until tested. If testing
determines that the water can be discharged into
the sanitary sewer system, then the applicant must
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
PAGE 2-14
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
acquire a ground water discharge permit from the
City of South San Francisco Sanitary Sewer
District and meet local discharge limits before
being allowed to discharge into the sanitary sewer.
Water must be analyzed for the chemicals of
concern at the site, which include metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, and cyanide.
4) General sampling and testing plan for excavated
soils shall determine suitability for reuse or
acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill
facility. Testing shall include the California Title
22 Hazardous Metals (CAM 17 metals), TPH as
gasoline, TPH as diesel, and TPH as motor oil.
Soils excavated in the area identified as containing
cyanide shall also be tested for cyanide
contamination. Testing results shall be compared to
DTSC California Human Health Screening Levels
and RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels to
determine suitability to remain on-site as
engineered fill or landscape fill. Any soils
determined to exceed the CHHSLs and ESLs for
Commercial sites shall be deemed as unsuitable for
re-use as fill above the future cap.
5) Replacement of the soil cap shall be performed.
Following foundation and utility work the clean
soil cap shall be restored with at least one-foot of
clean soil fill.
6) Future subsurface work plan. The plan shall
document procedures for future subsurface
landscaping work, utility maintenance, etc., with
proper DTSC notification, where applicable. The
plan shall include a general health and safety plan
for each expected type of work, with appropriate
personal protective equipment, where applicable.
7) Future cap maintenance plan. The plan shall
include an inspection schedule and procedures for
repairing the soil cap. A report on the condition of
the soil cap and documenting all repairs shall be
submitted periodically to the DTSC.
Implementation of mitigation measures Haz-3a and
Haz-3b would reduce the impact from exposure of
Construction Workers to contaminated soils and
groundwater to a level of less than significant.
1m pact Haz-4: Contaminated Dust. The
Early Years Children's Center is located at 371
Allerton Avenue, approximately one-quarter
mile eastward and downwind of the northeast
corner of the property. During grading,
contaminated soils that are currently buried
would be disturbed. Disturbed soils could be
mobilized by movement of heavy equipment
and the wind, resulting in potential dispersal of
Haz-4: Demolition and Construction Air Quality
Control. Following closure of businesses, a
demolition plan with permit applications shall be
submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building
Department for approval prior to demolition. The
Demolition Plan shall address both on-site Worker
Protection and off-site resident protection from both
chemical and physical hazards. Building materials
shall be tested for chemicals of concern and unless
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Less than
Significant
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-15
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
contamination. Dispersed contaminants, of
which the most probable is lead, could be
inhaled, ingested or adsorbed and present a
potential health hazard. Dispersal of
contaminated dust during demolition and
grading would be a potentially significant
impact.
1m pact Haz-5: Future Emissions Near
Schools. Since the proposed development
includes research laboratory facilities, it is
likely that hazardous chemicals will be stored
and used on the property. In certain
circumstances these chemicals could spill, mix,
ignite, or volatilize and cause a hazardous
emission near the childcare center, which would
be a potentially significant impact.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
recycled shall be disposed to appropriate licensed
landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, any
hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping
and friable lead based paint or asbestos containing
building materials shall be removed in accordance
with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances.
Both the Demolition and Grading Plans submitted to
the City for approval shall include a program of air
monitoring for dust particulates and attached
contaminants. This shall be in accordance with
BAAQMD requirements and all other applicable
standards. Dust control and suspension of work during
dry windy days shall be addressed in the plans. The
Plan shall include details of site watering, covering of
exposed stockpiles, and security fencing to prevent
trespassers during demolition and construction. During
demolition and construction, the site shall be inspected
regularly to ensure compliance with the approved
plan. Materials determined or even suspected of being
hazardous waste shall be off-hauled by a hazardous
materials contractor to an appropriately licensed
landfill facility in closed vehicles.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would
reduce the impact to the school from possible
contaminated dust to a level of less than significant.
Haz-5: Future Building Com pliance with Bay
Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) and Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Standards. Each
independent R&D facility operating on the property
shall obtain necessary permits and comply with
monitoring and inspection requirements of the
BAAQMD. Future operations shall comply with all
local, state and federal requirements for emissions.
Each facility shall also meet OSHA and California
OSHA standards for R&D facilities. This includes
plan review by the City of South San Francisco to
examine if the proposed development plans meet the
same standards as for other similar facilities.
Engineering controls, such as exhaust hoods, filtration
systems, spill kits, fire extinguishers, and other
controls, shall be incorporated into laboratory facilities
to meet OSHA and California OSHA requirements.
These standards are primarily designed to maintain
worker safety, but also function to reduce the risk of
accidental upset and limit potential hazardous
emissions.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would
reduce the impact to the school from possible
hazardous emissions to a level of less than significant.
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
PAGE 2-16
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
1m pact Haz-6a: Handling of laboratory
wastes within one-quarter mile of a school.
The Early Years Children's Center is located at
371 Allerton Avenue, approximately one-
quarter mile east of the site. Since the proposed
development includes research lab facilities it is
possible that hazardous chemicals or biological
hazards would be present and handled in close
proximity to the childcare facility. This
represents a potentially significant impact.
Impact Haz-6b: Handling of demolition
waste and contaminated soils within one
quarter mile of a school. During demolition,
potentially hazardous waste would be generated
and require disposal. During grading and
construction, contaminated site soils would be
disturbed and require handling and possible
disposal unless reused and buried under a clean
cap. This also presents a potentially significant
impact.
Haz-6a: Regulation of hazardous materials in
accordance with the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department Programs.
Registration and regulation in the Hazardous Materials
Business Plan Program, Hazardous Waste Generator
Plan Program, and California Accidental Release
Program in accordance with mitigation measures Haz-
lc, Haz-ld and Haz-2b identified in this chapter, for
risk of accidental upset and for routine transport,
disposal, and use of hazardous wastes, would
significantly reduce the risk to occupants of the nearby
childcare facility.
Mitigation Measure Haz-4a above also helps reduce
this impact to a less than significant level.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would
reduce the impact to the school from nearby handling
of hazardous materials to a level of less than
significant.
Less than
Significant
Impact Hydro-I: No Treatment of Parking
Garage Runoff. Development of the proposed
Project would contribute to the levels ofNPS
pollutants and litter entering downstream
waters, including the San Francisco Bay. An
increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse
effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human
health. NPS pollutants also have the potential to
infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the
quality of groundwater drinking sources. No
water quality BMPs have been proposed for the
Parking Garage. Parking areas represent a
source of suspended solids, petroleum
hydrocarbons, and heavy metals.
The maj ority of the Proj ect designs will reduce
non-point source pollution, but the lack of
treatment of parking lot runoff represent a
potentially significant impact.
Hydro-I: Implement Water Quality BMPs for
Stormwater Runoff from the Parking Garage. The
Project applicant shall implement storm water quality
BMPs for treatment of runoff from the Parking
Garage. Possible BMPs include drop inlet filtration
devices such as the Vortex Separator Units or
Stormceptors described in Mitigation Measure Hydro-
1. Any storm water quality BMPs implemented at the
site must be approved by the City's Public Works
Department.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would
reduce impacts to a level of less than significant.
Less than
Significant
Impact Hydro-2: Site Soil and Groundwater
Elevations May Be Unsuitable for Vegetated
Swales. Appropriate evaluation of site
conditions is critical to the effectiveness of
vegetated swales. The site history of soil
contamination and the required maintenance of
an existing of a I-foot clean fill soil cap impose
restriction on the depth of vegetated swales that
can be constructed. Additionally, groundwater
conditions in the Proj ect area can be as high as
2 to 3 feet below ground surface during winter
months. If vegetated swales are to a depth that
is at or near the I-foot soil cap, shallow depth to
groundwater could cause underlying soils to
Hydro-2: Evaluate Project Site Fill Elevations for
Feasibility of Vegetated Swales as Water Quality
BMP. The use of swales at the Proj ect site may be
limited by several factors, including fill elevations,
soil characteristics, distance to groundwater, and
proposed land uses. The feasibility of vegetated swale
BMPs at the Project shall be evaluated as follows:
1) Groundwater levels at the invert of the swales
shall be reevaluated. The Project applicant shall
ascertain that the distance from the proposed
trench inverts to groundwater is a sufficient
distance to prevent groundwater to surface water
contamination.
Less than
Significant
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-17
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
become saturated and allow groundwater to
surface water contamination. Vegetated swales
are not considered suitable for sites that use or
store chemicals or hazardous materials unless
hazardous and toxic materials are prevented
from entering the swales.
The maj ority of the Proj ect designs will reduce
non-point source pollution, but the vegetated
bioswale depths represent a potentially
significant impact.
Impact Hydro-3: Potential Contamination
of Local Groundwater. The Project site is
located within a groundwater basin as defined
by the D WR. The potential for groundwater
contamination from infiltration BMPs must be
carefully considered, especially in areas where
the distance between groundwater and the
swale invert is small or where groundwater is or
could potentially be used for human
consumption or agricultural purposes. The
infiltration of industrial and parking lot
pollutants into shallow groundwater could
potentially impair the quality of local
groundwater sources. This represents a
potentially significant impact.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
2) Soil parameters, such as the amount of silt and
clay shall be examined. Soils below swales shall
have a clay content sufficient to prevent
groundwater to surface water contamination.
Proposed land uses and grading shall be examined to
determine whether infiltration BMPs are suitable.
Infiltration BMPs shall be considered not suitable for
sites that use or store chemicals or hazardous materials
unless hazardous and toxic materials are isolated such
that they are not able to enter the swale and/or if the
site elevations result in swales that could impact water
quality.
Installation of a clay or geotextile barrier beneath
swale areas may be used to prevent infiltration to
groundwater or contaminated soil depths.
If site constraints preclude the use of vegetated swales
at the Proj ect site, other BMPs that do not allow
interaction with groundwater and contaminated soils
shall be used. Possible alternatives for storm water
treatment include vault based media filters, storm
drain inlet filters, strainer baskets, sediment/debris
catch baskets, geotextile filter bags, composite filter
medium, and mechanical swirl treatment units if used
in a sequence or "train" with other devices. Use of
several of these alternative methods of sediment and
hydrocarbon filtration and removal devices in a
treatment sequence will be required. Any storm water
quality BMPs to be implemented at the site must be
approved by the City's Public Works Department.
The use of effective BMPs at the Project site would
reduce impacts on groundwater and surface water
quality to a level of less than significant.
Hydro-3: Preparation and Implementation of
Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES requirements,
the applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water
quality during and after construction. The Project
SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the
following mitigation measures for the construction
period:
1) Grading and earthwork shall be prohibited during
the wet season (October 15 through April 15) and
such work shall be stopped before pending storm
events.
2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such
as straw mulching, erosion control blankets,
erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall
be utilized in accordance with the regulations
outlined in the Association of Bay Area
Governments "Erosion & Sediment Control
Measures" manual. Silt fences shall be installed
down slope of all graded slopes. Hay bales shall
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-18
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
be installed in the flow path of graded areas
receiving concentrated flows and around storm
drain inlets.
3) BMPs shall be used for preventing the discharge
or other construction-related NPDES pollutants
beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to
downstream waters.
4) After construction is completed, all drainage
facilities shall be inspected for accumulated
sediment and these drainage structures shall be
cleared of debris and sediment.
Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the
Project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to,
the following:
5) Description of potential sources of erosion and
sediment at the Project site. Industrial activities
and significant materials and chemicals that could
be used at the proposed Proj ect site should be
described. This will include a thorough
assessment of existing and potential pollutant
sources.
6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the
Proj ect site based on identified industrial
activities and potential pollutant sources.
Emphasis shall be placed on source control
BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed.
7) Development of a monitoring and implementation
plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency
shall be carefully described including vector
control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or
outlet structures, vegetation/landscape
maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular
sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas,
etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be
hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs should be
budgeted to include disposal at a proper site.
8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall
be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the
RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco.
Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded
and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The
SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address
any inadequacies of the BMPs.
9) The applicant shall prepare informational
literature and guidance on industrial and
commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant
contributions from the proposed development.
This information shall be distributed to all
employees at the Project site. At a minimum, the
information shall cover: a) proper disposal of
commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of
landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and
appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-19
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
1m pact Hydro-4: Erosion or siltation on- or
off-site. Construction of the proposed Proj ect
would involve demolition of existing structural
foundations and pavement areas that currently
help to stabilize site soils. Although no cut/fill
estimates were available for review, significant
site grading is expected to occur. Construction
operations associated with the Project would
present a threat of soil erosion from soil
disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil
areas to the erosional forces of runoff.
Additionally, new onsite stormdrains may
require excavation of the soil cap and
potentially, the soil below.
Impact Noise-2: Construction Related Noise.
Project construction would result in temporary
short-term noise increases due to the operation
of heavy equipment. This would be a
potentially significant impact associated with
Proj ect development. Construction noise
sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25
feet for most types of construction equipment,
and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA
at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and
impact equipment.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and
dumping of materials and chemicals into storm
drains.
Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP at the
Project site would reduce impacts on potential
contamination of local groundwater to a level of less
than significant.
Hydro-4: Compliance with NPDES Requirements.
The Project applicant will be required to comply with
all Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities
permit requirements established by the CW A and the
Grading Permit requirements of the City of South San
Francisco. Erosion control measures to be
implemented during construction would be included in
the Project SWPPP. The Project SWPPP will
accompany the NOI filing and will outline erosion
control and storm water quality management measures
to be implemented during and following construction.
The SWPPP will also provide the schedule for
monitoring performance. Refer to Mitigation Measure
Hydro 3- for more information regarding the Project
SWPPP. Implementation of Phase I NPDES General
Construction Activities permit requirements would
reduce construction-related impacts associated with
erosion and/or siltation to less than significant.
Following Project development, soil and sediment in
runoff would be treated by storm water quality BMPs.
Refer to Mitigation Measure Hydro-3 for more
information regarding water quality BMPs at the
Project site. With the implementation of these
mitigation measures, post-development impacts
associated with erosion and siltation are considered
less than significant.
Noise-2: Noise Abatement. The project applicant
shall require by contract specification that construction
best management practices be implemented by
contractors to reduce construction noise levels to the
90-dBA at 25 feet noise limit specified in the City
Noise Ordinance including:
· Ensuring that construction equipment is properly
muffled according to industry standards,
· Implementing noise attenuation measures which
may include but are not limited to noise barriers or
noise blankets.
· Requiring heavily loaded trucks used during
construction to be routed away from noise and
vibration sensitive uses.
This would reduce construction-related noise impacts
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-20
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
could be reduced to a level of less than significant.
Impact Traf-l: Project Trip Generation
Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The
proj ect would generate more than 100 net new
trips during the AM and PM peak hours (397
two-way (inbound + outbound) trips during the
AM peak hour and 383 two-way trips during
the PM peak hour (see Table 11). The San
Mateo City/County Association of
Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for
the implementation of the 2003 Draft
Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG
Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions
must ensure that the developer and/or tenants
will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including
the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by
the development. This would be a significant
impact.
Traf-l: Transportation Demand Management
Program. The project sponsors shall implement a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
consistent with the City of South San Francisco
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation
Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG.
These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing
for the occupied life of the development. Impact
reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Less than
Significant
1m pact Traf-2: Site lines at East Grand
Avenue Driveways. Sight lines at the Project
Parcel A's only unsignalized intersection along
East Grand Avenue where left turns are allowed
(the most easterly driveway) would be 600+
feet to the west (through the project's signalized
entrance intersection) and 600+ feet to the east
(through the Littlefield intersection 400 feet to
the east). Minimum stopping sight distance for
a vehicle speed of 40 miles per hour (five miles
greater than the posted speed limit) would be
305 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at
this location assuming low traffic volumes on
East Grand Avenue. However, during peak
commute periods, eastbound traffic may back
up from the Littlefield signal and begin to
obstruct the ability of drivers turning left from
the site to see westbound traffic on East Grand
Avenue. Also, any westbound vehicle or
vehicles waiting to turn left into the proj ect site
could also block sight lines of drivers existing
the proj ect site attempting to see westbound
traffic.
This would be a significant safety concern.
Traf-2: Project Access Safety Improvements.
Prohibit left turns from the project's easterly driveway
along East Grand Avenue.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Less than
Significant
1m pact Traf-6: Internal Pedestrian
Circulation. Internal walkways are shown on
the site plan connecting all new buildings
(Buildings A, B and C), the parking garage, and
existing building near Harbor Way. However,
there are no walkway connections shown to
East Grand Avenue or to the existing complex
of buildings nearest East Grand Avenue that are
Traf-6: Sidewalks and Crosswalks. Provide
sidewalks (and crosswalks) connecting proj ect
buildings with East Grand Avenue as well as to all
existing buildings on Parcel A to remain.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Less than
Significant
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-21
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
to remain. This would be a significant impact.
Impact Traf-8: Grade Crossing Approaches
Missing Signing and Pavement Striping. The
State Public Utilities Commission (September
26, 2006 letter to City of South San Francisco)
has noted in a recent inspection that the East
Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor
Way intersection grade crossing is not up to
minimum standards on one or more approaches
for required advanced warning signing and
pavement striping (i.e. R15-l and W -10-1 signs
as well as RxR pavement striping). This results
in an existing safety concern that would be
aggravated by the addition of proj ect traffic.
This would be a significant impact.
Impact Traf-9: Intersection Level of Service.
The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of proj ect
traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see
Tables 11-1 and 11-2).
· Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The proj ect would increase
volumes by 2.6 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Impact Traf-IO: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection would
receive a significant impact due to the addition
of proj ect traffic to year 2015 Base Case
volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2).
· E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /
Harbor Way
AM Peak Hour: The proj ect would increase
volumes by 4.8 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation and
would degrade operation to LOS F.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Traf-8: Impacts to Grade Crossing Approach
Signing & Pavement Striping. The project shall
provide all needed signs and pavement markings on
the approaches to the East Grand Avenue / Forbes
Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection "at grade
railroad crossing" to meet minimum State Public
Utilities Commission requirements as detailed in the
2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by
the Federal Highway Commission.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Traf-9: Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue. (see
Table 11-15 and Figure 13 in Appendix D) The
following improvements would mitigate the project-
specific impacts. These improvements are included as
part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the proj ect' s traffic
impact fee contribution to this program:
1. Reconfigure the eastbound Grand Avenue
approach from one exclusive right turn lane and
one shared through/left turn lane to provide an
exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right
turn lane.
2. Reconfigure the southbound Airport Boulevard
approach from one right, one through, a shared
through/left and an exclusive left turn lane to
provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one through
lane and a shared through/right turn lane.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Proj ect Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-46.8 seconds control delay
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-47.8 seconds control delay
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Traf-IO: E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /
Harbor Way. (see Table 11-15 and Figure 13 in
Appendix D) The following improvements would
mitigate the project-specific impacts. These
improvements are included as part of the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program and will be
funded via the project's traffic impact fee contribution
to this program.
1. Widen the southbound Forbes Boulevard
approach from one left, one combined
through/right and one right turn lane to provide
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-22
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
PM Peak Hour: The project would increase
volumes by 5.0 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized
operation.
This would be a significant impact.
one left, one through and two exclusive right turn
lanes.
2. Widen the eastbound East Grand approach to
provide an exclusive right turn lane.
3. Restripe the northbound Harbor Way approach
from one left, one combined through/left and one
right turn lane to provide one left, one through
and one right turn lane.
4. Adjust north-south (Harbor Way-Forbes
Boulevard) signal timing from split phase
operation to protected left turn phasing + north
and southbound right turn overlap phasing.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized
Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS E-72.8 seconds control delay
(which would be better than Base Case LOS E-79.0
seconds control delay operation)
PM Peak Hour: LOS F -96.7 seconds control delay
(which would be better than Base Case LOS F -146
seconds control delay operation)
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact Traf-ll: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection would
receive a significant impact due to the addition
of proj ect traffic to year 2015 Base Case
volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2).
· Airport Boulevard I San Mateo Avenue I
Produce Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The project would increase
volumes by 2.6 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized
operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-ll: Airport Boulevard I San Mateo Avenue
IProduce Avenue. (see Table 11-15 and Figure 13 in
Appendix D) The following improvements would
mitigate the project-specific impacts. These
improvements are included as part of the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program and will be
funded via the project's traffic impact fee contribution
to this program.
1. Restripe the westbound Airport approach from
one left, one combined through/left, one through
and one right turn lane to provide two left turn
lanes, a combined through/left turn lane and an
exclusive right turn lane.
2. Reconfigure the Produce Avenue intersection leg
to provide a third southbound departure lane.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized
Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-45.l seconds control delay
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Less than
Significant
1m pact Traf-12: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection would
receive a significant impact due to the addition
of proj ect traffic to year 2015 Base Case
volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2).
· Gateway Boulevard I S. Airport Boulevard I
Traf-12: Gateway Boulevard I S. Airport
Boulevard I Mitchell Avenue. (see Table 11-15 and
Figure 13 in Appendix D) The following
improvements would mitigate the project-specific
impacts. These improvements are included as part of
the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program
Less than
Significant
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-23
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
Mitchell Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The project would increase
volumes by 3.4 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized
operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Impact Traf-14: 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing - Traffix software evaluation. The
following off-ramp/approach to an adjacent
intersection leading away from an off-ramp
would receive a significant queuing impact due
to the addition of proj ect traffic to year 2015
Base Case volumes (see Table 11-11).
. E. Grand Avenue / Grand Avenue
Overcrossing
This would be a significant impact.
Impact Traf-15: 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing - SYNCHRO software evaluation.
The following approach to an adjacent
intersection leading away from an off-ramp
would receive a significant queuing impact due
to the addition of proj ect traffic to year 2015
Base Case volumes (see Table 11-11).
Recommended Mitigation Measures
and will be funded via the proj ect' s traffic impact fee
contribution to this program.
1. Widen the southbound Gateway Boulevard
approach to provide a second exclusive right turn
lane.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized
Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-50.7 seconds control delay
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Traf-14: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see
Figure 11-14) The following improvements would
partially mitigate the project-specific impact. These
improvements are included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program and will be
funded via the project's traffic impact fee contribution
to this program.
E. Grand Avenue / Grand Avenue Overcrossing
1. Widen the east/northbound East Grand Avenue
approach to Grand Avenue Overcrossing to
provide a second exclusive right turn lane. This
lane should extend at least 250 feet and ideally the
entire distance back to the U. S.l 0 1 Northbound
Off-Ramp/Executive Drive intersection. Today,
the left and right turn lanes on the East Grand
Avenue approach to Grand Avenue Overcrossing
extend the entire distance from the off-ramp to
Grand Avenue Overcrossing. By 2015, the left
turn lane will have a 95th percentile queue
extending no more than 200 feet during the AM
peak hour and 500 feet during the PM peak hour.
Rather than extending one left turn and two right
turn lanes the entire length between the off-ramp
and Grand Avenue Overcrossing, the City may
wish to provide two lanes leaving the off-ramp (as
exists today), which will then widen to three lanes
at least 400 feet from the Grand Avenue
Overcrossing intersection. The center lane should
be striped for both left and right turns, which will
allow the approach to adequately serve the heavy
right turn movement in the morning and the
heavier left turn movement in the evening.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Traf-15: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see
Figure 14 in Appendix D) The following
improvements would mitigate the project-specific
impact. These improvements are included in the East
of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will
be funded via the project's traffic impact fee
contribution to this program.:
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-24
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The proj ect would increase
volumes by 7.6 percent in the left turn lane on
the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to
Grand Avenue at a location with unacceptable
Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The 95th
percentile vehicle queue would be extended
from 725 up to about 760 feet in a location with
only 320 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
1. Reconfigure the eastbound Grand Avenue
approach from one exclusive right turn lane and
one shared through/left turn lane to provide an
exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right
turn lane
2. Reconfigure the southbound Airport Boulevard
approach from one right, one through, a shared
through/left and an exclusive left turn lane to
provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one through
lane and a shared through/right turn lane.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact Traf-16: Off-Ramp Queuing To
Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic
Hours - 81M traffic evaluation. The
following off-ramps would receive a significant
impact with backups extending to the freeway
mainline sometime during one or both peak
hours due to the addition of proj ect traffic to
year 2015 Base Case volumes.
. U.S.lOl Northbound Off-Ramp to E.
Grand Avenue/Executive Drive
Intersection
AM Peak Hour: The proj ect would increase
volumes by 2.5 percent at a location with year
2015 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally
backing up to the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-16: Improvements for Off-Ramp Queuing.
(see Figure 11-14) The following improvements
would mitigate the project-specific impact. These
improvements are included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program and will be
funded via the project's traffic impact fee contribution
to this program:
. U.S.lOl Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand
A venue/Executive Drive Intersection
1. Provide a fair share contribution to providing
a second off-ramp lane extending back to the
freeway mainline.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-17: Off-Ramp Queuing To
Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic
Hours - 81M Traffic evaluation. The
following off-ramp would receive a significant
impact with backups extending to the freeway
mainline sometime during one or both peak
hours due to the addition of proj ect traffic to
year 2015 Base Case volumes.
U.S.lOl Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport
Boulevard / Miller Avenue Intersection
AM Peak Hour: The proj ect would increase
volumes by 5.0 percent at a location with year
2015 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally
backing up to the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-17: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see
Figure 14 in Appendix D) The following
improvements would mitigate the project-specific
impact. These improvements are included in the East
of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will
be funded via the project's traffic impact fee
contribution to this program.:
U.S.lOl Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport
Boulevard / Miller Avenue Intersection
1. Provide improvements to the Airport
Boulevard / Grand Avenue intersection as
listed under Mitigation Measure 2.
2. Provide an exclusive right turn lane on the
southbound Airport Boulevard approach to
Miller Avenue.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-18: Off-Ramp Operation At
Mainline Diverge. The following off-ramp
Traf-18: Improvements for Off-Ramp Operation.
(see Figure 14 in Appendix D) The following
Less than
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-25
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
diverge locations from the U. S.l 0 1 freeway
mainline would receive a significant impact due
to the addition of proj ect traffic to year 2015
Base Case volumes (see Table 11-6).
. U.S.lOl Northbound Off-Ramp to S.
Airport Boulevard / W ondercolor Lane
Intersection
This would be a significant impact.
Impact Traf-19: Off-Ramp Operation At
Mainline Diverge. The following off-ramp
diverge location from the U.S.lOl freeway
mainline would receive a significant impact due
to the addition of proj ect traffic to year 2015
Base Case volumes (see Table 11-6).
U.S.lOl Northbound Off-Ramp to E.
Grand Avenue / Executive Drive
Intersection
AM Peak Hour: The proj ect would increase off-
ramp volumes by 2.5 percent (from 2,019 up to
2,069 vehicles) with Base Case volumes
already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Impact Traf-20: On-Ramp Operation. The
analysis concluded that one on-ramp to the
U.S.lOl freeway would receive a significant
impact due to the addition of proj ect traffic to
year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-7).
U.S.lOl Northbound On-Ramp from
Oyster Point Boulevard
PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase
volumes by more than one percent (1.5%, from
2,302 up to 2,337 vehicles) with Base Case
volumes already exceeding 2,200 vehicles per
hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Impact Util-l: Increased Wastewater Flows.
According to City of South San Francisco
design wastewater flow estimates, the Proj ect
would contribute 184,600 gpd of sewage and
industrial wastewater to the City's sanitary
sewer system, which amounts to an increase of
approximately 39 percent as compared with the
existing building square footage on the site. The
Recommended Mitigation Measures
improvements would mitigate project-specific
impacts. These improvements are included in the East
of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will
be funded via the project's traffic impact fee
contribution to this program:
U.S.lOl Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport
Boulevard / W ondercolor Lane Intersection
1. Provide a fair share contribution towards a
second off-ramp lane connection to the
U.S.lOl freeway mainline.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Traf-19: Improvements for Off-Ramp Operation.
(see Figure 14 in Appendix D) The following
improvements would mitigate the project-specific
impact. These improvements are included in the East
of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will
be funded via the project's traffic impact fee
contribution to this program.
U.S.lOl Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand
Avenue / Executive Drive Intersection
1. Provide a fair share contribution towards a
second off-ramp lane connection to the
U.S.lOl freeway mainline.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Traf-20: Improvements for On-Ramp Operation
(see Figure 14 in Appendix D). The following
improvements would mitigate the project-specific
impact. These improvements are included in the East
of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will
be funded via the project's traffic impact fee
contribution to this program.
U.S.lOl Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point
Boulevard
1. Provide a fair share contribution towards a
second on-ramp lane.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Util-Ia: Sanitary Sewer Fees. The City of South San
Francisco is currently upgrading its sanitary sewer
facilities to handle increased flows from new
development. In order to recover the costs of these
upgrades, the City charges new development a flat-
rate sewer connection fee and a monthly impact fee.
The amount of the impact fee is based on the quantity
( flow) of wastewater generated. The occupants of the
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-26
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Project does not include conservation or
recycling technologies that would lessen its
wastewater flows to the municipal system. This
is a potentially significant impact.
proposed project development shall pay the sanitary
sewer fees imposed by the City of South San
Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of the sewer
system upgrades necessary to manage the wastewater
flows generated by the Proj ect.
Util-Ib: Wastewater Recycling. The proposed
Proj ect development is intended for office/Research
and Development uses. However, a particular
occupant or occupants for the Proj ect site have not yet
been identified. Depending on the laboratory practices
of the future occupants, it may be possible to recycle
process and/or clean-up water at the Project site. The
occupants of the proposed Project development shall
evaluate the potential for on-site wastewater recycling
and shall implement feasible wastewater recycling
methods.
The implementation of these mitigation measures
would reduce the impact of the Project's wastewater
flows to a level of less than significant.
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
1m pact Vis-I: Scenic Vista. Areas from which No mitigation required
views of San Bruno Mountains-a prominent
visual landmark in South San Francisco-may
be adversely affected are not designated scenic
vistas, nor are they places where people might
be expected to gather in order to view the San
Bruno Mountains, therefore, the Project would
have a less-than-significant impact on scenic
vistas with no mitigation warranted.
Impact Vis-2: Light and Glare. The many No mitigation required
windows and outdoor lights associated with
increased development intensity on the Proj ect
site could potentially be substantial sources of
day and nighttime glare. However, the Project
proposes use of materials and lighting that
would reduce the amount of glare to a less-
than-significant level. Therefore, no mitigation
is required.
Impact Air-2: Carbon Monoxide. Mobile No mitigation required
emissions generated by proj ect traffic would
increase carbon monoxide concentrations at
intersections in the proj ect vicinity. However,
these increases would be below significance
thresholds of the Air Quality Management
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-27
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
District so would be considered a less-than-
significant impact. Therefore, no mitigation is
required.
Impact Air-4: Future Emissions Near
Sensitive Receptors. The Project could include
laboratory facilities or stationary equipment
(e.g., standby emergency generators) that emit
air pollution. These sources could emit small
amounts of toxic air contaminants with the
potential to affect sensitive receptors, such as
the childcare facility at 371 Allerton Avenue.
This impact, however, would be reduced to a
less-than-significant level with standard
BAAQMD permitting requirements and
mitigation measures Haz-4a and Haz-4b
identified in this EIR.
Impact Air-5: Construction-Related Diesel
Odors. During construction, the various diesel-
powered vehicles and equipment in use on the
site would create odors. These odors would be
temporary and not likely to be noticeable much
beyond the Project site's boundaries. As the
potential for diesel odor impacts would not
affect a substantial amount of people, this
impact is less than significant and is further
reduced by Measures to Reduce Construction
Exhaust in mitigation measure Air-I. Therefore,
no mitigation is required.
Impact Air-6: Operational-Related
Objectionable Odors. While it is not known at
this time exactly what businesses will occupy
the completed project, these businesses will be
required to conform to applicable air quality
regulations ensuring that any odors resulting
from operations will remain at a less-than-
significant level. Therefore, no mitigation is
required.
Impact Geo-l: Surface Fault Rupture.
According to the latest available maps, the
Project site is not contained within an Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone boundary.
Published geologic maps of the area show the
Hillside fault as lying 1,100 feet north of the
site, but this fault is not considered active or
potentially active, with an estimated age of
most recent movement greater than 1.6 million
years ago. The potential impact of surface fault
rupture is considered less than significant.
Therefore, no mitigation is required.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
Issues of toxic air contaminants and hazardous
emissions with relation to sensitive receptors are
discussed in Chapter 7 of this document. Specifically,
mitigation measures Haz-4a and Haz-4b would be
applicable and reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
No mitigation required
No mitigation required
No mitigation required
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-28
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
1m pact Geo-5: Expansive Soils. Expansive
soils may be present in the soils underlying the
site, but are not considered a hazard to
construction. According to the Draft Site
Management Plan prepared by GrafCon
(October 2006), the site will be capped by a
minimum one-foot soil cap, which may be
composed of a structural fill material in areas of
pavements and concrete slabs-on-grade. The
presence of expansive soils is considered a less
than significant impact with no mitigation
required.
No mitigation required
Less than
Significant
Impact Geo-7: Cumulative Geology and
Soils 1m pacts. Strong seismic ground shaking,
liquefaction and densification during seismic
ground shaking, underlying unstable soils and
bay mud, and soil erosion during proj ect
construction and post construction are common
impacts to projects located in the vicinity. The
proposed Project would be one of numerous
sites anticipated to undergo
development/redevelopment in the vicinity and
would contribute to a cumulative increase in
sites facing these impacts. However, the
project-specific contribution would be reduced
by identified project-specific mitigation
measures to a less than significant level with no
additional mitigation required.
Mitigated by measures Geo-2a, Geo-2b, Geo-2c, Geo-
3a, Geo-3b, Geo-4, Geo-6a,
No additional mitigation required
Less than
Significant
1m pact Haz-7: Airport Land Use Plan. The
proposed Proj ect would be located within the
jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for
the San Francisco International Airport.
According to the East of 101 Area Specific Plan
(available online through the City of South San
Francisco Planning Department website), the
most stringent height limits in South San
Francisco are south of Forbes Boulevard and
Lindenville, including the project area. In this
area Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77,
limits building heights to an elevation of 161
feet above mean sea level, approximately 12
to 14 stories. Since the tallest proposed
buildings are 5 stories and the parking garage is
7 levels, no buildings would exceed 161 feet in
height, therefore, the structures would be in
compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan.
The impact of the project on the Airport Land
Use Plan is less than significant with no
mitigation warranted.
No mitigation required
Less than
Significant
Impact Haz-8: Cumulative Hazardous
Impacts. The proposed Project would be one of
Mitigated by measures Haz-la, Haz-b, Haz-lc, Haz-
ld, Haz-le, Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-3a, Haz-3b, Haz-4,
Less than
Significant
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-29
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
numerous sites, some of which are also existing
hazardous materials sites, that are anticipated to
undergo development/redevelopment in the
vicinity. The Proj ect would contribute to a
cumulative increase in the number of sites
handling hazardous materials, both in the
vicinity in general as well as near a school, and
would result in a cumulative increase in
transportation, use, disposal, and potential for
exposure to and/or accidental release of
hazardous materials during both construction
and operations. However, the cumulative
impact is expected to be slight and identified
project-specific mitigation measures would
reduce this impact to a less than significant
level with no additional mitigation required.
Impact Hydro-5: Inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow. The Project site is not
located in an area that would expose persons to
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
The site is nearly level and does not lie in close
proximity to a large lake or the ocean.
Although seismically induced waves are a
possibility in the Bay, the site elevations are
above those considered to be at risk for tsunami
wave run-up. Consequently, this impact would
be less-than-significant with no mitigation
required.
1m pact Hydro-6: Cumulative 1m pacts on
Hydrology and Water Quality. The increased
construction activity and new development
resulting from the Project, in conjunction with
other foreseeable development in the city,
would result in less than significant impacts on
hydrology and water quality conditions with no
additional mitigation measures necessary.
Impact Noise-I: Permanent Noise Increases.
Project-generated traffic noise and other
operational noise sources such as HV AC
equipment would not exceed noise standards
and would not significantly increase ambient
noise levels nor substantially impact noise-
sensitive receptors. This would be a less-than-
significant impact with no mitigation
warranted.
Impact Noise-3: Cumulative Noise
Increases. The proposed Project, together with
anticipated future development in the area
could result in long-term traffic increases that
could cumulatively increase noise levels.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Haz-5, Haz-6.
No additional mitigation required
No mitigation required
Mitigated by measures Hydro-I, Hydro-2, Hydro-3,
Hydro-4.
No additional mitigation required.
No mitigation required
Mitigated by measures Noise-2 and Traf-l.
No additional mitigation required.
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-30
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
However, these increases are not anticipated to
be noticeable in the context of existing ambient
noise and the Project's impact on cumulative
noise increases would be considered less-than-
significant with no mitigation warranted.
Impact Traf-3: Sight Lines at Harbor Way No mitigation required
Driveways. Sight lines at both of project Parcel
A's two unsignalized driveway intersections
with Harbor Way would be more than 500+ feet
to the north and 800+ feet to the south.
Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle
speed of 35 miles per hour (five miles greater
than the posted sped limit) would be 250 feet.
Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at these
driveways.
Less than
Significant
This would be a less-than-significant impact,
therefore, no mitigation is required.
1m pact Traf-4: Queues in Left Turn Lanes No mitigation required
on Approaches to Project Driveways. Left
turns are allowed from East Grand Avenue into
the proj ect site at two locations that have breaks
in the raised median along the street: at the
project's central driveway connection, which
would remain signalized, and at the proj ect' s
easterly driveway connection, which would
remain unsignalized. The left turn pockets
provided on the approaches to these
intersections are 175 feet long (at the signal)
and 125 feet long (at the easterly driveway),
respectively. The 1 75-foot-Iong pocket can
accommodate seven to eight vehicles, while the
l25-foot-Iong pocket and accommodate five to
six vehicles.
Less than
Significant
This would be a less-than-significant impact,
therefore, no mitigation is required.
1m pact Traf-5: Internal Vehicular
Circulation. The internal circulation plan as
shown on the 10/5/06 site plan by DES
Architects/Engineers appears acceptable. Each
project driveway would be channelized at least
50 feet internal to the site, with the main
signalized entrance along East Grand Avenue
being channelized at least 100 feet internal to
the parking lot. In addition, all surface lot and
garage parking aisles are shown to be 25 feet
wide, which meets City code criteria and good
traffic engineering practice.
This would be a less-than-significant impact,
therefore, no mitigation is required.
No mitigation required
Less than
Significant
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-31
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Traf-7: On-Site Parking. A total of No mitigation required
2,793 spaces would be required based upon
City code criteria, while a total of 2,742 on-site
parking spaces would be provided on Parcels A
and B combined (2,558 spaces on Parcel A and
184 spaces on Parcel B). This is 98.2 percent of
code-required parking. Of the 2,558 spaces
1,134 spaces would be provided in a new
multistory parking garage, with the remaining
1,424 spaces surface parking. The City of South
San Francisco promotes reduction in parking
from City zoning standards as a way to support
trip reduction goals required per the City's
TDM ordinance and supported by various
policies in the General Plan (G.P. Policies 4.3-
1-8, 11 and 12).
Less than
Significant
This would be a less-than-significant impact,
therefore, no mitigation is required.
Impact Traf-13: Intersection Signalization No mitigation required.
Needs. The analysis concluded that no
unsignalized intersections would receive a
significant signal warrant impact due to the
addition of proj ect traffic to year 2015 Base
Case volumes or that project traffic would not
increase volumes by more than two percent at
the one nearby intersection (East Grand
Avenue/Allerton Avenue) where Base Case
volumes would already be exceeding peak hour
signal warrant criteria levels (see Table 11-3).
This would be a less-than-significant impact,
therefore, no mitigation is required.
Less than
Significant
Impact Util-2: Increased in Demand for No mitigation required
Utilities. The Project would lead to an increase
in demand for utilities such as potable water
and sewer capacity. However, the new demand
can be accommodated with existing facilities or
planned upgrades. The Project would have a
less-than-significant impact on utility services
and infrastructure with no mitigation warranted.
Less than
Significant
Impact Util-3: Solid Waste Disposal. The No mitigation required
landfill would be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal needs, and
would not require or result in construction of
landfill facilities or expansion of existing
facilities nor would it impede the ability of the
City to meet the applicable federal, state and
local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste. The Project would have a less-than-
significant impact with no mitigation
Less than
Significant
PAGE 2-32
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significan ce
warranted.
Impact Util-4: Increased Energy
Consumption. The Project would have an
incremental increase in the demand for gas and
electrical power given the increase in
development on the project site. However, the
Proj ect is expected to be served with existing
capacity and would not require or result in
construction of new energy facilities or
expansion of existing off-site facilities and
would not violate applicable federal, state and
local statutes and regulations relating to energy
standards. The Proj ect would have a less-than-
significant impact relating to energy
consumption with no mitigation warranted.
No mitigation required
Less than
Significant
Impact Util-5: Cumulative Demand for
Utilities and Service Systems. The increased
development resulting from the proposed
Project, in conjunction with other foreseeable
development in the area, would not result in
cumulative impacts on utilities and service
systems and would be considered less-than-
significant with identified project-level
mitigation measures.
Mitigated by measure Util-la, Util-lb.
No additional mitigation required.
Less than
Significant
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 2-33
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 2-34
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTIO\J
PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS
The Proj ect site is part of the City of South San Francisco's "East of 101" Planning Area, the
traditional and continued core of South San Francisco's industrial and technological
businesses, including Research and Development (R&D) offices. The East of 101 area
consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the east side,
Highway 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, and San
Francisco International Airport on the south. The area has a mix of land uses, including
industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and
development facilities and is separated from the maj ority of residential uses by U. S. 101
though some houseboats are permitted at the nearby Oyster Point. While the East of 101 area
is almost completely built out, redevelopment remains extremely active as existing facilities
are upgraded as industry continues to evolve toward high-technology and research and
development uses.
The Project site is within the 30.5-acre Britannia Pointe Grand II business park, at 250 to 270
East Grand Avenue near Harbor Way. The Project site's location is shown in Figure 3-1. In
addition to the Project site, the Britannia Pointe Grand II business park is comprised of six
additional office/R&D buildings totaling 452,590 square feet to which no changes are being
proposed as a part of this Project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIO \I
The proposed Project is a modification and expansion of an existing Research and
Development Business Park that would involve the demolition of four existing 1 & 2 story
office/R&D buildings located within the Britannia Pointe Grand II Development totaling
177,938 square feet, and the construction of one 3-story and two 5-story office/R&D
buildings totaling 461,500 square feet, an eight-level parking garage, and landscape
improvements. This increase in building intensity would likely increase the number of
employees on site leading to greater impacts on traffic and related air quality as well as
greater use of utilities.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 3-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The Project proposes the modification of a site with existing development and would not
involve a vacant or natural-state site. Demolition and construction of the proposed Project
could involve upset of contaminated soils on-site that had been previously identified and
remediated.
The Project would include notable landscaping improvements, including new landscaped
plazas and a landscaped pedestrian mall to increase the walkability of the site. The Project
Site Plan is shown in Figure 3-2. Perspective views of the proposed Project can be found on
the cover of this document and in Chapter 4: Aesthetics.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The proposed Project would fulfill the following objectives:
1. Upgrade a portion of a high technology research and development business park,
2. Build a project that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco,
3. Generate net property tax and other fees from the development project and enhance
property values,
4. Build a project which is viable in the East of 101 Area based upon market conditions and
projected service requirements for the Area,
5. Develop a project that has the high quality of design that is called for in the Design
Policies and Guidelines of the East of 101 Area Plan while integrating with the existing
Britannia Pointe Grand II business park,
6. Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the General Plan
designation of the site for Business and Technology Park facilities, and
7. Continuing to develop the East of 101 Area into a nationally recognized research and
development center that will attract other life science businesses.
I \lTE\lDED USES OF THIS EIR
As discussed in Chapter 1, the City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency responsible
for preparation of this EIR (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15051). This EIR is
intended to be used to provide CEQA clearance for all required discretionary actions for the
Project. The EIR provides City of South San Francisco decision makers, reviewing agencies,
and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in considering the
required discretionary actions for approval of the Project. The following approvals would be
required:
.
Certification of Final EIR
PAGE 3-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
. Modifications to existing:
o Use Permit
o Planned Unit Development Permit
o Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
. Design Review Approval
. Lot Line Adjustment
. Administrative approval of subsequent demolition, grading and building permits.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 3-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 3-4
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 3-1: Site Location and Vicinity
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 3-5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 3-6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
z
o
t
02
~
o
f-
~
o
oc
c....
M
~
b:
<(
I
U
f-
~
o
oc
c....
:)
z
>
<(
o
z
<(
oc
lJ
f-
~
o
.........
N
o
lJ")
N
"f-
~
o
c.::
c....
:)
z
>
<(
o
z
<(
c.::
tJ
f-
~
o
""
N
2>
If")
N
~
~
ro
:0
q::
~
.b
""a
~
o
"E
~
.5
~
bO
ro
0..
u:l
:E
E---
f-
c.::
2
~
f-
U
<(
~
=<
f-
Z
~
Z
o
c.::
;;
~
f-
<
c.::
o
~
tJ
<(
c....
4
AESTHETICS
INTRODUCTION
New development can substantially change the visual qualities and characteristics of an
urban area and may have long term lasting effects on the evolution of the urban area, thereby
stimulating growth and increasing its attractiveness for new or expanding businesses,
residential development or other desired or planned land uses. On the other hand, new
development can change the character of an area by disrupting the visual and aesthetic
features that establish the identity and value of an urban area for its existing residents,
merchants or other users. Loss of such identity and value may discourage new investment,
continued residency or business activity or other activities that attract visitors to the area. A
single new development can add to a district's appeal or complement adopted goals for
development and change or entirely overwhelm a district's scale and visual landmarks. Over
time, a new development may become a valued component of the district and its identity, or
generate dissatisfaction by residents, visitors, employers and employees.
The visual value of any given feature is highly subject to personal sensibilities and variations
in subjective reaction to the features of an urban area. A negative visual impression on one
person may be viewed as positive or beneficial by another. Objective or commonly agreed
upon standards are difficult to establish, but an extensive body of literature is devoted to the
subject of urban design and visual aesthetics.
SETTI \lG
South San Francisco's urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well defined
setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and
the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges. 1 The City is
contained in almost a bowl-like fashion by hills on three sides. The City's terrain ranges from
the flatlands along the water to hills west and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the
City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain (which is outside City limits) in the distance are
visual landmarks. Much of the City's topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from
1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing
Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997, p.4-2, 4-10, 4-15.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 4-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
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.
The Project site is located in the East of 101 Planning Area of South San Francisco. The East
of 101 Area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100
years ago. Since then, the Area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial
uses, such as steel manufacturing and meat packaging gave way to industrial park,
warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s.
The recent emergence of modern office buildings marks the third major wave of land use
change in the area. The newly emerging office areas are unique in their uses of consistent and
conscious street tree planting, while the rest of the City, including downtown, is almost bereft
of street trees. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park structures and tilt-up warehousing
buildings can all be found in the area. Blocks are generally very large in size and the area has
a very stark industrial look. The Project site is within the Britannia Pointe Grand II business
park at 250-270 East Grand Avenue, near Harbor Way. In addition to the Project site, the
Britannia Pointe Grand II business park is comprised of six additional office/R&D buildings
and their related parking and landscaping.
Site Description
The following photographs of the Proj ect site facilitate an understanding of the site's visual
characteristics as shown in Figures 4-1 to 4-6. The existing site has limited landscaping,
largely located along street frontages.
PAGE 4-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
Figure 4-1: Site Photo 1
Figure 4-2: Site Photo 2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 4-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Figure 4-3: Site Photo 3
Figure 4-4: Site Photo 4
PAGE 4-4
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
Figure 4-5: Site Photo 5
Figure 4-6: Site Photo 6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 4-5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
IMPACT A \lALYSIS
Standards of Significance
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's aesthetic impacts are based upon CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Proj ect have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
2. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
3. Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
4. Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
SCENIC VISTA
Impact Vis-I:
Scenic Vista. Areas from which views of San Bruno Mountains-a
prominent visual landmark in South San Francisco-may be adversely
affected are not designated scenic vistas, nor are they places where people
might be expected to gather in order to view the San Bruno Mountains,
therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic
vistas with no mitigation warranted.
San Bruno Mountain is a prominent visual landmark in South San Francisco, and can be seen
from many locations throughout the city, including from the Project site. A business park in
construction phases across East Grand Avenue to the north (249 East Grand Avenue) will at
least partially block existing views from the Project site with three- to five-story buildings.
Construction of the proposed Proj ect, with building elements up to 115' - 4", may block out
all or a portion of the existing view to the north from locations to the south. However, the
areas from which views of the mountain may be blocked are not designated scenic overlooks;
and are not places where people gather in order to gain a view of San Bruno Mountain.
Therefore, blockage of existing views by the proposed Project would be considered less than
significant.
SCENIC HIGHWAYS
The Project site is not located on a scenic highway, and therefore would have no impact
related to scenic resource damage on a scenic highway.
PAGE 4-6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
VISUAL CHARACTER
As described in the Setting section above, the visual character of the East of 101 Area
consists of a mixture of older and newer office and industrial buildings, with differing
amounts of associated landscaping. The proposed Project would involve replacement of older
office/R&D buildings with modern construction of a new highly designed office building
complex including notable landscaping and pedestrian improvements. Representative
perspective drawings are shown in Figures 4-7 and 4-8. Given the current condition of the
site, the proposed Project would have no adverse impact on the visual character of the site or
the East of 101 Area.
Figure 4-7: Perspective Drawing Looking fast Along Landscape Mall
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 4-7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Figure 4-8: Perspective Drawing Looking South From E. Grand Ave Toward Entry
Plaza
LIGHT AND GLARE
The proposed Project incorporates building materials that were selected to match and
complement the existing buildings on the site. The solid surfaces of the building will be
Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete panels (GFRC) and metal panel. The GFRC is 2 colors,
light beige and taupe. The metal panels and the accent mullions will be in taupe to match the
GFRC. The glass will be high performance with a blue tint and the field mullions will be a
teal, again to match the existing buildings.
The parking lot lighting will be designed to meet minimum light levels for site security. Light
fixtures will be selected with full optical cut-off, fixtures close to the property line will have
shields to eliminate light trespass.
Impact Vis-2:
Light and Glare. The many windows and outdoor lights associated with
increased development intensity on the Project site could potentially be
substantial sources of day and nighttime glare. However, the Project
proposes use of materials and lighting that would reduce the amount of
glare to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
Sources of light and glare in the project vicinity include interior and exterior building lights,
service areas and surface parking lots, and city street lights. Light and glare associated with
vehicular traffic along major thoroughfares in the area also create sources of glare. The
existing level and sources of light and glare are typical of those in a developed urban setting.
PAGE 4-8
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
Residential uses and natural areas are particularly sensitive to light and glare impacts,
particularly from nearby non-residential sources. However, the Project is located in a
commercial and industrial area with no adjacent residential uses or natural areas.
The Project would increase the active building area on the project site and therefore would
increase the amount of nighttime lighting and glare. However, it is not expected that the
project would substantially affect the overall ambient light levels in the project vicinity, a
fully developed, urban context. The Proj ect' s proposed finishes have been selected for
consistency with the existing development, and no lighting or glare impacts have been
reported in the projects' history.
In summary, since the Project would consist of development and lighting treatments typical
of the existing commercial/industrial urban settings and would incorporate standard and
tailored lighting measures to address undue lighting on adjacent areas, it would not result in
new sources of substantial adverse light or glare. The impact would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE AESTHETIC IMPACTS
The East of 101 area in South San Francisco is the geographic context for cumulative
assessment of visual quality and aesthetics. This area is a historically industrial area
transitioning to high technology office/R&D uses as reflected in this and other foreseeable
projects in the area. These projects largely involve replacement of older facilities and/or
vacant sites and include landscaping and pedestrian improvements to current City standards.
All future development that could occur in the project vicinity would be required to adhere to
established restrictions, guidelines, standards, policies, and criteria that address building
appearance, height, bulk, and configuration. Given the current condition of the East of 101
area and the highly designed developments in the foreseeable and anticipated future, there
would be no cumulative adverse impact related to visual quality and aesthetics, but rather, a
likely beneficial impact.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 4-9
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
P AG E 4- 1 0
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
--
J
AI R QLALITY
INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses the potential impacts of the implementation of the proposed Project on
the local and regional air quality. Development projects of this type in the Bay Area are most
likely to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation through vehicle trip generation.
SETTI \lG
METEOROLOGY AN D CLIMATOLOGY
Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients
interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal
of air pollutants.
The climate of the San Francisco Bay Area is classified as Mediterranean, and has mild, wet
winters and warm, dry summers. The regional climate is controlled primarily by the Pacific
high-pressure system over the eastern Pacific Ocean and by local topography. Local climate
is strongly influenced by topography and proximity to the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco
Bay. Cool, onshore winds blowing from the Pacific have a moderating effect, especially west
of the Diablo Mountain Range where the study area is located. These mountains act as a
barrier to onshore winds, resulting in the channeling of airflow along canyons, valleys, and
through straits in the Bay, as well as strong west-to-east temperature differences. The
resulting overall air flow patterns are complex, exhibiting much local variation. Large-scale
winds, which are the wind patterns influenced by general geographical and topographical
features of the San Francisco Bay Area on a roughly 50-mile scale, are predominantly from
the west from the Golden Gate toward the Delta.
While air quality is largely a regional issue, the protection of air quality is vital to the overall
health of the environment and the attractiveness of any locality. 1 South San Francisco enjoys
generally good air quality due largely to the presence of the San Bruno Gap, a break in the
1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 233.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 5-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Santa Cruz Mountains that allows onshore winds to flow easily into San Francisco Bay and
quickly disperse air pollutants.
Within South San Francisco, certain areas of the city are more likely to result in pollutant
exposure for residents and workers. These areas include the Highway 101, Interstate 280, and
EI Camino Real corridors, which experience relatively high pollutant concentrations due to
heavy traffic volumes, particularly during peak periods. In addition, wind blowing out of the
south and southeast exposes the city to emissions from the San Francisco International
Airport.
REGULATORY SETTING
South San Francisco is located within the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Air
quality in the basin is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), which operates a regional network of air pollution monitoring stations to
determine if the national and State standards for criteria air pollutants and emission limits of
toxic air contaminants are being achieved.
Federal Regulations
The Bay Area Air Basin is subject to major air quality planning programs required by the
federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (1977, last amended in 1990, 42 United States Code ~USC~
7401 et seq.). The CAA requires that regional planning and air pollution control agencies
prepare a regional Air Quality Plan to outline the measures by which both stationary and
mobile sources of pollutants can be controlled in order to achieve all standards within the
deadlines specified in the Clean Air Act. For the Bay Area Air Basin, the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) jointly prepared a Bay Area Air
Quality Plan in 1982.
State and Regional Regulations
In 1988, California passed the California Clean Air Act (CCAA, California Health and
Safety Code S 39600 et seq.). Under the CCAA, the Bay Area Air Basin is required to have a
Clean Air Plan (CAP) to achieve and maintain ozone standards. The most recent draft
revision to the CAP was completed in 2000. The 2000 CAP applies control measures to
stationary sources, mobile sources, and transportation control measures (TCMs). Although
the 2000 CAP is an ozone plan, it includes PMlO attainment planning as an informational
item. In January 2006, BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy to update and
build upon the 2000 CAP.
Both the federal Air Quality Plan and the state CAP rely on the combined emission control
programs of the EP A, California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD).
PAGE 5-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
Criteria Air Pollutants
Ambient air quality standards have been established by state and federal environmental
agencies for specific air pollutants most pervasive in urban environments. These pollutants
are referred to as criteria air pollutants because the standards established for them were
developed to meet specific health and welfare criteria set forth in the enabling legislation.
The criteria air pollutants emitted by the proposed Project include ozone (03) precursors
(NOx and RaG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), and suspended particulate
matter (PM10 and PM2.s). Other criteria pollutants, such as lead (Pb) and sulfur dioxide (S02),
would not be substantially emitted by the proposed Project or Project traffic, and air quality
standards for them are being met throughout the Bay Area.
Ozone (03)
While 03 serves a beneficial purpose in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) by reducing
ultraviolet radiation potentially harmful to humans, when it reaches elevated concentrations
in the lower atmosphere it can be harmful to the human respiratory system and to sensitive
species of plants. 03 concentrations build to peak levels during periods of light winds, bright
sunshine, and high temperatures. Short-term 03 exposure can reduce lung function in
children, make persons susceptible to respiratory infection, and produce symptoms that cause
people to seek medical treatment for respiratory distress. Long-term exposure can impair
lung defense mechanisms and lead to emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Sensitivity to 03
varies among individuals, but about 20 percent of the population is sensitive to 03, with
exercising children being particularly vulnerable. 03 is formed in the atmosphere by a
complex series of photochemical reactions that involve "ozone precursors" that are two large
families of pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (RaG). NOx and
RaG are emitted from a variety of stationary and mobile sources. While N02, an oxide of
nitrogen, is another criteria pollutant itself, RaGs are not in that category, but are included in
this discussion as 03 precursors.
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Exposure to high concentrations of co reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood
and can cause dizziness and fatigue, impair central nervous system function, and induce
angina in persons with serious heart disease. Primary sources of co in ambient air are
passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and residential wood burning.
Nitrogen Dioxide (N02)
The major health effect from exposure to high levels ofN02 is the risk of acute and chronic
respiratory disease. N02 is a combustion by-product, but it can also form in the atmosphere
by chemical reaction. N02 is a reddish-brown colored gas often observed during the same
conditions that produce high levels of 03 and can affect regional visibility. N02 is one
compound in a group of compounds consisting of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). As described
above, NOx is an 03 precursor compound.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 5-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Particulate Matter (PM)
Particulate matter consists of particles of various sizes which can be inhaled into the lungs
and cause adverse health effects. Particulate matter is regulated by the fraction of course
particulates 10 microns (a micron is one one-millionth of a meter) or less in diameter (PM10)
and by the fraction of fine particulates 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.s). The health
effects from long-term exposure to high concentrations of particulate matter are increased
risk of chronic respiratory disease like asthma, and altered lung function in children. Short-
term exposure to high levels of particulate matter has been shown to increase the number of
people seeking medical treatment for respiratory distress, and to increase mortality among
those with severe respiratory problems. Particulate matter also results in reduced visibility.
Ambient particulate matter has many sources. It is emitted directly by combustion sources
like motor vehicles, industrial facilities, and residential wood burning, and in the form of dust
from ground-disturbing activities such as construction and farming. It also forms in the
atmosphere from the chemical reaction of precursor gases.
National and State Ambient Air Oualitv Standards
The CAA and CCAA promulgate, respectively, national and state ambient air quality
standards for carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (N02), particulate matter
10 microns or less in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter
(PM2.s).2 Ambient standards specify the concentration of pollutants to which the public may
be exposed without adverse health effects. Individuals vary widely in their sensitivity to air
pollutants, and standards are set to protect more pollution-sensitive populations (e.g.,
children and the elderly). National and state standards are reviewed and updated periodically
based on new health studies. California ambient standards tend to be at least as protective as
national ambient standards and are often more stringent.
For planning purposes, regions like the San Francisco Bay Area are given an air quality status
designation by the federal and state regulatory agencies. Areas with monitored pollutant
concentrations that are lower than ambient air quality standards are designated "attainment"
on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. When monitored concentrations exceed ambient standards
within an air basin, it is designated "nonattainment" for that pollutant.
EXISTING AIR QUALITY
In general, the Bay Area experiences low concentrations of most pollutants when compared
to federal and state standards. The Bay Area is considered "attainment" for all of the national
standards, with the exception of ozone. It is considered "nonattainment" for State standards
for ozone and particulate matter.
2 Other pollutants (e.g., lead, sulfur dioxide) also have ambient standards, but they are not discussed in this
document because emissions of these pollutants from the Project are expected to be negligible.
PAGE 5-4
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
The BAAQMD monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Air Basin,
although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the Project
site are located in San Francisco and Redwood City. Table 5-1 summarizes exceedances of
the state and federal standards at these two sites. The table shows that most of the ambient air
quality standards are met in the Project area with the exception of the state standards for
PM10 and ozone.
TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTION MONITORING DATA
Pollutant Standard Monitoring Days Standard Exceeded
Site
2003 2004 2005
Ozone Federal I-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 0 0 0
Ozone State I-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 1 1 0
Ozone Federal8-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 0 0 0
PMI0 Federal 24-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood City 0 0 0
PMI0 State 24-Hour San Francisco 1 1 0
Redwood City 0 1 2
Carbon State/F ederal San Francisco 0 0 0
Monoxide 8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0
Nitrogen State I-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Dioxide Redwood City 0 0 0
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2005
IMPACT A \lALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on
CEQA Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan? The criteria is further defined as follows:
- If the Project shows an estimated population greater than assumed in the Clean Air Plan
(as defined in ABAG Projections), then it would be inconsistent with air quality
planning, and would be deemed to have a significant air quality impact.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 5-5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
- If the Project shows a growth rate in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) higher than the
population growth rate, it would be considered to be hindering progress toward
achieving a substantial reduction in the rate of increase in passenger vehicle trips and
miles traveled. Therefore, it would be considered inconsistent with regional air quality
planning, and deemed to have a significant air quality impact.
- The consistency of the Project with Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs) must also be considered in evaluating air quality effects associated with
implementation of the Proj ect. If the Proj ect does not demonstrate reasonable efforts to
implement the TCMs identified in the Clean Air Plan, then it would be considered to be
inconsistent with the CAP and deemed to have a significant air quality impact.
2. Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
3. Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
4. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
5. Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
CONFLICT WITH AIR QUALITY PLAN
The city's General Plan designations and future land use types and intensities would have
been taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD's 2000 Clean Air Plan and the
most recent Clean Air Plan update (Bay Area Ozone Strategy), released in early 2006.
Because the Project is consistent with the General Plan designations, the Project would
therefore be consistent with population projections used to develop the latest Clean Air Plan.
Projects should reasonably implement applicable TCMs to be considered consistent with
regional clean air planning efforts. Most of the TCMs listed in the latest Clean Air Plans are
not directly applicable to the Project.
Under the General Plan policies, projects such as this are required to implement a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce project trips. A TDM
program is currently in effect for the Britannia Pointe Grand II business park and would need
to be updated as a part of required project approvals. The TDM program, along with General
Plan policies and Mitigation Measures identified in Chapter 11 : Transportation and
Circulation of this document would reasonably implement TCMs consistent with those
contained in the latest approved Clean Air Plan. There would be no impact related to a
conflict with the Air Quality Plan
PAGE 5-6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
AI R QUALITY STAN DARDS
Project-related air quality impacts fall into two categories: short-term impacts due to
construction, and long-term impacts due to project operation. During project construction, the
Project would affect local particulate concentrations primarily due to fugitive dust sources.
Over the long-term, the Project would result in an increase in emissions primarily due to
increased motor vehicle trips.
Construction
Impact Air-I:
Construction Dust and Exhaust. Construction activity involves a high
potential for the emission of air pollutants. Construction activities would
generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive
particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. This would
be a potentially significant impact.
Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality, causing a temporary
increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust emission during periods of construction
would increase particulate concentrations at neighboring properties. This impact is
potentially significant, but normally mitigable.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines3 provide thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. The
BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the
appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible
control measures for construction emission of PM10. If the appropriate construction controls
are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be
considered less than significant.
Construction activities from on-site equipment and truck deliveries would emit toxic air
contaminants and air pollutants that are not regulated by the BAAQMD. These emissions,
although temporary, could affect nearby land uses including the Early Years Children's
Center, a sensitive receptor. It is unlikely that significant health risks would occur due to: 1)
the temporary nature of construction activity, 2) the separation distances between sensitive
receptors and the Project, and 3) the relatively high occurrence of moderate to strong winds
during the construction season. In order to be protective of the health of nearby sensitive
receptors, as well as reduce emissions that could affect regional air quality, the Project should
implement additional construction period mitigation measures. These would be measures
beyond those normally recommended by the BAAQMD to ensure air pollutant emissions for
construction activities would be considered less than significant.
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised 1999).
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 5-7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Mitigation Measure
Air-I: Dust Suppression and Exhaust Reduction Procedures. The following
basic, enhanced and additional measures are recommended for inclusion in
construction contracts to control fugitive dust emissions during
construction. Measures to reduce construction exhaust will additionally
reduce particulate matter from the exhaust of diesel-powered construction
vehicles.
Basic Measures
. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas
at construction site.
. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that
can be blown by the wind.
. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require
all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
. Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road,
parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
. Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil
material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
. Limit construction equipment idling time.
. Properly tune construction equipment engines, and install particulate
traps on diesel equipment.
Enhanced Measures
. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction
areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to
exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt
runoff to public roadways.
PAGE 5-8 250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Additional Measures
. Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or
tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site.
. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 mph.
Measures to Reduce Construction Exhaust
The measures listed below should be implemented to reduce diesel
particulate matter and NOx emissions from on-site construction
equipment:
. At least 50 percent of the heavy-duty, off-road equipment used for
construction shall be CARB-certified off-road engines or equivalent,
or use alternative fuels (such as biodiesel or water emulsion fuel) that
result in lower emissions.
. Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or
particulate filters.
. Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate emissions from off-road
diesel powered equipment. The project shall ensure that emissions
from all construction diesel powered equipment used on the project
site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in
anyone hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or
Ringelmann 2.0) shall be prohibited from use on the site until repaired.
. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever
possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g.,
compressors) .
. Diesel equipment standing idle for more than two minutes shall be
turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil,
aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could
keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site.
. Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.
With the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, impacts
related to construction dust and exhaust would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Issues of toxic air contaminants related to construction activities are further addressed in
Chapter 7 of this document, specifically with mitigation measures Haz-3b and Haz-4a.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 5-9
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Operation
Development projects of this type in the Bay Area are most likely to violate an air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation through
vehicle trip generation. New vehicle trips add to ozone precursor concentrations and to
carbon monoxide concentrations near streets that provide access to the site.
Carbon Monoxide
Impact Air-2:
Carbon Monoxide. Mobile emissions generated by Project traffic would
increase carbon monoxide concentrations at intersections in the Project
vicinity. However, these increases would be below significance thresholds
of the Air Quality Management District so would be considered a less-
than-significant impact. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommends
estimation of carbon monoxide concentrations for projects where project traffic would
impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E, or F or would cause
Level of Service to decline to D, E, or F; or where Project traffic would increase traffic
volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more (if the increase is at least 100 vehicles per
hour).
Emissions and ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide have decreased greatly in recent
years. These improvements are due largely to the introduction of cleaner burning motor
vehicles and motor vehicle fuels. No exceedances of the State or National CO standard have
been recorded at any of the Bay Area's monitoring stations since 1991. The Bay Area has
attained the State and National CO standard.
However, despite this progress, localized CO concentrations still warrant concern in the Bay
Area and should be addressed. The region must safeguard against localized high
concentrations of CO that may not be recorded at monitoring sites. Because elevated CO
concentrations are generally fairly localized, heavy traffic volumes and congestion can lead
to high levels of CO, or "hotspots", while concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring
station may be below State and National standards.
Future carbon monoxide levels were predicted near these intersections with the Project in
place using Project traffic projections for local streets provided by Crane Transportation
Group, and U. S. 101 freeway traffic proj ections previously provided by Crane Transportation
Group for analysis of the nearby Home Depot project4. Emission factors were calculated
using the EMF AC2007 model, developed by the California Air Resources Board, with
default assumptions for San Mateo County during winter that include a temperature of 40
deg. Fahrenheit, and slow traffic speeds of 5 miles per hour on the local streets and 25 miles
4 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Home Depot Environmental Impact Report, 2006
PAGE 5-10
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
per hour on Highway 101. The contribution from Highway 101 traffic was included in this
assessment since both intersections evaluated are within close proximity to the freeway. Air
quality models such as the one used in this analysis include the assumption that per-mile
emission rates will continue to be reduced in future scenarios due to anticipated
improvements in the automobile fleet; attrition of older, high-polluting vehicles; and
improved fuel mixtures.
The contribution of Project-generated traffic to carbon monoxide levels were added to
background levels to predict the resulting concentrations. The closest representative air
quality monitoring station to the Project is in Redwood City. This highest measured carbon
monoxide level over any 8-hour averaging period over the last 3 years was 2.3 parts per
million (ppm). There are 1- and 8-hour standards for carbon monoxide. The 8-hour standard
is the most stringent and is always exceeded if the I-hour standard is exceeded. Therefore,
this analysis evaluated impacts against the 8-hour standard.
The screening method is designed to be a conservative method of determining whether or not
a project may cause exceedances of the carbon monoxide air quality standard. If the
screening method predicts significant levels, than a more-refined analysis may be conducted
that would more accurately predict carbon monoxide levels, which would likely be lower.
Screening analysis calculations are shown in Appendix C.
TABLE 5-2
PREDICTED 8-HOUR WORST CASE CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS (IN PPM)
2006 2015 Base Case 2015 Base Case
Contribution Conditions Conditions
from Existing without Project with Project
Intersection 3.8 2.4 2.4
Freeway (US 101) 1.0 0.3 0.3
Background 2.3 2.0 2.0
Total 7.1 4.7 4.7
Intersection 3.1 2.0 2.0
Freeway (US 101) 1.0 0.4 0.4
Background 2.3 2.0 2.0
Total 6.4 4.4 4.4
Intersection
Oyster Point Boulevard
and Dubuque A venue
w/adjacent freeway
Oyster Point Boulevard-
Sister Cities Boulevard
and Airport Boulevard
w/adjacent freeway
Significance Thresholds (CAAQS): 9.0 ppm for 8-hour exposure
Source: Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc.
As shown in Table 5-2, the screening analysis indicates that existing 8-hour Carbon
Monoxide Levels are currently below National and California Ambient Air Quality
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 5-11
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Standards. Predicted 8-hour carbon monoxide levels with the Project in place under future
conditions (in 2015) are predicted to remain below ambient air quality standards. As a result,
the impact on local air quality resulting from the Project is considered to be less than
significant. Issues of hazardous emissions related to Project operation are addressed in
Chapter 7 of this document, specifically mitigation measure Haz-4b.
CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
The Project would generate new emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The
BAAQMD has developed criteria to determine if a development Project could result in
potentially significant regional emissions. The District has recommended that 2,000 daily
vehicle trips be used as a threshold for quantifying Project regional impacts.
The Project size along with the trip generation rate forecasted by CTG was input to the
URBEMIS 2002 (version 8.7) model. The modeling assumed that the Project would be fully
constructed and occupied in 2015. Default assumptions for the San Francisco Bay Area were
used. The URBEMIS 2002 calculations were performed in order to determine whether the
Project would exceed air emissions thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (RaG), Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx) and Carbon Monoxide (CO). Emissions thresholds are 80 pounds per day for
RaG, NOx and PM10. The Project's total (worst case scenario not subtracting for existing
uses to be replaced or mitigation measures) emissions are estimated at 26 pounds per day
(lbs/day) for RaG, 26 lbs/day for NOx, and 53 lbs./day for PM10. These emissions are below
the significance thresholds established by the BAAQMD, thus this impact would be less than
significant.
Impact Air-3:
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. The proposed Project would contribute
to regional air quality emissions but would not exceed BAAQMD
emissions thresholds for RaG, NOx and PM10. This would be considered a
less than significant impact.
While the Project is not expected to have a significant impact on
cumulative air quality, the following mitigation measure has been
proposed to ensure that cumulative air quality impacts remain less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure
Air-3: Transportation Demand Management Program. Implementation of an
updated Transportation Demand Management Program is required, as
described in Mitigation Measure Traf-1 of the Transportation and
Circulation chapter. This Program would reduce the number of vehicle
trips to and from the Project site. The following components should be
considered for inclusion in the updated Program to further reduce Project
impacts to air quality:
PAGE 5-12
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
. Support shuttle service to BART and Caltrain. There are currently
shuttles that serve employers in the area.
. Provide bicycle amenities so that employees could bicycle to the
project. Such amenities could include safe onsite bicycle access and
convenient storage (bike racks). Amenities for employees could
include secure bicycle parking, lockers, and shower facilities.
. The Project should include sidewalks with shade trees that provide
safe and convenient access to the project and any shuttle or future bus
stops that serve the Proj ect.
. Impact Traf-6 of the Transportation and Circulation Section discusses
the on-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation incorporated into the
project. Mitigation Measure Traf-6 would require pedestrian
connections to adjacent roadways and between proposed and existing
buildings in the Britannia Pointe Grand II business park to ensure
adequate pedestrian circulation.
. For all buildings, provide outdoor electrical outlets and encourage the
use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment. Also, provide
electrical outlets for recharging electrical vehicles in commercial and
industrial parking lots/structures. Provide 110 and 220 Volt outlets at
all loading docks and prohibit trucks from using their auxiliary
equipment powered by diesel engines for more than 5 minutes.
. Provide new trees that would shade buildings and walkways In
summer to reduce the cooling loads on buildings.
Implementation of this mitigation measure helps further mInImIze an
already less-than-significant impact.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population
groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located.
These land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, retirement
homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptor is
the Early Years Children's Center located at 371 Allerton Avenue, which is located roughly
1200 feet east of the proposed Project site.
The proposed Project could expose the Early Years Children's Center to on-site emissions
during operation of the Project. Any Project occupant who would potentially release toxic air
contaminant emissions would be subject to rules, regulations and procedures of the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District. As part of its program to control toxic air contaminant
emissions, the District has established procedures for estimating the risk associated with
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 5-13
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
exposure. The methods used are conservative, meaning that the real risks from the source
may be lower than the calculations, but it is unlikely they will be higher.
In the first step of a two-step process, the District estimates how much of a contaminant
would be found in the air at a specific location. The estimate depends upon the type of
source, its rate of production and its location. The second step involves determining if the
estimated amount of contaminant is hazardous to those exposed to it. This determination
includes an evaluation of both carcinogenicity (tendency to cause cancer) and non-cancer
health effects. Chemical toxicity is based on animal study results and in some instances, on
the results of human exposure.
Impact Air-4:
Future Emissions Near Sensitive Receptors. The Project could include
laboratory facilities or stationary equipment that (e.g., standby emergency
generators) that emit air pollution. These sources could emit small
amounts of toxic air contaminants with the potential to affect sensitive
receptors, such as the childcare facility at 371 Allerton Avenue. This
impact, however, would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with
standard BAAQMD permitting requirements and mitigation measures
Haz-4a and Haz-4b identified in this EIR.
The BAAQMD requires permits for stationary combustion equipment and large laboratory
facilities. Small laboratories are exempt since their emissions would not likely pose an
adverse impact to the public. Stationary equipment or laboratories that are subject to
permitting requirements must show that impacts to the public would be negligible (e.g.,
cancer risks would be less than lOin one million). As a result, these facilities would pose a
less than significant impact with respect to criteria pollutants.
Issues of toxic air contaminants and hazardous emissions with relation to sensitive receptors
are discussed in Chapter 7 of this document. Specifically, mitigation measures Haz-4a and
Haz-4b would be applicable and reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
ODORS
Impact Air-5:
Construction-Related Diesel Odors. During construction, the various
diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create
odors. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable
much beyond the Project site's boundaries. As the potential for diesel odor
impacts would not affect a substantial amount of people, this impact is less
than significant and is further reduced by Measures to Reduce
Construction Exhaust in mitigation measure Air-I. Therefore, no
mitigation is required.
Many construction vehicles run on diesel gasoline, the exhaust of which has a distinct smell
generally considered an objectionable odor. However, these odors would be temporary as
PAGE 5-14
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY
they are only associated with construction and would no be expected to reach much past the
boundary of the project site. Measures to reduce construction exhaust, as presented in
mitigation measure Air-1 in this EIR, are targeted at reduction of diesel particulates
associated with construction, but would also act to further reduce diesel odor emissions.
Impact Air-6:
Operational-Related Objectionable Odors. While it is not known at this
time exactly what businesses will occupy the completed project, these
businesses will be required to conform to applicable air quality regulations
ensuring that any odors resulting from operations will remain at a less-
than-significant level. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
Because at this time it is not known exactly what type of business activity (beyond what has
been identified as high technology research and development) would take place at the Project
site if the proposed Project is implemented, it is not possible to determine if the Project
would have any impact. However, the Project would be expected to conform to applicable air
quality regulations in order to ensure that it produces a less than significant amount of
offensive odors, including the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 7 - Odorous
Substances. This regulation includes specifics ensuring that odors discharged on site cannot
remain odorous after dilution with odor-free air and comes into effect in the event complaints
are filed (meeting the requirements of Regulation 7).
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 5-15
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 5-16
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
6
GEOLOGY A \JD SOILS
INTRODUCTION
This section presents Geology and Soils setting and background information, regulatory
setting, impacts analysis, and proposes mitigation measures for the Project. The setting
section presented below was drawn from several sources of data including: (1) Review of
USGS Open File Reports (OFR) of the area, including a map of the geology (USGS OFR 98-
354, 1998), Quaternary Geologic Map, including liquefaction susceptibility (USGS OFR 97-
715, 1997), and Landslide Map (USGS OFR 97-745 C); (2) Review of Geotechnical Study
Sugen Phase II Building, Britannia Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, January 1999; Geotechnical
Study, Exelis II, Britannia Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, May 2000; Geotechnical Study Sugen
and Metaxen Buildings, Britannia Pointe Grand Business Park, Geomatrix, August 1997; and
Geotechnical Study Sugen Phase III Building Britannia Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, May 23,
2002, (3) Review of the Draft Site Management Plan prepared by GrafCon (October 2006);
(4) Review of Official California Geological Survey (CGS) maps including the South San
Francisco Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Earthquake Fault Zone Map (1982), and the Fault Activity
Map of California (1994); (5) Review of government websites, including the Association of
Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) website (www.abag.gov) for a summary of hazards
ranging from liquefaction to seismic landsliding; (6) Review of the City of South San
Francisco General Plan Update (1999); and (7) Review of the East of 101 Area Plan for
South San Francisco, as well as other applicable ordinances and regulations.
SETTI \lG
REGIONAL SEISMICITY
The Project site lies in the tectonically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of
Northern California, on the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. The geologic and
geomorphic structure of the northwest trending ridges and valleys in the region, including the
Santa Cruz Mountains and San Francisco Bay, are controlled by active tectonism along the
boundary between the North American and Pacific Tectonic Plates, which is the San Andreas
Fault System. Regional faults have predominantly right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal)
movement, with lesser dip-slip (vertical) components of displacement. Horizontal and
vertical movement is distributed on the various fault strands within a fault zone. Throughout
geologic time the fault strands experiencing active deformation change in response to
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 6-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
regional shifts in stress and strain from plate motions. Within 15 miles of the Project site
there are three major active faults that display large right-lateral strike-slip offsets, the San
Andreas fault, the San Gregorio fault, and the Hayward fault.
The nearest known active fault is the San Andreas Fault trace, located approximately 3 miles
(5 km) southwest of the site. Other nearby active faults include the Hayward fault 15 miles
(24 km) northeast, the San Gregorio Fault (Seal Cove fault) located approximately 8.6 miles
to the southwest, the Calaveras Fault located 25 miles northeast and the Concord/Green
Valley fault located 30 miles northeast.
Other faults are nearer than the San Andreas but not considered active since they show no
evidence of Holocene rupture or movement during the past 11,000 years. This includes the
San Bruno and Serra faults mapped approximately 1.4 and 2.6 miles (2.2 km and 4.2 km)
west of the site. The nearest mapped fault of any type is the Hillside fault mapped about 0.35
miles (0.55 miles) northeast. While this is near the subject property the fault shows no
evidence of rupture during at least the past 2 million years.
Seismicity of the Project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic
period, including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and
most recently, the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.1 According to ABAG, violent ground
shaking (Modified Mercalli Intensity, MMI Level IX) is possible in response to a large
earthquake along the nearby San Andreas fault. A major rupture of the Hayward fault is
expected to produce strong ground shaking, MMI VII.
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Project site is located at the edge of the San Francisco Bay, a submerged valley in the
Central Coast Ranges of California. This area is characterized by northwest trending
mountain ranges and valleys oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System.
In the San Francisco Bay area, Tertiary strata commonly rest in angular unconformity on
rocks of the Franciscan complex, which is composed of weakly to strongly metamorphosed
greywacke (sandstone), argillite, limestone, basalt, serpentinite, and chert. The rocks of the
Franciscan Complex are ancient Jurassic oceanic crust and deep marine (pelagic) deposits
accreted onto the edge of the North American Continent and metamorphosed as a result of
accretion and partial subduction. These deposits have been overlain by Late Jurassic to Late
Cretaceous sedimentary deposits. Deposits of these rocks may be found outcropping along
San Bruno Mountain in the Project vicinity. Little metamorphosed, high-pressure, low-
temperature metamorphic minerals are common in the Franciscan complex, but there are also
high grade metamorphic blocks in sheared but relatively un-metamorphosed argillite matrix
which reflect the complicated history of the Franciscan.
1 California Division of Mines and Geology, 2002. Fault Evaluation Reports Prepared Under the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, CGS CD 2002-01
PAGE 6-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
These rocks have been offset by movement along the San Andreas Fault System, which
traverses the Santa Cruz Mountains prior to heading offshore in Southern Daly City, on the
other side of the Peninsula. Several northwest trending and structurally controlled valleys
dissect the San Francisco Peninsula, including the valley of Colma Creek, which contains the
Project site. During the Quaternary Period of rising and falling sea level in response to
patterns of global glaciation, these valleys were incised and then backfilled with sediment to
form the suite of alluvial deposits that can be found today, including the Pleistocene Colma
Formation. Along the bay margin, deposits of Holocene Bay Mud, marsh deposits, and other
fine grained sediment accumulated by currents along the shore.
SITE GEOLOGY AND SOILS
According to a recent geologic map of the area2, the Project site is underlain by fill, described
as clay, silt, sand, rock fragments, organic matter, and man made debris, placed over tidal
flats. The site is likely underlain at depth by the Franciscan Complex. Sandstone bedrock
typical of the Franciscan Complex was penetrated in two boreholes at the site located
approximately 100 feet west of the site.
A geotechnical investigation was not completed for the Project, but several geotechnical
studies of the surrounding parcels have been completed in association with recent
construction activities. In four geotechnical studies of adjacent properties, subsurface
conditions were found to consist of fill materials overlying soft Bay Mud deposits, which are
underlain by medium dense to very dense granular alluvial soils (Colma Formation). The
thickness of fill and Bay Mud varied considerably on the adjacent properties. Fill soils
ranged from five to twelve feet deep; Bay Mud varied from three feet to 30-feet in thickness
under the fill soils. Bedrock was not encountered in boreholes, with the exception of two
boreholes in which weathered sandstone was encountered at depths of 68.5 feet and 73 feet
below ground surface. These boreholes were located 100 to 150 feet west of the Project site.
It is expected that subsurface conditions at the Project site are generally similar to those
encountered during the geotechnical studies of the surrounding parcels. The thickness of the
surficial fill materials, Bay Mud, alluvial sediments, and depth to bedrock could vary
considerably.
LANDSLIDING AND SLOPE STABILITY
Slope steepness is generally the dominant factor governing slope stability, depending upon
soil and bedrock conditions. Steep slopes greater than 50 percent are especially prone to
landslides in areas of weak soil and/or bedrock. The proposed Project would redevelop a
nearly level parcel with no nearby or adjacent steep slopes. There is no apparent risk from
2 Bonilla, M.G. 1998, Geologic Map of the South San Francisco 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of the Hunter's Point
7.5' Quadrangle, u.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-354
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 6-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
slope instability or landsliding. According to information on the ABAG website, the Project
area is not at risk from slope instability.
PRIMARY SEISMIC HAZARDS - SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE
A number of active and potentially active faults are present in the region. According to
criteria of the State of California Geological Survey, active faults have experienced surface
rupture within the last 11,000 years (Holocene Period). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act of 1972 initiated a program of mapping active and potentially active faults (faults
with displacement within Quaternary time - the last 1.6 million years). According to the
program, active faults must be zoned and development projects within the Earthquake Fault
Zones investigated to establish the location and age of any faulting across the development
site. Active and potentially active faults along the San Francisco Peninsula have undergone
extensive investigation in the past. ABAG has summarized results from many of these
studies to quantify the potential impact to certain areas, while the California Geological
Survey has established Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) boundaries. According to these maps,
the proposed development is not located within an EFZ.
The nearest EFZ is for the San Andreas Fault, located slightly more than 3 miles southwest
of the site. Since no faults are mapped across the Project site on any published maps, the
geotechnical consultant inferred ground rupture at the site as a result of an earthquake
unlikely and the risk of ground rupture within the Project boundaries is considered very low.
SECON DARY SEISMIC HAZARDS
Ground Shaking
The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region. The Project site and region will
likely be subjected to strong to violent seismically induced ground shaking within the design
life of the development. The site is located in an area of active regional seismicity near active
seIsmIC sources.
According to a recent study completed by the Working Group on California Earthquake
Probabilities (WGCEP), which assesses the probability of earthquakes in the San Francisco
Bay Area, there is a 62 percent probability that an earthquake of Richter Magnitude 6.7 or
greater will strike within the life of the Project improvements.3
The intensity of ground shaking will vary with the distance and magnitude of the earthquake
causing the ground shaking. The maximum intensity ground shaking expected to occur at the
site would be a modified Mercalli intensity level of IX (violent) in response to an earthquake
of equivalent magnitude to the 1906 earthquake (7.9) on the San Andreas fault. An
3 Working Group On California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 2003, Earthquake Probabilities in the San
Francisco Bay Region: 2002-2031, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-214.
PAGE 6-4
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
earthquake of magnitude 6.8 on the Hayward fault would be expected to produce strong
ground shaking equivalent to modified Mercalli intensity level VII (strong).4
Peak ground accelerations for the site with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a
50-year period are estimated to be approximately 55 percent of the acceleration due to
gravity (g).5 Actual ground motions resulting from ground acceleration may be amplified or
dampened depending on the underlying geologic materials. Deep soft soils tend to amplify
waves whereas shallow soils overlying hard bedrock tends to dampen shaking intensity. With
moderately deep soils at the Project site, some amplification of seismic waves could occur.
Seismically Induced Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of saturated, cohesionless soil during
seismically induced ground shaking, into a viscous liquid with poor supporting
characteristics for buildings and other structures. According to maps produced by ABAG, the
liquefaction hazard level for the site is high for a maximum magnitude earthquake on the San
Andreas fault and moderate for a maximum magnitude earthquake on the Hayward fault. 6
Seismically Induced Densification
Dynamic densification or ground subsidence can occur when dry cohesionless soils collapse
as a result of seismic shaking. This may be particularly true of unconsolidated sandy fill, or
ground overlying hollow areas due to caves, mines, or areas with excessive groundwater
removal. The site has undergone fill with various materials. The fill soils may include areas
of loose dry sandy soils that could be susceptible to dynamic densification. Based on a
liquefaction hazard of high for the site, dynamic densification hazard should also be
considered high.
Seismically Induced Landslides
Seismically induced slope failure is another secondary seismic hazard. During earthquake
induced ground shaking, unstable slopes can fail, causing landslides and debris flows. Due to
the nearly level topography of the site, seismically induced landslides are not considered a
hazard.
REGULATORY SETTING
City of South San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of South San Francisco has adopted the Association of Bay Area Governments
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) for the City by
4 Association of Bay Area Governments, www.abag.ca.gov , 2007.
5 California Geologic Survey, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html.
6 ABAG website, www.abag.ca.gov
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 6-5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
resolution 65-2006, on August 16, 2006. The HMP has been designed to identify the areas
where people or structures may have higher vulnerability to earthquakes, flood, wildland
fires, and other natural hazards. The plan identifies policies and actions that may be
implemented by the City to reduce the potential for loss of life and property damage in these
areas based on an analysis of the frequency of earthquakes, floods, wildland fires and
landslides in terms of frequency, intensity, location, history, and damage effects. The Plan
serves as a guide for decision-makers as they commit resources to reduce the effects of
natural hazards.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Update EIR
The General Plan Update Health and Safety Element includes a section on Geological and
Seismic Hazards. This section identifies geotechnical and geologic impacts to the general
City of South San Francisco area. The most recent General Plan update was completed in
October 1999.
East of 101 Area Plan
The 1999 General Plan update also includes a summary of the East of 101 Area Plan,
providing specific policies for the area located east of U. S. Highway 101.
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 15 includes information on the
Construction Codes and Amendments adopted by the City of South San Francisco. This
includes the California Building Code, among other codes used in construction in the City of
South San Francisco. The California Building Code Vol. 1 and 2, 2001 Edition, including the
California Building Standards, 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of
Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions set forth in
Title 15 was adopted by reference as the building code of the city of South San Francisco in
2004 (Ord. 1330 S 2 (part), 2004).
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 required the mapping
and zoning of active faults within the State of California. Under the act, development within
zones of active fault displacement is restricted for structures intended for human occupancy.
Any development site located within an Earthquake Fault Zone Boundary as delineated on
State maps must be studied to determine if an active fault crosses the subject parcel. Setbacks
from active faults are required under the Act. There is an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone Map for the South San Francisco Quadrangle (1982), in which the Project site is
located.
California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California Public Resources Code
Sections 2690-2699.6) addresses seismic hazards other than surface rupture, such as
PAGE 6-6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
liquefaction and seismically induced landslides. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act specifies
that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until geologic or soils
investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into
plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils. The State of California
does not currently have a Seismic Hazard Map for the southern part of the South San
Francisco Quadrangle. However, the Seismic Hazard Map Home Page indicates that
mapping for the southern part of the South San Francisco Quadrangle is currently under
preparation. This map may be completed in the near future.
Uniform Building Code (1997) and California Building Code (2001)
The Uniform Building Code was developed by the International Conference of Building
Officials to provide a set of consistent standards for building of structures. The California
Building Code (CBC) was developed to incorporate modifications required by California law
and statute and has been adopted by most jurisdictions in California, including the City of
South San Francisco, to oversee construction. The CBC defines four Seismic Zones in
California, which are ranked according to their seismic hazard potential. Zone 1 has the least
seismic potential and Zone 4 has the highest seismic potential. The Bay Area is located in
Seismic Zone 4 and thus development is required to comply with all design standards
applicable to Seismic Zone 4. The earthquake protection law (California Heath and Safety
Code section 19100 et seq.) requires that structures be designed to resist stresses produced by
lateral forces caused by wind and earthquakes. Specific minimum standards for seismic
safety and structural design to meet earthquake protection requirements are set forth in
Chapter 16 of the CBC.
IMPACT A \lALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to CEQA Guidelines, exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards
is considered a significant adverse impact. The potential geologic, soils, and seismic effects
of the proposed Proj ect can be considered from two points of view: (1) construction impacts;
and, (2) geologic hazards to people or structures. The basic criterion applied to the analysis
of construction impacts is whether construction of the Project will create unstable geologic
conditions that would last beyond the short-term construction period. The analysis of
geological hazards is based on the degree to which the site geology could produce hazards to
people or structures from earthquakes, ground shaking, ground movement, fault rupture, or
other geologic hazards, features or events.
According to CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant
environmental impact if it were to result in:
1. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 6-7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
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;
2. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking;
3. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction and seismic-induced landslides;
4. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides;
5. Development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable (or that would become
unstable as a result of the Project) and which could potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
6. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury or death involving volcanic hazards;
7. Development located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life and property;
8. The loss of topsoil or development in an area of erodible soils.
9. Development in areas where soils are incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater;
10. The loss of Mineral Resources important to the State of California or the local economy;
11. The alteration or destruction of a unique geological feature.
SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE
Impact Geo-l: Surface Fault Rupture. According to the latest available maps, the
Project site is not contained within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone boundary. Published geologic maps of the area show the Hillside
fault as lying 1,100 feet north of the site, but this fault is not considered
active or potentially active, with an estimated age of most recent
movement greater than 1.6 million years ago. The potential impact of
surface fault rupture is considered less than significant. Therefore, no
mitigation is required.
PAGE 6-8 250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
EXPOSURE TO STRONG SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING
Impact Geo-2: Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a high probability that the proposed
development will be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from an
earthquake during its design life. Strong to violent seismic ground shaking
is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-2a: Compliance with California Building Code. Project development shall
meet requirements of the California Building Code V ols. 1 and 2, 2001
Edition, including the California Building Standards, 2001 Edition,
published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as
modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the
City of South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic
construction standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects
of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will not
completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-2b: Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report
prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural
Design Plans as prepared by a Registered Structural Engineer. Proper
foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance
with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a
Registered Structural Engineer.
The structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as
outlined in the California Building Code as estimated below. The Project
Geotechnical Investigation shall verify the seismic design parameters in
accordance with requirements of the California Building Code.
Seismic Zone
Soil Profile Type
Seismic Source Type
Seismic Zone Factor
Near Source Acceleration Factor, Na
Near Source Velocity Factor, Nv
4
SE
A
0.40
1.2
1.6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 6-9
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Mitigation Measure
Geo-2c: Obtain a building permit and complete final design review. The
Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South
San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and
structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to
the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in
the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the
East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not
be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and
will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong
earthquake.
Conformity with these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of strong seIsmIC
ground shaking to a level of less than significant.
SEISMICALLY INDUCED GROUND FAILURE, INCLUDING LIQUEFACTION AND
GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT
Impact Geo-3. Liquefaction, Densification, and Ground Surface Settlement. The
Association of Bay Area Governments identifies the Project area as an
area of high hazard for liquefaction. Liquefaction or densification of soils
underlying the site could result in settlement and differential settlement of
site improvements including buildings, pavements, and utilities and pose a
threat to human health. The potential for liquefaction of site soils is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-3a: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation
and in conformance with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level
Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the
direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer and shall
include analysis for liquefaction potential of the underlying sediments.
Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in
accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation.
The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the
City's Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered
Structural Engineer shall prepare Project structural design plans.
Structures shall be designed to minimize the affects of anticipated seismic
settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review the Structural Design
Plans and provide approval for the Geotechnical elements of the plans.
The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the
liquefaction potential of surface soils. Mitigations measures may include
P AG E 6- 1 0
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
excavation and replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation
loading, and ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or
pressure grouting.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-3b: Obtain a building permit and complete plan review. The Project
applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San
Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and
structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to
the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in
the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the
East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not
be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and
will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong
earthquake.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of seismic ground
shaking to a less than significant level.
LANDSLIDES
The Project site is a nearly level area with no nearby hills that could fail by landsliding.
There is no impact related to landslides.
VOLCANIC HAZARDS
The Project site is not located in an active volcano or volcanic hazard area. There is no
impact related to volcanic hazards.
UNSTABLE SOIL MATERIALS
Impact Geo-4: Unstable Soils and Bay Mud. Undocumented fill soils are present on
most of the subject site. Due to the presence of soil contamination at the
site, these soils have not been reworked to provide a stable foundation for
buildings, pavements and utilities. Fill soils of unknown quality are
present in the proposed building and parking areas. Fill soils may settle
due to new building loads. Bay Mud and alluvial soil deposits are present
on adjacent sites and also constitute areas of potentially unstable soils. Bay
Mud is likely present under portions of the Project site and may settle
under design loading conditions resulting in differential settlement of
structures. The presence of unstable soil and Bay Mud is a potentially
significant impact.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 6- 11
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Mitigation Measure
Geo-4: Investigate unstable fill soils and Bay Mud. A Design Level
Geotechnical Investigation shall be performed to determine the depth and
extent of potentially unstable fill soil and Bay Mud. Based on results of
this study the Geotechnical Engineer shall determine appropriate measures
to stabilize the unstable soils present underlying the site. Consolidation
testing of the Bay Mud soils shall be performed, as part of the Design
Level Geotechnical Investigation, and estimates of settlement for the site
shall be developed.
Methods of unstable soil stabilization may include construction of driven
pile foundations that support structures on materials located below fill
soils and Bay Mud, and other methods as recommended by the
Geotechnical Engineer. Buildings constructed on the adjacent properties
have utilized driven pile foundations to support the structures.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the impact of unstable or
potentially unstable soils and Bay Mud to less than significant.
EXPANSIVE SOILS
Impact Geo-5: Expansive Soils. Expansive soils may be present in the soils underlying
the site, but are not considered a hazard to construction. According to the
Draft Site Management Plan prepared by GrafCon (October 2006), the site
will be capped by a minimum one-foot soil cap, which may be composed
of a structural fill material in areas of pavements and concrete slabs-on-
grade. The presence of expansive soils is considered a less than
significant impact with no mitigation required.
SOl L EROSION
Impact Geo-6: Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading in a sensitive area
near the San Francisco Bay. Demolition of existing structures and
pavements could expose underlying contaminated soil to the elements.
Excavation of soil for construction of new buildings and pavement
sections would also be performed and temporary stockpiles of loose soil
will be created. Additionally, as part of Project development, a soil cap
consisting of one-foot of imported clean fill will be placed on the site.
Soils exposed during site grading would be subject to erosion during storm
events. Grading would disturb site soils potentially leading to impacts to
the San Francisco Bay. This would be a potentially significant impact
during and following site construction activities.
PAGE 6-12 250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation Measure
Geo-6a: Erosion Control Plan. The Project applicant shall complete an Erosion
Control Plan to be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Grading
Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include winterization,
dust control, erosion control and pollution control measures conforming to
the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control
Measures. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the "best management
practices" (BMPs) to be used during and following construction to control
pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The
Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable
restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes.
Recommended soil stabilization techniques include placement of straw
wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance areas or other
control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm
drains.
Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and
construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans,
and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-6b: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In accordance with the Clean
Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the
Applicant shall file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best
management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain
coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-
08-DWQ).
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of soil erosion to a
level of less than significant.
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
A sewer system is present in the area and septic systems are not required at the site. The
Project would have no impact related to septic systems.
LOSS OF MINERAL RESOURCES
No mineral resources important to the State of California would be impacted by the Project.
The Project would have no impact related to loss of mineral resources.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
P AG E 6- 1 3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL FEATURES
No unique geologic features will be impacted by the proposed Project. The Project would
have no impact related to unique geological features.
CUMULATIVE GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACTS
Impact Geo-7: Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts. Strong seismic ground shaking,
liquefaction and densification during seismic ground shaking, underlying
unstable soils and bay mud, and soil erosion during project construction
and post construction are common impacts to projects located in the
vicinity. The proposed Project would be one of numerous sites anticipated
to undergo development/redevelopment in the vicinity and would
contribute to a cumulative increase in sites facing these impacts. However,
the project-specific contribution would be reduced by identified project-
specific mitigation measures to a less than significant level with no
additional mitigation required.
The following contributing elements to Impact Geo- 7 above are discussed in more detail
below: ( a) Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking; (b) Liquefaction, Densification, and
Ground Surface Settlement; (c) Unstable Soils and Bay Mud; and (d) Soil Erosion.
Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Exposure to strong seismic ground shaking is a common impact to all projects located in the
San Francisco Bay region. Development of the Project would increase the number of people
exposed to seismic ground shaking in the City of South San Francisco. In the case of a major
strong seismic ground-shaking event, emergency response calls could increase due to the
Project development. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures Geo-
2a, Geo-2b and Geo-2c will reduce the potential cumulative impacts of strong seismic ground
shaking to a less than significant level.
Liquefaction., Densification., and Ground Surface Settlement
Liquefaction and dynamic densification of soils underlying the site is a common impact with
much of the surrounding area. Liquefaction and densification during seismic ground shaking
could lead to ground surface settlement of the Project site as well as the surrounding area.
The identified mitigation measures Geo-3a and Geo-3b will reduce the impact to the Project
site to less than significant, but impacts to the surrounding area will depend on site specific
factors. The Cumulative impact of liquefaction, densification, and ground surface settlement
is considered less than significant.
P AG E 6- 14
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Unstable Soils and Bay Mud
The presence of unstable soils and bay mud underlying the site is a common impact with
much of the surrounding area. Settlement of marsh soils and bay mud at depth have resulted
in ground surface settlement of the Project site as well as the surrounding area. The
identified mitigation measure Geo-4 will reduce the impact to the Project site to less than
significant, but impacts to the surrounding area will depend on site-specific factors. The
Cumulative impact of unstable soils and bay mud is considered less than significant.
Soil Erosion
Soil erosion during Project construction and post construction is a common impact of all re-
development or development projects involving exposure of soils to the environment. The
identified mitigation measures Geo-6a and Geo-6b will reduce the potential cumulative
impact to less than significant.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
P AG E 6- 1 5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
P AG E 6- 1 6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
7
HAZARDOLS MATERIALS
I \lTRODUCTIO \I
A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its
quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either 1)
cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious,
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and safety, or the environment when improperly treated, stored,
transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous waste (a subset of hazardous
materials) refers to hazardous material that is abandoned, discarded or recycled.
The following section describes the history of hazardous materials use at the site, and the
potential threat to future site users and the surrounding environment resulting from the
proposed development. Development plans require demolition of four existing one and two
story buildings to make space for new construction consisting of one three-story and two
five-story office, research and development buildings. Research and Development uses are
expected to require Class A laboratory facilities, including the use and handling of potentially
hazardous materials and the presence of possible biological hazards. Plans also show that an
eight level, 1,134 space parking garage would be constructed along the south edge of the site.
The information presented below was drawn from several sources of data including: (1) Draft
Site Management Plan, GrafCon (October 2006); (2) Geotechnical Study, Exelis II, Britannia
Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, May 2000; (3) Geotechnical Study, Surgen and Metaxen
Buildings, Britannia Pointe Grand Business Park, Geomatrix, August 1997; (4) Geotechnical
Study, Surgen Phase III Building Britannia Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, May 23, 2002; (5)
Environmental Data Resources Incorporated Radius Map with Geocheck database search
(January 6, 2004); (6) Review of the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC)
Database (www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov); (7) Review of the State Water Resources Control
Board Geotracker Database (geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov); (8) Review of the City of South San
Francisco General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan Element; as well as all other applicable
ordinances and regulations; (9) Review of Site Boundary Plan (December 6, 2006) and
Preliminary Drainage Plan (December 4, 2006) by DES Architects (10) Review of the San
Mateo County Environmental Health Department website (11) private telephone
conversations with San Mateo County and City of South San Francisco officials; and (12) a
site visit by Questa Engineering Staff on February 7, 2006.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 7-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SETTI \lG
REGULATORY SETTING
Jurisdictional Authoritv
At the federal level, the chief regulator is the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A),
Region IX for Northern California. At the State level, the Department of Toxic Substances
and Control (DTSC) is chiefly responsible for regulation, handling, use, and disposal of toxic
materials. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is involved in regulation and
permitting wherever there is potential discharge of hazardous materials into waterways and
underground aquifers, including regulation of storm water runoff through the general permit
required for construction projects exceeding one acre. The local branch of the Water Board is
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB).
Regulation of toxic and hazardous substances is locally administered through the San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD), which acts as the Certified Unified
Program Agency (CUP A). A CUP A is certified by the California Environmental Protection
Agency to handle certain hazardous materials and hazards programs. The CUP A program
was established under the amendments to the California Health and Safety Code made by SB
1082 in 1994, which allows for local agencies, such as counties, cities, or joint powers
authorities, to assume responsibility for programs such as the Hazardous Materials Business
Plan/Emergency Response Plan, Hazardous Waste/Tiered Permitting, Underground Storage
Tanks, Aboveground Storage Tanks (SPCC only), California Accidental Release Prevention
Program (CaIARP) and the Uniform Fire Code Hazardous Materials Management Plan.
Regulations., Plans and Programs
The Hazardous Materials Business Plan is used to keep track of the use of hazardous
materials by businesses in accordance with both state and federal laws. The California
Accidental Release Prevention (CaIARP) Program is a merging of the federal and state
programs for the prevention of accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable
substances. The goal is to eliminate the need for two separate and distinct chemical risk
management programs. CalARP is the Federal Risk Management Plan Program with
additional state requirements, including a list of regulated substances and thresholds and
requires preparation of a Risk Management Plan for businesses using regulated substances.
The Hazardous Waste Generator Program was started in 1984 when the State of California
DTSC authorized the Health Department to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous
waste generators in San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in
the California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5.
PAGE 7-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The groundwater protection program is funded wholly or in part, by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A), under Cooperative Agreement L-009450-1-0 to
the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by Contract 8-014-550 to the
County of San Mateo. In conjunction with these laws the underground storage tank program
was created to regulate the chief source of underground contamination, leaking underground
storage tanks (LUSTs) or fuel tanks (LUFTs).
Many regulatory agencies maintain a database of sites. Currently, both the DTSC
(www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov) and State Water Resources Control Board
(geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov) maintain online searchable databases of hazardous materials sites.
Other databases with information on hazardous materials sites include the Federal Superfund
list started through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Conservation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the USEPA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), HAZNET, the leaking
underground storage tank information system (LUST), and the Cortese list. Air pollution is
regulated through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
These programs and regulations are intended to restrict environmental contamination,
including hazards to wildlife, provide protection for natural resources, and limit public
exposure to harmful chemicals. Specific programs intended to protect workers from exposure
to hazardous materials and from accidental upset are covered under the Occupational Health
and Safety Administration at both the Federal Level (OSHA) and the state level (CAL-
OSHA). Title 40 of the Federal Code of Regulations covers worker training and safety
regulations pertinent to hazardous materials. OSHA regulations for hazardous waste
operations training in California are found in Title 29 of the California Code, Section
1910.120(e). The law requires General Site Workers receive a minimum of 40 hours of
instruction off the site, and a minimum of three days of actual field experience, while
Occasional Site Workers receive a minimum 24 hours of instruction off the site, and a
minimum of one day actual field experience.
Transportation of hazardous materials on the highways is regulated primarily through the
Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) and the California Department of
Transportation (CAL TRANS). This includes a system of placards, labels, and shipping
papers required to identify the hazards of shipping each class of hazardous materials.
Existing federal and state laws address risks associated with the transport of hazardous
materials. These laws include regulations outlined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act administered by the DOT. Caltrans is mandated to implement the regulations established
by the DOT, which is published as the Federal Code of Regulations, Title 49, commonly
referred to as 49 CFR. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) enforces these regulations.
Regulations of hazardous materials and wastes include the manufacture of packaging and
transport containers; packing and repacking; labeling; marking or placarding; handling; spill
reporting; routing of transports; training of transport personnel; and registration of highly
hazardous material transport.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 7-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
General Plan Policies
The City of South San Francisco General Plan contains several policies that relate to
hazardous materials and waste, mainly contained in Section 8.3, shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1
Select General Plan Policies Regarding Hazardous Materials
Policy
Goal
8.3-G-1
Reduce solid and hazardous waste, and recycle to slow the filling of landfills in accord with the
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
8.3-G-2
Enforce revised zoning ordinance prohibition of intensive industrial production of hazardous
waste and the permanent storage of hazardous materials. Limit light industrial uses that produce
hazardous waste, such as auto repair and auto painting businesses.
8.3-1-3
Establish a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database of sites included on the Cortese
List. The GIS should assist in the development approval process.
8.3- 1-4
Establish an ordinance specifying routes for transporting hazardous materials. Routes should
not pass through residential areas or other sensitive areas and allow specific times for transport
to reduce the impact and accident risk during peak travel periods.
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan
SITE HISTORY
The site history has been documented several times and was recently summarized in the site
management plan. Originally a tidal marsh, the Project area was filled and developed in the
late 19th century. Development was hastened by construction of the railroad, which facilitated
transport of heavy industrial materials along the railroad and from nearby barges on San
Francisco Bay. In the site vicinity, the chief industries were metal plating and de-tinning
operations from the 1920s until the early 1980s. The property was the site of a processing
plant for the recovery of tin and steel from scrap tinplate.
During plant operations, a two-acre evaporation pond existed on-site for the collection of
plant effluent. Large piles of scrap steel generated in the de-tinning process were also stored
on-site. In 1982 Tinmet Corporation (Tinmet) purchased the property. Tinmet submitted a
closure plan for the plant to the Department of Health services, now the Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), in 1982; the DTSC approved the closure plan. The primary
chemicals of concern in soil, sludge, surface water, and groundwater were lead and zinc.
Remediation of the site in the 1980s was accomplished through the removal of approximately
52,000 cubic yards of commercial waste and contaminated soil that was excavated, loaded,
and transported off site. Soils were removed to an average concentration of 500 parts per
million (ppm) total lead.
PAGE 7-4
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The DTSC accepted removal of soil and deed restrictions limiting future development as
sufficient to close the remediation case. However, soil sampling in 1987 and 1994 identified
lead, zinc, chromium, and copper soil contamination to as deep as 10 feet below the ground
surface. As a result of the 1994 findings, a I-foot thick layer of clean uncontaminated soil
was placed over the heavy metal contaminated soil to prevent human and ecological
exposure and potential off-site contamination. In 1997, Geomatrix completed an additional
site investigation including analytical testing for a larger range of possible contaminants than
was done previously. Results indicated concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons,
pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soil were below regulatory thresholds for
cleanup at the time. The Regional Water Quality Control Board confirmed these results in a
letter dated March 17, 1997. Since that time the area around the property has been developed
with no further remedial action on the subject property.
VICINITY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
There are numerous hazardous materials sites throughout the East of 101 Area of South San
Francisco, reflecting the long industrial history of the area. Due to the density of sites, only
those bordering the property are discussed here since contamination from these sites would
have the greatest potential impact during development of the subj ect property. Most sites are
reported in the various environmental databases as they are registered hazardous waste
generators and members of the hazardous materials business plan program for San Mateo
County. These include Sugen, Inc. bordering the site to the northwest, Metaxen Inc.,
bordering to the southeast, Rigel, Inc. bordering to the south, and Exelixis, Inc. bordering to
the southwest and east. These sites are reported for miscellaneous laboratory waste products.
Across East Grand Avenue to the north of the site, the former Georgia Pacific facility (249 E.
Grand Avenue) stored and processed paper and cardboard. Asbestos containing building
materials were present in this structure, but were removed during recent structural
demolition. Additionally, soil and groundwater sampling and testing from boreholes on that
property found no evidence of contamination from hydrocarbons, metals, or related
compounds above either the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening
Levels (ESLs) or the California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs), established by
the Department of Toxic Substances Control.
While the bordering sites are listed as containing hazardous materials, there is no evidence of
active leaks or contamination from these sites affecting soil or groundwater that could
penetrate onto or underneath the subject property. Area sites listed as potential sources of soil
and groundwater contamination in the area are more distant and limited to older
developments, especially businesses with former leaking underground fuel tanks, or former
scrap metal processing plant sites. Outside the subject property the nearest site in the DTSC
database is the California Department of Transportation (CAL TRANS) South San Francisco
Maintenance Yard at 166 Harbor Way, located approximately 1,000 feet west of the site. The
site was formerly occupied by various industrial facilities that included a sheet steel mill and
galvanizing plant, an insulating material manufacturer, and scrap car compacting. The site is
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 7-5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
listed for arsenic, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated nuclear aromatic
compounds, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel. Records show a voluntary
cleanup agreement was completed on February 23,2001, and further action was not required
unless the site was to be redeveloped. Other sites with known soil and groundwater
contamination issues are more than one-quarter mile distant from the site and the chance of
contamination spreading from one of these sites is remote. Any off-site contamination would
likely be secondary to the contamination present on the subject site.
CURRENT CONTAMINATION LEVELS AND HEALTH RISKS
Contamination levels in shallow soils below the existing pavement and I-foot clean soil cap
are likely to be very similar to those measured in 1997, and perhaps only slightly diluted
from dispersal of the more soluble chemicals and metals through groundwater seepage.
These concentrations are shown in Table 7-2 with comparison to the Regional Water Quality
Control Board screening levels for commercial sites. Contamination exceeding the screening
levels is shown in bold.
Table 7-2
Current Shallow Soils Contamination Levels
Constituent
Environmental Screening
Levels (ESLs) Commercial
Units of Measure Concentration / Industrial Sites 1
mg/kg 0-51 100
mg/kg 0-51 100
mg/kg 0-51 500
mg/kg 10-14 7.4
mg/kg 4.1-320 230
mg/kg 1,000 750
mg/kg 15-90, as high as 2,950 600
mg/kg 0.41 0.0031
mg/kg 0.054-0.093 0.74
TPH-gasoline
TPH-diesel
TPH-motor oil
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
PCBs
1 (SFR WQCB, 2005) Shallow Soil Screening Levels, Commercial Use (Table B-1)
Source: Questa Engineering from GrafCon, October 2006, Draft Site Management Plan, Britannia Pointe Grand Limited
Partnership.
PAGE 7-6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 7-2 shows the most significant contamination found at the subject property are from
lead and cadmium in soil. Localized contamination from copper, cyanide and zinc are also a
concern among the contaminants that were screened. While petroleum hydrocarbons are
present, their concentrations are low enough to indicate background contamination rather
than an active plume, such as would occur in response to a leaking underground fuel tank.
There is no evidence of an active groundwater plume, but there would be residual
contamination from percolation and seepage of groundwater through remaining contaminated
soils. Based on site elevation there is also likely to be some occasional mixing with brackish
water. For these and other reasons groundwater underlying the site is not considered suitable
for drinking water and use is restricted in the deed.
IMPACT A \lALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Proj ect create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
2. Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
3. Would the Project produce hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
4. Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
5. Would the Project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport? Would
the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project
Area?
6. 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?
7. Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
8. Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 7-7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE, TRANSPORT
Impact Haz-l: Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The
proposed development is for construction of a three-story office and Class-
A laboratory building, two 5-story office and Class-A laboratory
buildings, a parking garage, central courtyard, and associated landscaping
and infrastructure. Class A refers to a research laboratory, not merely an
instructional laboratory . Depending upon the nature of research planned at
the proposed facilities, for which detailed information has not yet been
provided, there are likely to be both hazardous and potentially hazardous
materials stored and used on the site that will eventually require disposal.
There are likely to be biological hazards, chemical hazards and risk of fire
or explosion. There is also likely to be transportation of hazardous
materials to and from the site, probably traveling along Highway 101 and
East Grand Avenue. The risk of accidental upset and environmental
contamination from routine transport, storage, use and disposal of
hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the public and
environment is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-la: Plan Review for Adherence to Fire and Safety Codes. Building space
must be designed to handle the intended use, with sprinklers, alarms,
vents, and secondary containment structures, where applicable. These
systems must pass plan review through the City of South San Francisco
Planning, Building and Fire Departments.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-lb: Construction Inspection and Final Inspection Prior to Occupancy.
During construction, the utilities including sprinkler systems shall pass
pressure and flush tests to make sure they perform as designed. At the end
of construction, occupancy shall not be allowed until a final inspection is
made by the Fire Department for conformance of all building systems with
the Fire Code and National Fire Protection Agency Requirements. The
inspection shall include testing of sprinklers systems, alarm systems,
ventilation and airflow systems, and secondary containment systems. The
inspection shall include a review of the emergency evacuation plans.
These plans shall be modified as deemed necessary.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-lc: Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. Businesses occupying the
development must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the
safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan must include the
PAGE 7-8
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage
locations of hazardous materials and where they may be used and
transported from, risks of using these materials, material safety data sheets
for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan,
employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency
contact information. Businesses qualify for the program if they store a
hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable
quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for
solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for
compressed gases.
Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer
goods; medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous
oxide in quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and
who store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no
more than 55 gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for which
the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of
lubricating oil. These exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A
laboratory facilities.
Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must
submit a business plan prior to the start of operations, and must review and
update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30
days of any significant change, including without limitation, changes to
emergency contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous
materials storage and/or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans
shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health
Business Plan Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363-4305 for
more information. The San Mateo County Environmental Health
Department (SMCEHD) shall inspect the business at least once a year to
make sure that the Business Plan is complete and accurate.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-ld: Hazardous Waste Generator Program. Applicable businesses shall
register and comply with the hazardous waste generator program. The
State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control authorized the
SMCEHD to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous waste
generators in San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste Control
Law found in the California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter
6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22,
Division 4.5. Regulations require businesses generating any amount of
hazardous waste as defined by regulation to properly store, manage and
dispose of such waste. Division staff also conducts surveillance and
enforcement activities in conjunction with the County District Attorney's
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 7-9
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Office for businesses or individuals that significantly violate the above
referenced law and regulations.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-le: Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations. All transportation
of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in
accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US
Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), and local laws, ordinances and procedures
including placards, signs and other identifying information.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the impact of routine
transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant
through compliance with existing regulations, plans and programs as discussed specifically in
mitigation measures Haz-l a through Haz-l e that act to ensure adequate safety levels are
reached and maintained throughout the life of the project.
ACCI DENTAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE
Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. During demolition operations
hazardous materials could be released from structures at the site or from
the underlying soils. Following construction, operations at the proposed
facilities are expected to represent a continuing threat to the environment
through accidental release of hazardous materials since the site is proposed
to include Class A laboratory facilities, where hazardous materials may be
stored, used, and disposed of. This represents a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A demolition plan with permit
applications shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco
Building Department for approval prior to demolition. The Demolition
Plan for safe demolition of existing structures shall include asbestos dust
control and incorporate recommendations from the site surveys for the
presence of potentially hazardous building materials, as well as additional
surveys when required by the City. The Demolition Plan shall address
both on-site Worker Protection and off-site resident protection from both
chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials shall
be tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to
appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition,
hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead
based paint and asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in
accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The
PAGE 7-10
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust
particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of
work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to
obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-2b: California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP). Future
businesses at the development shall check the state and federal lists of
regulated substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental
Health Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that
pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because
they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine
which list to use in consultation with the SMCEHD.
Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a CalARP
registration form and submit it to Environmental Health. Following
registration, they shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are
designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the
proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an
accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a
threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and
follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the
environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential
areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures
for: keeping employees and customers safe, handling regulated substances,
training staff, maintaining equipment, checking that substances are stored
safely, and responding to an accidental release.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the Project's impact to a level of
less than significant.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
The site has a well-documented history of hazardous materials. A majority of the
contaminated soil and waste was removed during the early 1980s, however subsequent
analytical testing between 1987 and 1994 found elevated levels of lead, zinc, cadmium, and
other contaminants remained in soil. As a result, a I-foot cap of clean soil was placed across
the site. Deed restrictions limiting future development were formalized in 1997. Provisions
are that the site may not be used for residential housing, as a hospital, school, daycare
facility, recreational facility, or for raising animals or food crops. The deed also restricts use
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 7-11
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
of groundwater to specific required remediation or construction dewatering. Since then the
site has remained relatively undisturbed and the exposure risk has remained minimal.
However, the proposed development requires major grading and disturbance of the cap to
construct structural foundations, and to construct the utility corridors.
Impact Haz-3: Exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater. During demolition
and construction, workers could be exposed to contaminated soil and
groundwater. Following site development, future maintenance work is also
likely to penetrate into the subsurface where contamination remains. Soil
and groundwater disturbance presents an exposure hazard to workers and
trespassers. Disturbance of the subsurface also increases the potential for
contamination to spread through surface water runoff, creation of seepage
pathways, and through wind blown dust. These impacts are potentially
significant.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-3a: San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Closure of
Existing Facilities. Any businesses on the site that are currently registered
in the hazardous materials business plan program shall submit a closure
work plan in accordance with the San Mateo County Environmental
Health Department Business Closure Policy prior to vacating the property.
The closure plan shall detail any necessary sampling and remediation.
Closure will not be granted until businesses have demonstrated there is no
need for further remediation, and shall include documentation of the
removal of any hazardous chemicals.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-3b:
Development and Implementation of Site Management Plans. The
Site Management Plans shall build upon the existing draft Site
Management Plan and shall address the exposure risk to people and the
environment resulting from future demolition, construction, occupancy,
and maintenance activities on the property. The plans shall be in
accordance with recommendations of the Environmental Consultant, and
shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Toxic Substances
Control, the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department
Groundwater Protection Program and the City of South San Francisco
Public Works Department. In accordance with DTSC recommendations
from review of the Draft Site Management Plan there should be two
separate plans: (1) ongoing Operations and Maintenance Activities, and
(2) a specific plan addressing the future proposed site development based
on actual proposed grading, excavation and construction. The plans are
required to be more specific than the draft plan.
PAGE 7-12
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the
environment shall be provided in the plan. At a minimum, the plan shall
include the following:
1) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASP) shall
be prepared in accordance with OSHA regulations by all contractors at
the Project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition, grading and
excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance
work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required
personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to
determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and approved by a
Certified Industrial Hygienist. The plan shall also designate provisions
to limit worker entry and exposure and shall show locations and type
of protective fencing to prevent public exposure to any hazards during
demolition, site grading, and construction activities.
2) Standards for treatment of soil excavated from beneath the soil cap
shall be established. Due to the extent and depth of foundation and
utility excavations, a significant volume of contaminated soils are
likely to be generated during construction, and to a lesser extent during
future maintenance work. These soils must be characterized for reuse
above the future cap, reburial, or disposal off-site. Only soil with
contaminant levels below the DTSC California Human Health
Screening Levels and RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels for
Commercial sites shall be allowed for reuse above the future cap. All
other soil must be either re-capped or disposed of off-site.
To avoid the spread of contamination, on-site soils excavated from
below the cap shall be segregated from any imported clean fill. Soils
shall be placed on a plastic tarp, covered and bermed to reduce the risk
from windblown dust or surface water runoff spreading contamination.
Then soil must be tested to determine the levels of remaining
contamination and suitability for re-use. Contaminated soils unable to
be re-buried under at least one-foot of clean soil must be off-hauled
and disposed of by a licensed hazardous materials contractor under the
proper manifesting documents. A report shall document the volume,
concentration and nature of contaminants in the off-hauled material.
3) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would
minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination shall be
developed. This shall include treatment and disposal measures for any
contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and
dewatering systems in accordance with local and Regional Water
Quality Control Board guidelines. Groundwater encountered in
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 7-13
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
trenches and other excavations shall not be discharged into the
neighboring storm drain, but into a closed containment facility, unless
proven to have concentrations of contaminants below established
regulatory guidelines. Contaminated groundwater will be required to
be stored in Baker tanks until tested. If testing determines that the
water can be discharged into the sanitary sewer system, then the
applicant must acquire a ground water discharge permit from the City
of South San Francisco Sanitary Sewer District and meet local
discharge limits before being allowed to discharge into the sanitary
sewer. Water must be analyzed for the chemicals of concern at the site,
which include metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and cyanide.
4) General sampling and testing plan for excavated soils shall determine
suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed
landfill facility. Testing shall include the California Title 22 Hazardous
Metals (CAM 17 metals), TPH as gasoline, TPH as diesel, and TPH as
motor oil. Soils excavated in the area identified as containing cyanide
shall also be tested for cyanide contamination. Testing results shall be
compared to DTSC California Human Health Screening Levels and
RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels to determine suitability to
remain on-site as engineered fill or landscape fill. Any soils
determined to exceed the CHHSLs and ESLs for Commercial sites
shall be deemed as unsuitable for re-use as fill above the future cap.
5) Replacement of the soil cap shall be performed. Following foundation
and utility work the clean soil cap shall be restored with at least one-
foot of clean soil fill.
6) Future subsurface work plan. The plan shall document procedures for
future subsurface landscaping work, utility maintenance, etc., with
proper DTSC notification, where applicable. The plan shall include a
general health and safety plan for each expected type of work, with
appropriate personal protective equipment, where applicable.
7) Future cap maintenance plan. The plan shall include an inspection
schedule and procedures for repairing the soil cap. A report on the
condition of the soil cap and documenting all repairs shall be
submitted periodically to the DTSC.
Implementation of mitigation measures Haz-3a and Haz-3b would reduce the impact from
exposure of Construction Workers to contaminated soils and groundwater to a level of less
than significant.
PAGE 7-14
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS NEAR SCHOOLS
Impact Haz-4: Contaminated Dust. The Early Years Children's Center is located at 371
Allerton Avenue, approximately one-quarter mile eastward and downwind
of the northeast corner of the property. During grading, contaminated soils
that are currently buried would be disturbed. Disturbed soils could be
mobilized by movement of heavy equipment and the wind, resulting in
potential dispersal of contamination. Dispersed contaminants, of which the
most probable is lead, could be inhaled, ingested or adsorbed and present a
potential health hazard. Dispersal of contaminated dust during demolition
and grading would be a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-4: Demolition and Construction Air Quality Control. Following closure
of businesses, a demolition plan with permit applications shall be
submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building Department for
approval prior to demolition. The Demolition Plan shall address both on-
site Worker Protection and off-site resident protection from both chemical
and physical hazards. Building materials shall be tested for chemicals of
concern and unless recycled shall be disposed to appropriate licensed
landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, any hazardous building
materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint or asbestos
containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all
applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances.
Both the Demolition and Grading Plans submitted to the City for approval
shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached
contaminants. This shall be in accordance with BAAQMD requirements
and all other applicable standards. Dust control and suspension of work
during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plans. The Plan shall
include details of site watering, covering of exposed stockpiles, and
security fencing to prevent trespassers during demolition and construction.
During demolition and construction, the site shall be inspected regularly to
ensure compliance with the approved plan. Materials determined or even
suspected of being hazardous waste shall be off-hauled by a hazardous
materials contractor to an appropriately licensed landfill facility in closed
vehicles.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to the school from
possible contaminated dust to a level of less than significant.
Impact Haz-5: Future Emissions Near Schools. Since the proposed development
includes research laboratory facilities, it is likely that hazardous chemicals
will be stored and used on the property. In certain circumstances these
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 7-15
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
chemicals could spill, mix, ignite, or volatilize and cause a hazardous
emission near the childcare center, which would be a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-5:
Future Building Compliance with Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) and Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Standards. Each independent R&D facility
operating on the property shall obtain necessary permits and comply with
monitoring and inspection requirements of the BAAQMD. Future
operations shall comply with all local, state and federal requirements for
emissions. Each facility shall also meet OSHA and California OSHA
standards for R&D facilities. This includes plan review by the City of
South San Francisco to examine if the proposed development plans meet
the same standards as for other similar facilities. Engineering controls,
such as exhaust hoods, filtration systems, spill kits, fire extinguishers, and
other controls, shall be incorporated into laboratory facilities to meet
OSHA and California OSHA requirements. These standards are primarily
designed to maintain worker safety, but also function to reduce the risk of
accidental upset and limit potential hazardous emissions.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to the school from
possible hazardous emissions to a level of less than significant.
Impact Haz-6a: Handling of laboratory wastes within one-quarter mile of a school.
The Early Years Children's Center is located at 371 Allerton Avenue,
approximately one-quarter mile east of the site. Since the proposed
development includes research lab facilities it is possible that hazardous
chemicals or biological hazards would be present and handled in close
proximity to the childcare facility. This represents a potentially significant
impact.
Impact Haz-6b: Handling of demolition waste and contaminated soils within one-
quarter mile of a school. During demolition, potentially hazardous waste
would be generated and require disposal. During grading and construction,
contaminated site soils would be disturbed and require handling and
possible disposal unless reused and buried under a clean cap. This also
presents a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-6: Regulation of hazardous materials in accordance with the San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department Programs. Registration and
regulation in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, Hazardous
Waste Generator Plan Program, and California Accidental Release
PAGE 7-16
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Program in accordance with mitigation measures Haz-l c, Haz-l d, and
Haz-2b identified in this chapter, for risk of accidental upset and for
routine transport, disposal, and use of hazardous wastes, would
significantly reduce the risk to occupants of the nearby childcare facility.
Mitigation Measure Haz-4a above also helps reduce this impact to a less than significant
level.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to the school from
nearby handling of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant.
AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN
Impact Haz-7: Airport Land Use Plan. The proposed Project would be located within
the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco
International Airport. According to the East of 101 Area Specific Plan
(available online through the City of South San Francisco Planning
Department web site ), the most stringent height limits in South San
Francisco are south of Forbes Boulevard and Lindenville, including the
Project area. In this area Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, limits
building heights to an elevation of 161 feet above mean sea level,
approximately 12 to 14 stories. Since the tallest proposed buildings are 5
stories and the parking garage is 7 levels, no buildings would exceed 161
feet in height, therefore, the structures would be in compliance with the
Airport Land Use Plan. The impact of the Project on the Airport Land Use
Plan is less than significant with no mitigation warranted..
The Project Site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Private aircraft are
sometimes granted air space in the East of 101 area, but Proj ect buildings and structures are
expected to conform to design guidelines for visibility and meet aviation requirements.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact relating to a private airstrip.
ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
No changes to the major access and evacuation routes along East Grand Avenue and Little-
field Avenue are planned since the Project calls for redevelopment rather than reconstruction
or new development of an entire area. Therefore, the Project would have no impact relating
to an adopted emergency response plan.
WILDLAND FIRES
The Project area is urbanized and is not in an area adjacent to wildland subject to wildfires.
Therefore the Project would have no impact from wildland fires.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 7-17
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CUMULATIVE HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS
Impact Haz-8: Cumulative Hazardous Impacts. The proposed Project would be one of
numerous sites, some of which are also existing hazardous materials sites,
that are anticipated to undergo development/redevelopment in the vicinity.
The Project would contribute to a cumulative increase in the number of
sites handling hazardous materials, both in the vicinity in general as well
as near a school, and would result in a cumulative increase in
transportation, use, disposal, and potential for exposure to and/or
accidental release of hazardous materials during both construction and
operations. However, the cumulative impact is expected to be slight and
identified project-specific mitigation measures would reduce this impact to
a less than significant level with no additional mitigation required.
Potentially significant impacts of the Project are detailed above under the Impact Analysis
section of this document. The following contributing elements to Impact Haz- 7 above are
discussed in more detail below: (a) Hazardous Materials Use, Transport; (b) Hazardous
Materials Sites; and (c) Hazardous Materials near Schools.
Hazardous Materials Use., Transport
Routine hazardous materials use and transport may have a slight cumulative impact in that
because there would be an increase in the number of sites handling potentially hazardous
materials and an increase in transportation of those materials through the City, there is a
potential for an increased cumulative impact. More releases of hazardous materials could
occur from accident during the transportation of hazardous materials through the City.
However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures Haz-l a, Haz-l b, Haz-l c,
Haz-ld and Haz-le would reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant.
Accidental Hazardous Materials Release
Accidental hazardous materials release during use and transport may have a slight cumulative
impact in that because there would be an increase in the number of sites handling potentially
hazardous materials and an increase in transportation of those materials through the City,
there is a potential for an increased cumulative impact. More releases of hazardous materials
could occur from accident during use or the transportation of hazardous materials through the
City. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures Haz-2a and Haz-2b
would reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant.
Hazardous Materials Sites
The Project site is an existing hazardous materials site. The Project development will include
exposure of the remaining capped hazardous materials during site development and
construction, but will be re-capped as part of the proposed Project. Releases of hazardous
materials could occur during construction if not properly executed, this could have a
PAGE 7-18
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
cumulative effect on the surrounding area, which contains numerous hazardous materials
sites. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures Haz-3a and Haz-3b
would reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant.
Hazardous Materials near Schools
The proposed Project would demolish existing structures and would use hazardous materials,
under laboratory-controlled conditions, within one-quarter mile of a school site. Other sites
under redevelopment within the Project area have similar demolition requirements and future
uses of hazardous materials. This could create a potential cumulative impact. However,
implementation of the identified mitigation measures Haz-4a, Haz-4b and Haz-5a would
reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 7-19
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 7-20
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
8
HYDROLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This section presents an evaluation of potential Project impacts to hydrology and water
quality. The discussion is based on: (1) review of the Preliminary Project Description and
Use Permit Application plans (dated December 6,2006); (2) a site visit conducted on Feb 7,
2007 by Questa Engineering personnel; (3) review of the Summary of Environmental Review
and Investigation; (4) Review of the Draft Site Management Plan, GrafCon (October 2006);
and (5) correspondence with City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County Public
Works Departments.
SETTI \lG
CLIMATE AND TOPOGRAPHY
The Project site is within the 30.5-acre Britannia Pointe Grand II business park, at 250 to 270
East Grand Avenue near Harbor Way, located in a relatively flat industrial area east of
Highway 101 in the City of South San Francisco. The San Francisco Bay shoreline is located
approximately 1,700 feet southeast of the site. The regional climate is typical of the San
Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters.
About 80 percent of the total annual precipitation occurs during the months of November
through March with an average annual precipitation of 20.25 inches. Average yearly
temperatures range from a high of 73.4 degrees Fahrenheit in September to a low of 42.4
degrees Fahrenheit in January.!
The Project site and surrounding area are largely developed with light industrial, research and
development, warehousing, retail, office, and hotel land uses. Nearly 92 percent of the 9.7
acre Project area of work is currently covered in impervious surfaces. Four office buildings
and associated parking areas currently occupy the 8.9-acre lot.2 Paved parking and office
buildings are located to the west, north and east areas of the site, with a railroad right-of-way
running along the southern boundary of the property. The site generally slopes gently (less
1 Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Weather Station: San Francisco WSO AP, California (047769).
2 DES Architects, 2006, Site Boundary Plan, Sheet 10, Use Permit Application.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 8-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
than one percent) to the south and elevations range from approximately 12.5 feet above Mean
Sea Level (MSL) along the northern boundary of the site to approximately 13.5 feet above
MSL at the southern boundary.
REGIONAL HYDROLOGY
The majority of the site drains to the Colma Creek watershed. The Colma Creek watershed
includes portions of San Bruno Mountain as well as urbanized areas of Daly City, Colma,
and South San Francisco. Most of this urbanized creek is channelized and/or conveyed
underground to allow for urban development. The percent of impervious surface area in
Colma Creek was previously estimated at 63 percent, the highest in the County. 3 Colma
Creek is a flood control channel maintained by the San Mateo County Department of Public
Works that discharges into the San Francisco Bay just north of the San Francisco
International Airport. Improvements and maintenance of the creek are funded by the Colma
Creek Flood Control Zone, which contains the parcels that must contribute financially to the
Zone's revenue and maintenance of flood control infrastructure. The Project site is not
located within the designated boundaries of the Zone.
SITE HYDROLOGY
Approximately 92 percent of the 9.8-acre area of work at the Project site is currently covered
by impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Project site begins as overland sheet
flow. Numerous storm drain inlets currently exist on the Project site parking areas. Existing
storm drains within the area of work convey storm water runoff primarily to the east of the
site to drop inlets at Littlefield Avenue. The drop inlets convey flows into a 36-inch
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that runs south down Littlefield Avenue and east to Kimball
Way, before discharging into the San Francisco Bay. A relatively small 16,800 square foot
portion of the Project area utilizes existing stormdrains, which drain to an 18-inch RCP at
Harbor Way, which then flows south and discharge to the bay near the intersection with
Littlefield Ave.
GROUNDWATER
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines state groundwater basins
based on geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the site is located
within the Westside Groundwater Basin. The Westside Groundwater Basin consists of
bedrock and unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated materials overlying the basin
represent the primary water-bearing strata and are comprised of dune sands and the Colma
Formation, which are overlain by a relatively impermeable clayey formation of Bay Mud and
fill materials. The Bay Mud layer represents the base of the shallow groundwater layer.
Groundwater is typically encountered within a few feet of the surface with a general flow
3 City of Daly City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, 1998
PAGE 8-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY
direction of northeast and southwest.4 While groundwater quality in the basin is generally in
compliance with drinking water quality standards, some wells in the basin have experienced
nitrate-nitrogen concentration in excess of the primary maximum contaminant levels.5,6
Following site remediation in the 1980's, detectable chemical concentrations primarily
included lead, with lesser concentrations of zinc, cadmium, copper, cyanide, petroleum
hydrocarbons, and PCBs.7 As part of deed restrictions adopted April 1997, a one-foot cap of
clean fill soil has been maintained over the site.
FLOODING
The Project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone of Colma Creek as
delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs). According to the FIRM, several areas southwest of the Project site are
located within the 100-year floodplain. These include the properties at Gateway Boulevard
between East Grand Avenue and Mitchell Avenue and the properties south and west of
Colma Creek and north of the navigable slough (1981). However, flood control
improvements to Colma Creek since the effective date of the FEMA FIRM have reduced
flooding along the creek channel.
REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed Project must be constructed in accordance with several regulatory programs,
laws, and regulations that aim to protect surface water resources. In some cases, Federal laws
are administered and enforced by state and local government. In other cases, state and local
regulations in California are stricter than those imposed by Federal law. This section
summarizes relevant regulatory programs, laws, and regulations with respect to hydrology
and water quality and how they relate to the proposed Project.
Federal Laws and Regulations
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times
since inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States,
and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to
reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters.
4 GrafCon, Draft Site Management Plan for Britannia Pointe Grand, October 2006
5 Phillips, Steven P., Scott N. Hamlin, Eugene B. Yates, 1993, Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Estimation of Ground-
Water Recharge in San Francisco, California 1987-92. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-
4019.
6 Department of Water Resources, 2003, California Department of Water Resources, California's Groundwater, Bulletin
118, Update 2003.
7 GrafCon, Draft Site Management Plan for Britannia Pointe Grand, October 2006
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 8-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The CW A prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as
set minimum water quality standards for all waters of the United States. Several mechanisms
are employed to control domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution under the CW A. At
the Federal level, the CW A is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EP A). At the state and regional level, the CW A is administered and enforced by the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(R WQCBs). The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and
regulations, in part to assist in the implementation of the CW A and related Federally
mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum
standards and policies and the laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional
Boards exceed the Federal requirements.
State Laws and Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as
the principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling
water quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the
RWQCBs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin
Plans), which set forth the state's water quality standards (i.e. beneficial uses of surface
waters and groundwater) and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial
uses. The NPDES permit must be consistent with the Basin Plan for the site region.
NP DES Permit Requirements
The CWA has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from
any point source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CW A added section 402(p), which
established a framework for regulating nonpoint source (NPS) storm water discharges under
the National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES). The Phase I NPDES storm water
program regulates storm water discharges from industrial facilities, large and medium-sized
municipal separate storm sewer systems (those serving more than 100,000 persons), and
construction sites that disturb five or more acres of land. Under the program, the Project
applicant will be required to comply with two NPDES permit requirements.
The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and
disturbances to the ground such as excavation. The Project applicant is required to submit a
Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board's (SWRCB) Division of
Water Quality. The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities
that will occur on the site. The applicant will also be required to submit a site-specific plan
called the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. The
SWPPP will include a description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the
discharge of pollutants from the site during construction. It is the responsibility of the
property owner to obtain coverage under the permit prior to site construction.
PAGE 8-4
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY
The NPDES General Industrial Permit Requirements apply to the discharge of storm water
associated with industrial sites. The permit requires the implementation of management
measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology (BAT)
economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Under
the statute, operators of new facilities must implement industrial BMPs in the Project SWPPP
and perform monitoring of storm water discharges and unauthorized non-storm water
discharges. An annual report must be submitted to the RWQCB each July 1. Operators of
new facilities must file an NOI at least 14 days prior to the beginning of operations.
Local Programs and Regulations
San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
To comply with the Clean Water Act, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and towns in the
County formed the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
(STOPPP). STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay
RWQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to
creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible.
San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and
implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay region. The
Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical,
and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The
Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region and
specifies water quality objectives to maintain the continued beneficial uses of these waters.
The proposed Project is required to adhere to all water quality objectives identified in the
Basin Plan.
Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters and Groundwaters
The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater in its
corresponding jurisdiction. The beneficial uses of surface waters in Colma Creek include
wildlife habitat, municipal and domestic supply, agricultural supply, and industrial supply.
The beneficial uses of groundwater in the Westside Groundwater Basin (also referred to as
the Merced Valley North Groundwater Basin) include municipal and domestic supply,
industrial process supply, industrial supply, and agricultural supply.
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 Area Plan provides detailed planning policies that are consistent with
policies of the adopted South San Francisco General Plan. With respect to hydrology and
water quality, the plan aims to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals
to determine drainage and flood protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 8-5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
water quality by minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and requiring that Projects comply
with NPDES permit requirements.8
City of South San Francisco
The City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant requires Source Control
Measures of Stormwater Pollutants for issuance of an NPDES permit, including methods for
managing pollution sources. Applicable control measures include stormwater pollution
prevention devices, management of refuse areas, pesticide/fertilizer application for
landscaping, use of treatment devices for interior level parking garage floor drains, and
marking of on-site storm drains.9
Colma Creek Flood Control District
The Colma Creek Flood Control District (District) is administrated by the San Mateo County
Department of Public Works. The District was created for the purpose of constructing flood
control facilities along the Colma Creek channel and reducing flooding problems in the City
of South San Francisco. The Colma Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone) extends over the entire
watershed and contains the parcels that must contribute financially to the District's revenue
and maintenance of the flood control facilities. Several channel improvements have been
constructed since the District was created in 1964.
The proposed Project is located outside of the Zone boundary. Since the Project is located
outside of the Zone boundary, it does not contribute to funds for flood control improvements
nor maintenance.
Site Specific Requirements
Site Based Deed Restrictions
Site remediation of hazardous materials includes the April 1997 adoption of Environmental
Restriction and Covenant (deed restrictions) imposed by the Department of Toxic Substance
Control (DTSC), that require maintenance of a I-foot cap of clean fill soil over the site.
Project activities and maintenance of the soil cap and are subject to review by DTSC.
8 City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994.
9 South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant. July 2005
PAGE 8-6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY
IMPACT A \lALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's hydrology impacts are based upon CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Proj ect violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
2. Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
3. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
4. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
5. Would the Project 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?
6. Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7. Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
8. Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
9. Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
10. Would the Proj ect cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 8-7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are washed by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and
streets and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical industrial NPS pollutants for
various industrial activities are listed in Table 8-1.
Under the NPDES storm water permit, the proposed Project is required to provide permanent
treatment for site runoff. To meet this requirement, the proposed Project includes the use of
8-foot wide roof rainwater treatment vegetated bioswales along building perimeters and 3-
foot vegetated parking islands in the parking areas. A new covered parking garage, covered
loading docks, and increased proportion of landscaped areas will significantly reduce the
amount of surface area that typically produces NPS pollutants.
TABLE 8-1
POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS FROM INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES
rJJ
~
~
OJ
S
;.a
OJ
r.fJ
rJJ
~
~
.~
~
~
;::::$
Z
rJJ
~
~
OJ
~
rJJ
~
u
.~
o
~
""d
a
rJJ
u
.~
bJ)
~
o
rJJ
]
~
OJ
~
~
bJ)
.s
""d
a ~
~ ~
Q "t:;
~ ~
~r.fJ
Q
o
OJ
rJJ
ro
OJ
~
d
~
.~
~
OJ
~
u
ro
C:Q
rJJ
OJ
""d
:g
~
rJJ
OJ
~
OJ
~
~
o
~
........
o
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY
Vehicle & Equipment Fueling
Vehicle & Equipment Washing
Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance & Repair
Outdoor Loading & Unloading of Materials
Outdoor Container Storage of Liquids
Outdoor Process Equipment Operations &
Maintenance
Outdoor Storage of Ray Materials, Products,
Byproducts
Waste Handling & Disposal
Contaminated or Erodible Surface Areas
Building & Grounds Maintenance
Building Repair, Remodeling, & Construction
Parking/Storage Area Maintenance
Source: California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003. California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Industrial & Commercial.
PAGE 8-8
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY
Impact Hydro-I: No Treatment of Parking Garage Runoff. Development of the
proposed Project would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and
litter entering downstream waters, including the San Francisco Bay. An
increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife,
vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants also have the potential to
infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of groundwater
drinking sources. No water quality BMPs have been proposed for the
Parking Garage. Parking areas represent a source of suspended solids,
petroleum hydrocarbons, and heavy metals.
The majority of the Project designs will reduce non-point source
pollution, but the lack of treatment of parking lot runoff represent a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Hydro-I: Implement Water Quality BMPs for Stormwater Runoff from the
Parking Garage. The Project applicant shall implement storm water
quality BMPs for treatment of runoff from the Parking Garage. Possible
BMPs include drop inlet filtration devices such as the vault based media
filters, or others as described in Mitigation Measure Hydro-la. Any
storm water quality BMPs implemented at the site must be approved by
the City's Public Works Department. Implementation of this mitigation
measure would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant.
Impact Hydro-2: Site Soil and Groundwater Elevations May Be Unsuitable for
Vegetated Swales. Appropriate evaluation of site conditions is critical
to the effectiveness of vegetated swales. The site history of soil
contamination and the required maintenance of an existing I-foot clean
fill soil cap impose restriction on the depth of vegetated swales that can
be constructed. Additionally, groundwater conditions in the Project area
can be as high as 2 to 3 feet below ground surface during winter months.
If vegetated swales are to a depth that is at or near the I-foot soil cap,
shallow depth to groundwater could cause underlying soils to become
saturated and allow groundwater to surface water contamination.
Vegetated swales are not considered suitable for sites that use or store
chemicals or hazardous materials unless hazardous and toxic materials
are prevented from entering the swales.
The majority of the Project designs will reduce non-point source
pollution, but the vegetated bioswale depths represent a potentially
significant impact.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 8-9
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Mitigation Measure
Hydro-2: Evaluate Project Site Fill Elevations for Feasibility of Vegetated
Swales as Water Quality BMP. The use of swales at the Project site
may be limited by several factors, including fill elevations, soil
characteristics, distance to groundwater, and proposed land uses. The
feasibility of vegetated swale BMPs at the Project shall be evaluated as
follows:
1) Groundwater levels at the invert of the swales shall be reevaluated.
The Project applicant shall ascertain that the distance from the
proposed trench inverts to groundwater is a sufficient distance to
prevent groundwater to surface water contamination.
2) Soil parameters, such as the amount of silt and clay shall be
examined. Soils below swales shall have clay content sufficient to
prevent groundwater to surface water contamination.
Proposed land uses and grading shall be examined to determine whether
infiltration BMPs are suitable. Infiltration BMPs shall be considered not
suitable for sites that use or store chemicals or hazardous materials
unless hazardous and toxic materials are isolated such that they are not
able to enter the swale and/or if the site elevations result in swales that
could impact water quality.
Installation of a clay or geotextile barrier beneath swale areas may be
used to prevent infiltration to groundwater or contaminated soil depths.
If site constraints preclude the use of vegetated swales at the Project site,
other BMPs that do not allow interaction with groundwater and
contaminated soils shall be used. Possible alternatives for storm water
treatment include vault based media filters, storm drain inlet filters,
strainer baskets, sediment/debris catch baskets, geotextile filter bags,
composite filter medium, and mechanical swirl treatment units if used in
a sequence or "train" with other devices. Use of several of these
alternative methods of sediment and hydrocarbon filtration and removal
devices in a treatment sequence will be required. Any storm water
quality BMPs to be implemented at the site must be approved by the
City's Public Works Department.
The use of effective BMPs at the Project site would reduce impacts on
groundwater and surface water quality to a level of less than significant.
PAGE 8-10
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY
Impact Hydro-3: Potential Contamination of Local Groundwater. The Project site is
located within a groundwater basin as defined by the DWR. The
potential for groundwater contamination from infiltration BMPs must be
carefully considered, especially in areas where the distance between
groundwater and the swale invert is small or where groundwater is or
could potentially be used for human consumption or agricultural
purposes. The infiltration of industrial and parking lot pollutants into
shallow groundwater could potentially impair the quality of local
groundwater sources. This represents a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Hydro-3: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to
NPDES requirements, the applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect
water quality during and after construction. The Project SWPPP shall
include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation measures for the
construction period:
1) Grading and earthwork shall be prohibited during the wet season
(October 15 through April 15) and such work shall be stopped before
pending storm events.
2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching,
erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding,
shall be utilized in accordance with the regulations outlined in the
Association of Bay Area Governments "Erosion & Sediment Control
Measures" manual. Silt fences shall be installed down slope of all
graded slopes. Hay bales shall be installed in the flow path of graded
areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets.
3) BMPs shall be used for preventing the discharge or other
construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint,
concrete, etc) to downstream waters.
4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be
inspected for accumulated sediment and these drainage structures
shall be cleared of debris and sediment.
Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP
shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
5) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the
Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and
chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site should be
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 8-11
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and
potential pollutant sources.
6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based
on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources.
Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment
controls used as needed.
7) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance
requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including
vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet
structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media
filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc.
Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore,
maintenance costs should be budgeted to include disposal at a proper
site.
8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the
frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San
Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and
submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as
necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs.
9) The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on
industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions
from the proposed development. This information shall be
distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum, the
information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning
chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and
appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and
d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and
chemicals into storm drains.
Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP at the Project site would reduce impacts on
potential contamination of local groundwater to a level of less than significant.
GROUNDWATER DEPLETION/ RECHARGE
The proposed Project will not draw on, or otherwise reduce groundwater resources.
Approximately 92 percent of the Project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces.
Redevelopment of the site would result in an approximately 15 percent decrease in
impervious surface areas. Thus, the proposed Project would not likely have a negative effect
on groundwater recharge. Pre- and post-development impervious verses pervious surfaces are
presented in Table 8-2. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
PAGE 8-12
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY
TABLE 8-2
IMPERVIOUS VS. PERVIOUS SURFACE AREAS
Area (Acres)
Percent of Total Project Site
Existing Conditions
Impervious Surface Area
Pervious Area
8.9
0.8
92%
8%
Proposed Conditions
Impervious Surface Area
Pervious Area
7.4
2
78%
22%
Source: Questa EC 2007, DES Architects, 2007.
INCREASED EROSION OR SILTATION TO RECEIVING WATERS
Project applicants have prepared a Draft Site Management Plan (SMP).1o The SMP intends
to assure the continued protection of human health and the environment during the proposed
and future site development and maintenance and future redevelopment activities. It includes
site management objectives, guidelines, and procedures to protect health, maintain and
manage both the soil cap and the soils with residual constituents. The SMP, if implemented
and approved by DTSC, will reduce health risk resulting from the Project. Section 5.2.3 of
the SMP proscribes covering excavated soils with plastic sheeting to prevent soil runoff, and
additional fencing of soils below the 1 foot cap. These plans and procedures will help reduce
the risk of increased erosion and siltation to receiving waters.
Impact Hydro-4: Erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Construction of the proposed
Project would involve demolition of existing structural foundations and
pavement areas that currently help to stabilize site soils. Although no
cut/fill estimates were available for review, significant site grading is
expected to occur. Construction operations associated with the Project
would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting
unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff.
Additionally, new onsite stormdrains may require excavation of the soil
cap and potentially, the soil below.
Mitigation Measure
Hydro-4: Compliance with NPDES Requirements. The Project applicant will be
required to comply with all Phase I NPDES General Construction
10 GafCon, 2006. Draft Site Management Plan Britannia Pointe Grand 250, 256, 260 and 270 East Grand Avenue South San
Francisco, California.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 8-13
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Activities permit requirements established by the CW A and the Grading
Permit requirements of the City of South San Francisco. Erosion control
measures to be implemented during construction would be included in
the Project SWPPP. The Project SWPPP will accompany the NOI filing
and will outline erosion control and storm water quality management
measures to be implemented during and following construction. The
SWPPP will also provide the schedule for monitoring performance.
Refer to Mitigation Measure Hydro-3 for more information regarding
the Project SWPPP. Implementation of Phase I NPDES General
Construction Activities permit requirements would reduce construction-
related impacts associated with erosion and/or siltation to less than
significant.
Following Project development, soil and sediment in runoff would be
treated by storm water quality BMPs. Refer to Mitigation Measure
Hydro-3 for more information regarding water quality BMPs at the
Project site. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, post-
development impacts associated with erosion and siltation are
considered less than significant.
CHANGES IN STORMWATER RUNOFF
The Project site currently has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Redevelopment of existing
office/R&D development in the Project area is not expected to increase runoff from the site.
As shown in Table 8-2, development of the proposed Project would result in an approximate
15 percent decrease in impervious surfaces at the Project site. A decrease in impervious
surface area would result in a corresponding decrease in peak discharge and related polluted
runoff from the Project site. As currently designed, the proposed Project would not increase
peak flows to downstream infrastructure. No impact associated with increases in peak runoff
is anticipated and no mitigation is necessary.
By reducing the amount of pavement and hard surface area and increasing the amount of
landscaped area, the proposed Project will reduce the quantity and response time of storm
water runoff to the storm drain system. New storm drains shown on the Preliminary Grading
and Drainage Plan will collect water from these areas, and deliver runoff to the existing
storm drain. The Project will have no impact on stormwater drainage system, and no
mitigation is required.
OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE WATER QUALITY
The proposed Project will reduce the amount of surface area contributing non-point source
pollution runoff. Other previously mentioned impacts, if mitigated, would ameliorate
potential short and long term negative impacts on water quality. Therefore, there will be no
additional significant impact on water quality.
PAGE 8-14
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY
HOUSING WITHIN A 100-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD AREA
The Project does not include housing and is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard
zone of Colma Creek as delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The Project will have no impact related to
housing and flooding.
The Project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone of Colma Creek as
delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs). In regard to impeding flood or any other flows, the Project will have no
impact.
SIGNIFICANT RISK INVOLVING FLOODING
The Project is not located within the vicinity of a levee, nor in a potential flood path of a dam
failure, and it will have no impact related to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding.
INUNDATION BY SEICHE, TSUNAMI OR MUDFLOW
Impact Hydro-5: Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Project site is not
located in an area that would expose persons to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow. The site is nearly level and does not lie in close
proximity to a large lake or the ocean. Although seismically induced
waves are a possibility in the Bay, the site elevations are above those
considered to be at risk for tsunami wave run-up. Consequently, this
impact would be less-than-significant with no mitigation required.
A seiche is a tide-like rise and drop of the surface of a landlocked body of water (e.g., a
lake); its period can vary from a few minutes to several hours. The site is not in close
proximity to a landlocked body of water that could cause inundation by seiche.
Tsunamis, or tidal waves, are huge sea waves that are caused by seismic activity or other
disturbance of the ocean floor. Portions of South San Francisco that are near the bay and low-
lying are considered to be at risk for inundation by tsunami wave run-up. Wave run up is
estimated at 6 feet above mean sea level for a 500-year tsunami.II Project site elevations
range from 12.5 feet to 13.5 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, the site would not be
considered to be at risk for inundation by tsunami.
11 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Health and Safety
Element, 1999, p. 250.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 8-15
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CUMULATIVE HYDROLOGY IMPACT ANALYSIS
Impact Hydro-6: Cumulative Impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality. The increased
construction activity and new development resulting from the Project, in
conjunction with other foreseeable development in the city, would result
in less than significant impacts on hydrology and water quality
conditions with no additional mitigation measures necessary.
Assuming concurrent implementation of the Project with other reasonably foreseeable future
projects in the vicinity, adverse cumulative effects on hydrology and water quality could
include construction impacts related to increases in stormwater runoff and pollutant loading
to Colma Creek and San Francisco Bay. The Project and other future projects in the city
would be required to comply with drainage and grading ordinances intended to control runoff
and regulate water quality at each development site. New projects would be required to
demonstrate that stormwater volumes could be managed by downstream conveyance
facilities and would not induce flooding. Therefore, the effect of the Project on water quality
and hydrology, in combination with other foreseeable projects, would be less than
significant.
PAGE 8-16
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
9
LA \ID USE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes existing land uses, adopted General Plan land use classifications, and
zoning designations on and around the Project site. This chapter also describes the applicable
plans and policies that guide development in the project area and evaluates the Project's
consistency with these plans and policies and other existing land use regulations.
SETTI \lG
HISTORY
South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to initially
locate industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in order to take advantage of
topography and winds on Point San Bruno.I Another development trend that shaped the
arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the
1940s and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with single-family housing.
As a result, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the
eastern and southeastern portions of the City, single family homes to the north and west,
commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered
in those same corridors and on hillsides.
During the 1950s, the City of South San Francisco converted previously unused marshlands
into areas usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting
light industry to the City for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 for a 600-acre
industrial park adjacent to the newly developed Oyster Point Marina. This industrial park was
South San Francisco's first industrial development to incorporate comprehensive planning
and integrated design and performance provisions. It supplied ample parking and consistent
landscaping and building design.
In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a
slow industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy
1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 9-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
industries have largely been replaced by warehousing, research, development and
biotechnology. Because the City's industrial base has continued to evolve as the context for
industry has changed, industry will continue to play an important role in South San
Francisco's future.
The City's continued status as a goods transportation hub, stemming mainly from proximity
to San Francisco International Airport, is reflected in the presence of large tracts of land,
formerly used for heavy industry, east of U. S. 101. As high technology businesses have
moved into many of these older industrial areas, conflicts, such as between automobile and
truck traffic, and land use and visual character have become increasingly pronounced. The
needs of business centers include smaller blocks, more through street connections, ancillary
facilities such as restaurants, easier connections to transit, sidewalks and bikeways and higher
landscape standards. These needs are much different than those of warehousing and
industrial areas. The City attempts to balance regional growth objectives with conservation of
residential and industrial neighborhoods.
EXISTING USES
The Project site is currently developed as a part of the Britannia Pointe Grand business park
with office/research and development. The business park would be modified and expanded if
the Project proceeds though the type of use would not change.
The East of 101 area is the vicinity of the proj ect site and is largely comprised of industrial
and high technology business uses. As with the proposed Project, many other sites in the area
have already or have plans to increase the intensity of research and development uses in this
area.
REGULATORY SETTING
There are no federal or state land use regulations applicable to the proposed Project.
South San Francisco General Plan
The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) provides long-term guidance and
policies for maintaining and improving the quality of life in, and the resources of, the
community, both man-made and natural. The General Plan provides direction for the City's
Growth and development. The site's General Plan designation is Business and Technology
Park. This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate headquarters,
research and development facilities, and offices, up to a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 with
qualifying bonuses such as structured parking and transportation demand management.
East of 101 Area Plan
The Project site is part of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of
South San Francisco General Plan. The East of 101 Area Plan, adopted in 1994, was prepared
PAGE 9-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 9: LAND USE
to maximize the potential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City's traditional
industrial East of 101 Area. Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for quality design are
important components of the Plan. In addition to policies relating to land use dispersion,
intensities, and transportation, the Plan includes a Design Element to help achieve high-
standard development.
South San Francisco Municipal Code
Policies set forth with the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan are implemented through
enforcement of the City's zoning regulations as presented in the City of South San Francisco
Municipal Code (SSFMC). Zoning regulations prescribe the allowable uses within specific
zoning districts and impose standards on those uses. Under the City's existing zoning
regulations, the Project site is subject to the provisions of the SSFMC Chapter 20.32
(Planned Industrial District).
IMPACT A \lAL YSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on
CEQA Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Proj ect physically divide an established community?
2. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the Project?
3. Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
DIVIDING ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY
The Project would involve demolition/construction of an office/research and development
facility located within an existing office/R&D business park. The proposed Project would
have no impact related to the division of an established community.
CONFLICT WITH PLANS AND POLICIES
The Project site is currently zoned Planned Industrial (P-I) and is part of the "East of 101"
Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's
General Plan designation is Business and Technology Park. This designation accommodates
campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities,
and offices, up to a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 with structured parking.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 9-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
While it is in the domain of the City's decision-makers to decide ultimate project consistency
with applicable City plans and policies related to project approval, from a CEQA perspective,
the project would not conflict with plans or policies in any way that could have an adverse
environmental impact.
The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan policies:
Policy 3.5-G-3 Promote campus style biotechnology, high technology and research and
development uses.
Policy 3.5-1-3 Do not permit any residential uses in the East of 101 area.
The proposed Project is consistent with the following East of 101 Area Plan policies:
Policy DE-13 New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees
and landscaping to meet the City's specifications for their frontages.
Streetscape planting, irrigation and hardscape should be designed for
minimum maintenance by City staff.
Selection and spacing of street trees shall be approved by the City
Landscape Architect and the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community
Services.
Medians should be cobbled and grouted or landscaped with low maintenance
plants with automatic irrigation.
Policy DE-15 Site design should de-emphasize the visual prominence of parking areas by
separating parking areas into relatively small components and locating
parking behind buildings whenever possible. The standard practice of placing
the majority of the parking between the building and the main street frontage
should be avoided when possible.
Policy DE-22 Developments in the Planned Industrial category should include on-site open
space as a unifying element and as areas for employee use. Open space
should be continuous and should connect separate buildings or sites,
especially in campus-like developments. Open spaces should particularly be
located adjacent to lunch rooms and conference rooms.
Policy DE-25 The design of front yard landscaped buffers should be integrated with that of
adjacent sites.
Policy DE-27 Parking lots should be shaded with trees and should also include shrubs in
most cases. Trees should be planted along parking lot edges and in planters
among stalls. Design policies for the number of trees and amount of
shrubbery in parking lots are contained in Section D of the Design Element
for the individual land use categories.
Policy DE-28 Plant species chosen for the area should include low maintenance plants and
plants adaptive to the extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant
species and planting design should complement the development's design.
PAGE 9-4 250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 9: LAND USE
Policy DE-34 All activities and stored materials in loading, service, storage and trash
disposal areas should be screened from views from public streets, trails,
adjacent properties, and overhead views from adjacent properties, by
planting, berms and/or decorative walls. The screening should be integrated
into the design of structures or the site landscaping, so it does not appear as
an appendage added to the outside of the structure. This policy applies to all
types of outdoor storage areas containing materials, supplies, or equipment,
including autos, trucks and trailers.
Policy DE-37 The installation or replacement of exposed chain link fences, barbed wire,
razor wire or similar material shall not be allowed in those parts of the East of
101 Area that are visible from public rights-of-way, including roads and trails.
Policy DE-38 The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials
and the selection of landscape materials and street furniture shall consider
the overall context of the Project and promote the development of a sense of
identity for the East of 101 area.
Policy DE-52 Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral
architectural elements such as pitched roofs, ornamental parapets, mansards
or low towers.
Policy DE-56 The following additional design policies apply in Planned Industrial areas:
Street Trees: Street trees should be planted within at least 30 feet of each
other and should be selected to match or complement the existing pines on
Allerton Avenue and portions of East Grand Avenue.
Landscape Buffer: Landscape buffers along major arterial streets should be
at least 20 feet wide and along other streets at least 10 feet wide. On side
and rear property lines, they should be six feet wide. All landscaping shall
provide a clear connection between the street and buildings for pedestrians.
Blank Walls: Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet long.
Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-39. Pedestrian scale is
of particular importance for campus-like developments and settings.
Buildina Orientation: Buildings should be oriented with a clear relationship to
the street to create a sense of continuity along it. Inviting pedestrian linkages
from individual buildings shall be provided.
Desian Guidelines: New development plans for larger campus-like projects
should include specific design guidelines, developed as an integral part of
master planning efforts.
Parkina Lot Shrubs: Medians and bulbs inside the perimeters of a parking lot
shall be planted. A minimum of five percent of the total parking lot area
required to be landscaped shall be planted with shrubs.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 9-5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The proposed Project would be consistent with and would not conflict with applicable City of
South San Francisco General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan land use policies, thereby
constituting no adverse impact.
CON FLICT WITH CONSERVATION PLAN
The Project site is predominantly covered with asphalt and large office/R&D buildings. The
existing vegetation consists of parking lot and screening landscaping including a line of trees
of varying heights along the project's southern boundary with the rail corridor. However,
none of the trees on site are large enough to be considered Protected Trees under the City of
South San Francisco Tree Protection Ordinance2. As per the City of South San Francisco
Municipal Code, Section 13.30.020, a protected tree is "Any tree with a circumference of
forty-eight inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural grade." The Project
would have no impact related to conflict with a conservation plan.
2 City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 13.30
PAGE 9-6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
10
\.OISE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the potential for impacts related to noise and ground-borne vibration
resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. The primary noise concerns related to
the proposed Project would result from the increased vehicular traffic and noise levels
associated with project construction. Specifically, this chapter evaluates site-specific
environmental impacts related to substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed project and whether exposure to these increases
would be in excess of standards established in the East of 101 Area Plan, the City' s Noise
Ordinance, or any other applicable standards.
SETTI \lG
FUNDAMENTALS OF SOUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is
disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its
loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity
(frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to
humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with
the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an
ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.
In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales
which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of
measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale
is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound
levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents
a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30
decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective
noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is
perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities.
Technical terms are defined in Table 10-1.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
P AG E 1 0- 1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A-
weighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to
which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in
units of dBA are shown in Table 10-2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short
period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the
statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds
are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the
summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is
called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of
noise events of arbitrary duration.
The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters
can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA.
Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such
as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance
the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to
within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA.
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
According to the South San Francisco General Plan, the primary noise sources within the
City are streets and highways, rail operation, and industrial use. Background noise in the
Project vicinity includes vehicle noise from US 101 to the west as well as vehicles in the
parking areas, local vehicular traffic, municipal bus, and commercial truck traffic. The East
of 101 Area is a historically industrial area with higher ambient noise levels and higher
allowable noise standards.
REGULATORY SETTING
In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land
use criteria for noise impacted areas. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise
exposure of various land uses, in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels
contingent upon the implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that
noise levels of less than 75 dBA (CNEL)I are acceptable noise levels for industrial and open
space uses.
1 The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally
sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound
descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA".
CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted
noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB
increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL).
PAGE 10-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 0: NOISE
TAB LE 1 0-1
DEFINITION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS
TERM
DEFINITIONS
Decibel, dB
A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the
logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound
measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20
micronewtons per square meter).
Frequency, HZ
The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and
below atmospheric pressure.
A-Weighted Sound Level, dB
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level
meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter
de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of
the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the
human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All
sound levels in this report are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise.
Lab LlO, Lso, L90
The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1 %, 10%, 50%, and
90% of the time during the measurement period.
Equivalent Noise Level, Leq
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Community Noise
Level, CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained
Equivalent after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM
and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the
night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 am.
Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained
after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between
10:00 PM and 7:00 am.
Lmax, Lmin
The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the
measurement period.
Ambient Noise Level
The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or
existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive
That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise
at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends
upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and
tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise
level.
Source: ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC./Acoustical Engineers, from City of South San Francisco 249 East Grand Avenue EIR,
10/2005
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 10-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 10-2
TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS MEASURED IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRY
At a Given Distance
From Noise Source
Civil Defense Siren (100')
Jet Takeoff (200')
Diesel Pile Driver (100')
Freight Cars (50')
Pneumatic Drill (50')
Freeway (100')
Vacuum Cleaner (10')
Light Traffic (100')
Large Transformer (200')
Soft Whisper (5')
A-Weighted
Sound Level
in Decibels
Noise Environments
Subjective
Impression
140
130
120 Pain Threshold
110 Rock Music Concert
100 Very Loud
90 Boiler Room
Printing Press Plant
80
In Kitchen With Garbage
70 Disposal Running Moderately Loud
60 Data Processing Center
50 Department Store
40 Private Business Office Quiet
30 Quiet Bedroom
20 Recording Studio
10 Threshold of Hearing
0
Source: ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC./Acoustical Engineers, from City of South San Francisco 249 East Grand Avenue EIR,
10/2005
PAGE 10-4
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 0: NOISE
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, Section
8.32.030) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and
industrial land uses. The Project site is zoned "P-I, Planned Industrial," and the noise level
standard for this zone is 70 dBA (L50).2 Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these
limits are allowed, but only for specified periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB
for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 1 0 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard +
15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be
exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already
exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the standard.
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts
construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also
limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the
property line.
IMPACT A \lALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
2. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
3. Would the Project lead to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?
4. Would the Project lead to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?
5. For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project
expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
6. For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
2 The noise limit that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour).
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 10-5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PERMANENT NOISE INCREASES
Impact Noise-I: Permanent Noise Increases. Project-generated traffic noise and other
operational noise sources such as HV AC equipment would not exceed
noise standards and would not significantly increase ambient noise levels
nor substantially impact noise-sensitive receptors. This would be a less-
than-significant impact with no mitigation warranted.
Traffic. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase traffic noise levels along
local streets due to Project generated traffic. In general, a doubling of traffic volumes would
result in a 3-dBA noise increase in a traffic dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise
increase is barely perceptible to most people. As per the Transportation and Circulation
chapter of this EIR, Proj ect related daily traffic trips would be generated at a rate of 11.01 per
1,000 square feet so would increase from an estimated 1,959 daily trips under the site's
current development, to an estimated 5,081 daily trips under the proposed Project, a
difference of 3,122 trips. This would lead to a small but noticeable increase in traffic noise
levels at the Project site and its vicinity.
However, due to the prevalence of industrial land uses in the area, noise thresholds vis-a-vis
the Project and neighboring land uses are higher there than they would be if more sensitive
land uses were present near the Project site. Due to these factors, the impact of traffic noise
produced by the Project would be considered less than significant.
Mechanical Equipment. Implementation of the proposed Project could increase ambient
noise levels in the Project vicinity due to the operation of more powerful rooftop mechanical
equipment than currently function at the Project site. The impact of the HV AC system would
be considered less than significant provided that the noise level produced by it conforms to
the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance.
Vibration. It is not be expected that future land uses at the Project site would generate
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Therefore, it is expected that the
Project would have no impact related to excessive groundborne vibration or excessive
groundborne noise.
NOISE, GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
Temporary Noise Increase. During site preparation and construction at the Project site,
operation of heavy equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site.
Impact Noise-2: Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in
temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy
equipment. This would be a potentially significant impact associated with
Project development. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to
90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly
PAGE 10-6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 0: NOISE
higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of
earthmoving and impact equipment.
Mitigation Measure
Noise-2: Noise Abatement. The project applicant shall require by contract
specification that construction best management practices be implemented
by contractors to reduce construction noise levels to the 90-dBA at 25 feet
noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance including:
. Ensuring that construction equipment is properly muffled according to
industry standards,
. Implementing noise attenuation measures which may include but are
not limited to noise barriers or noise blankets.
. Requiring heavily loaded trucks used during construction to be routed
away from noise and vibration sensitive uses.
This would reduce construction-related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of less than
significant.
AIRPORTS
The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and projected
airport noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of
the site. These contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL)
existing and future airport noise contours. Projected contours for road and railroad noise are
also included in the Noise Element. These contours indicate that the Project site is located in
an area where noise levels generated by major road and railroad noise sources will continue
to be 60 dBA (CNEL) or less, except right along East Grand Avenue, where they may be 65
dBA (CNEL). Based on the City's land use criteria, the proposed Project's research and
development type land use would be compatible with future noise level projections in the
Project vicinity of less than 60 to 65 dBA (CNEL), thereby representing no impact.
CUMULATIVE NOISE IMPACTS
Impact Noise-3: Cumulative Noise Increases. The proposed Project, together with
anticipated future development in the area could result in long-term traffic
increases that could cumulatively increase noise levels. However, these
increases are not anticipated to be noticeable in the context of existing
ambient noise and the Project's impact on cumulative noise increases
would be considered less-than-significant with no mitigation warranted.
Noise from cumulative development in the area would primarily occur from increases in
motor vehicle traffic. Cumulative traffic noise levels in the area are based on traffic volumes
prepared by Crane Transportation for Chapter 11 of this document. As can be seen in Figures
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 10-7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
3 through 11 (Appendix D), volumes on nearby roadways would less than double during
peak hours in future cumulative scenarios compared to the existing situation. As discussed
under project-specific noise increases above, in general, a doubling of traffic volumes would
result in a 3-dBA noise increase in a traffic dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise
increase is barely perceptible to most people. Therefore, the cumulative noise increase from
increases traffic would not be expected to generate noise levels perceptible over the existing
ambient noise levels and the impact would be considered less-than-significant.
PAGE 10-8
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
11
TRA\lSPORTATIO\l A\lD CIRCLLATIO\l
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the transportation conditions in the study area in terms of existing
roads and traffic operations, transit service and pedestrian and bicycle conditions. Where
appropriate, excerpts and findings from the following EIRs or initial studies/negative
declarations have been included in this chapter: Genentech Master Plan Revised Draft EIR
(EIP Associates and Korve Engineering, as partially revised December 2006), 250-270 East
Grand Avenue Draft EIR (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, March 2006)
and the Terrabay Phase 3 Final EIR (City of South San Francisco and Crane Transportation
Group, October 2006). Figures referenced in this chapter are included in Appendix D.
SETTI \lG
ROADWAYS
The 250-270 East Grand Avenue Project site is divided into two parcels. Parcel A is located
east of Harbor Way and is bordered to the north by East Grand Avenue, to the west by
Harbor Way and to the south and east by railroad rights-of-way. Parcel B is located west of
Harbor Way and is bordered to the east by Harbor Way and to the north, south and west by
other development or railroad rights-of-way. Proposed Project expansion would occur only
on Parcel A. Parcel A is served by three driveway connections to East Grand Avenue and the
two driveway connections to Harbor Way. All driveways are connected via internal parking
aisles and will remain connected after construction of the proposed Project. Project access to
the U. S. 101 freeway is provided by a variety of maj or streets with several route options
available to the three interchanges that could potentially be used by Project traffic. Each is
briefly described below, while a schematic presentation of existing intersection approach
lanes and control are presented in Figure 1 (in Appendix D).
Freewavs
U.S.10l is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the Project area. It extends from
downtown San Francisco and northern California to Los Angeles and southern California.
Within the study area, U.S.101 has northbound on-ramps at Grand Avenue, South Airport
Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue) and at Oyster Point Boulevard;
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
northbound off-ramps are provided at East Grand Avenue / Executive Drive, South Airport
Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue) and at Dubuque Avenue Gust south
of Oyster Point Boulevard). Southbound on-ramps are provided from Dubuque Avenue Gust
south of Oyster Point Boulevard), Airport Boulevard (north of Oyster Point Boulevard), and
at Produce Avenue; southbound off-ramps are provided at Produce Avenue, Airport
Boulevard / Miller Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard and at Airport
Boulevard Gust north of Oyster Point Boulevard). There are auxiliary lanes on northbound
U.S.101 both north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound U.S.101 south of
Oyster Point Boulevard. In 2005 U.S.101 carried an annual average daily traffic (ADT)
volume of 156,000 vehicles south of Produce Avenue, 201,000 vehicles south of Oyster
Point Boulevard and 201,000 vehicles just north of Oyster Point Boulevard. I
Streets
East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/
office areas east of the U.S.101 freeway. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway
and narrows to four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. In
the Project vicinity it has two travel lanes in each direction separated by a raised median,
with no on-street parking allowed along either the north or south sides of the street (i.e. there
is no room for on-street parking on either side of East Grand Avenue in the Project vicinity).
The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph).
Harbor Way is a two-lane street serving existing and planned industrial/office uses south of
East Grand Avenue. Harbor Way provides access to South Airport Boulevard and several
U.S.101 freeway ramps via Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue. Adjacent to the Project site it
is 40 feet wide and the posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. A continuous two-way left
turn lane is provided serving all Project driveways. On-street parking is prohibited in the
Project vicinity.
Allerton Avenue is a two-lane local street extending northeasterly from East Grand Avenue
to Forbes Boulevard. It has a gradual south-to-north uphill grade and a posted speed limit of
30 mph. On-street parking is prohibited along both sides of the street and its curb-to-curb
width is 40 feet. Allerton Avenue is stop sign controlled on its approaches to East Grand
Avenue and Forbes Boulevard. Right turns only are allowed on the Allerton approach to East
Grand Avenue.
Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane collector street connecting the San Bruno Point Genentech
area with East Grand Avenue. In the Project vicinity it is 60 feet wide curb to curb with an
intermittent raised median that is 12 feet wide. On-street parking is prohibited and the posted
speed limit is 35 miles per hour. A sidewalk is provided along the north side of the street.
1 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, Caltrans 2005.
PAGE 11-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Airport Boulevard is a four- to six-lane, north-south arterial street that parallels the west side
of the U.S.1 01 freeway. This roadway continues north into the City of Brisbane and the City
of San Francisco, where it is called Bayshore Boulevard. South of San Mateo Avenue,
Airport Boulevard changes names to Produce Avenue. In the General Plan, Airport
Boulevard is classified as a major arterial.
Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane major arterial street connecting East Grand Avenue with
South Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Littlefield Avenue is a 40-foot-wide, two-lane north-south street connecting East Grand
Avenue with Utah Avenue.
Utah Avenue is a four-lane east-west street connecting Littlefield Avenue with South Airport
Boulevard.
South Airport Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway traveling from the Airport
Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue intersection in the north near U.S.101 to
the San Bruno Avenue East / North McDonnell Road in the south. Most of South Airport
Boulevard runs parallel to U. S.l 01 near its northbound lanes.
Dubuque Avenue is a two- to four-lane roadway running east of and almost parallel to
U.S.101 in a north/south direction. Extending from East Grand Avenue to Oyster Point
Boulevard this roadway functions as a connector street for the traffic traveling between
U. S.l Oland Oyster Point Boulevard. Dubuque Avenue has two lanes south of the Dubuque
Avenue / U.S.101 Ramps and four lanes north of this location. According to the General
Plan, Dubuque Avenue is classified as a collector.
Mitchell Avenue is a two-lane roadway running in an east/west direction. Mitchell Avenue
connects Airport Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard in the west to Harbor Way in the east.
Gull Road is a two-lane local roadway running in a north/south direction. This roadway
connects Oyster Point Boulevard with Forbes Boulevard. The General Plan classifies this
roadway as Other Street (Local Street).
Oyster Point Boulevard is one of the primary arterial access routes serving the "East of 101
area" in South San Francisco. It has six travel lanes near its interchange with the U.S.101
freeway, four lanes east of Veterans Boulevard and two lanes near Gull Road. Bicycle lanes
are provided in both directions the entire length of the roadway.
Volumes
Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was requested by City staff at the following 24
major intersections serving the Project site. Twenty-three locations are currently in operation,
while intersection number 2, below, at the Terrabay office access along Airport Boulevard,
will be active after completion of this Project.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps (Signal)
2. Airport Boulevard / Terrabay Phase 3 Access (Signal)-Future conditions only.
3. Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard (Signal)
4. Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp (Signal)
5. Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp & Southbound On-Ramp (Signal)
6. Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover
(Signal)
7. Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue (Signal)
8. Oyster Point Boulevard / Gull Road (Signal)
9. Airport Boulevard / Miller Avenue / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Signal)
10. Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (Signal)
11. Grand Avenue Overcrossing / Dubuque Avenue (Signal)
12. U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp / E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive (E. Grand Stop
Controlled Right Turn)
13. E. Grand Avenue / Grand Avenue Overcrossing (Signal)
14. E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard (Signal)
15. E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way (Signal)
16. E. Grand Avenue / Littlefield Avenue (Signal)
17. E. Grand Avenue / Allerton Avenue (Allerton Stop Sign Controlled-Right turn only
from Allerton to E. Grand)
18. Forbes Boulevard / Eccles Avenue (Signal)
19. Forbes Boulevard / Allerton Avenue (Allerton Stop Sign Control)
20. Forbes Boulevard / Gull Road (Signal)
21. Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue (Signal)
22. Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue (Signal)
23. S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane (Signal)
24. S. Airport Boulevard / Utah Avenue (Signal)
Existing counts were obtained for most locations from the Genentech Master Plan Revised
Draft EIR. These counts were conducted in December 2005. In addition, AM and PM peak
period counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in September or October 2006
at the following locations:
.
Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue
.
Forbes Boulevard / Eccles Avenue
.
S. Airport Boulevard / Utah Avenue
.
East Grand Avenue / Littlefield Avenue
.
All Project site driveways along East Grand Avenue and Harbor Way
Figures 3 and 4 (in Appendix D) present existing AM and PM peak hour volumes at the
analysis intersections.
PAGE 11-4
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
INTERSECTION OPERATION
Analysis Methodology
Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections,
are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized
intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a
grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating
uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant
congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is
also associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation Research Board
~TRB~ Highway Capacity Manual ~HCM~ operations method) at each intersection. The
control delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular
Project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/control delay relationship is provided in Appendix
D.
Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded
using the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are
determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual.
Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting
operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated.
Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also
evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in
the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop
analysis where the LOS and control delay designations only pertain to the entire intersection,
in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for only
the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements. Appendix D
provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies.
Analysis Software
All existing operating conditions have been evaluated using the Traffix software program.
The Synchro software program has been utilized to evaluate year 2015 conditions at all
signalized intersections directly serving a freeway off-ramp, at all locations in close
proximity to off-ramp intersections serving a significant amount of of-ramp traffic, and at all
other intersections within the Oyster Point interchange. All other locations have been
evaluated for year 2015 conditions using the Traffix software program.
Standards
The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest
acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections, with LOS E the poorest
acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has
no standards for turn movements from private driveways.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Existing Intersection Operating Conditions
Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all 23 existing analyzed intersections are currently operating
at good to acceptable (LOS D or better) Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak
traffic hours.
INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION REQUIREMENTS
Traffic signals are used to provide an orderly flow of traffic through an intersection. Many
times they are needed to offer side street traffic an opportunity to access a major road where
high volumes and/or high vehicle speeds block crossing or turn movements. They do not,
however, increase the capacity of an intersection (i.e., increase the overall intersection's
ability to accommodate additional vehicles) and, in fact, often slightly reduce the number of
total vehicles that can pass through an intersection in a given period of time. Signals can also
cause an increase in traffic accidents if installed at inappropriate locations.
There are 8 possible tests for determining whether a traffic signal should be considered for
installation. These tests, called "warrants", consider criteria such as actual traffic volume,
pedestrian volume, presence of school children, and accident history. Usually, two or more
warrants must be met before a signal is considered for installation. In this report, the test for
Peak Hour Volumes (Warrant #3) has been applied. When Warrant 3 is met there is a strong
indication that a detailed signal warrant analysis covering all possible warrants is appropriate.
These rigorous analyses are described in the 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices by the Federal Highway Administration, while Warrant 3 is presented in Appendix
D of this report.
It is possible that an unsignalized intersection will not meet signal warrants, but will have one
or more movements that experience LOS F operations. Level of Service F can be indicated
for a very low volume of vehicles at a stop sign. Although these stopped vehicles may
experience long delays of one minute or more, there would not be an overall benefit if the
higher numbers of vehicles on the major street are stopped in favor of the few vehicles on the
minor street. The signal warrant considers a balance between major street and minor street
delays, and may indicate that there is overall benefit if drivers for some turn movements from
the minor street continue to experience long (LOS E or F) delays.
PAGE 11-6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 11-1. I NTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
EXISTING & YEAR 2015
AM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF SERVICE
(rating-vehicle control delay in seconds)
Airport Blvd./U.S.101 SB Hook Ramps (Signal)
Airport Blvd./Terrabay Phase 3 Access (Signal)
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. (Signal)
Oyster Point/Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp (Signal)
Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off-Ramp & SB On-Ramp (Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway /U. S.l 01 SB Off-Ramp Flyover
(Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Gull Rd. (Signal)
Airport Blvd./Miller/U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal)
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal)
E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave. (Signal)
U.S.101 NB Off-Ramp/E. Grand Ave./Executive Drive
(E. Grand Stop Controlled Right Turn)
E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing (Signal) B-20.0 C-31.7 C-38.0
E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) C-25.9 D-36.0 D-48.7
E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way (Signal) C-21.8 E-79.0 F-I0l
E. Grand A ve./Littlefield Ave. (Signal) B-16.7 D-52.2 D-54.7
E. Grand Ave./Allerton Ave. (Allerton Stop Sign Control) A-9.3(3) B-10.2 B-12.0
Forbes Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) A - 7.6 B-1 0.6 B-1 0.6
Forbes Blvd./Allerton Ave. (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-19.6(4) F-167 F-167(I)
Forbes Blvd./Gull Rd. (Signal) C-24.1 C-28.1 C-28.1
Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave. (Signal) C-28.6 C-30.2 C-30.3
Gateway Blvd./S. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave. (Signal) C-26.9 C-27.7 C-27.9
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook Ramps/Wondercolor (Signal) C-26.9 C-31.0 C-34.7
S. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave. (Signal) C-25.8 C-30.2 C-32.0
* Base Case = traffic projections from the Genentech Master Plan Revised Draft EIR (including full Genentech buildout).
* * NA = Intersection does not currently exist.
*** NA = No right turns during the AM peak hour.
(1) The proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to this intersection experiencing unacceptable Base Case
operation as Project volume increases would be less than 2 percent.
(2) E. Grand Ave. westbound right turn to Executive Drive.
(3) Allerton Ave. southbound stop sign controlled approach right turn to E. Grand Ave.
(4) Allerton Ave. northbound stop sign controlled left turn to Forbes Blvd.
Bolded results = significant Project impact.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
INTERSECTION
EXISTING
B-12.5
NA**
C-29.1
C-24.8
B-12.2
C-29.4
A-8.3
C-32.7
C-25.4
D-35.7
A-7.9
NA ***(2)
YEAR 2015
BASE BASE CASE
CASE* + PROJECT
B-18.0 B-17.8
C-27.2 C-27.0
D-41.2 D-41.2
C-32.3 C-33.4
D-36.8 D-36.4
E-78.4 F-85.1(I)
D-43.6
E-63 .6
D-43.6
E-63.6(I)
C-31.2
F -88.6
A-7.9
NA
C-33.1
E-74.3
A-7.9
NA
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 11-2. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
EXISTING & YEAR 2015
PM PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF SERVICE
(rating-vehicle control delay in seconds)
YEAR 2015
BASE BASE CASE
CASE* + PROJECT
E-61.2 E-62.7(I)
B-17.4 B-17.3
C-27.2 C-27.5
F-175 F-179(I)
B-19.3 B-19.3
E-74.6 E-78.8(I)
INTERSECTION
EXISTING
Airport Blvd./U.S.1 01 SB Hook Ramps (Signal)
Airport Blvd./Terrabay Phase 3 Access (Signal)
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. (Signal)
Oyster Point/Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp (Signal)
Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off-Ramp & SB On-Ramp (Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway /U. S.l 01 SB Off-Ramp Flyover
(Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal)
Oyster Point Blvd./Gull Rd. (Signal)
Airport Blvd./Miller/U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal)
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal)
E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave. (Signal)
U.S.101 NB Off-Ramp/E. Grand Ave./Executive Drive
(E. Grand Stop Controlled Right Turn)
E. Grand A ve./Grand Ave. Overcrossing (Signal)
E. Grand A ve./Gateway Blvd. (Signal)
E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way (Signal)
E. Grand A ve./Littlefield Ave. (Signal)
E. Grand A ve./ Allerton Ave. (Allerton Stop Sign Control)
Forbes Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal)
Forbes Blvd./ Allerton Ave. (Allerton Stop Sign Control)
Forbes Blvd./Gull Rd. (Signal)
B-17.2
NA**
C-31.0
C-27.8
B-16.6
C-27.8
B-11.6
C-29.8
C-24.5
C-34.6
A-6.9
B-10.0(2)
B-15.7
B-18.9
C-29.9
A-9.9
B-14.8(3)
A-7.6
B-13.1(4)
B-13.8
D-50.8
F -207
B-1 7.2
D-48.7
B-11.4
B-10.7
B-13.9
C-28.8
F -146
C-23.5
E-41.9
B-13.0
C-19.3
F -88.4
D-50.8
F-207(I)
B-18.0
D-47.8
B-11.4
B-10.7
B-13.9
C-29.8
F-154
C-24.5
E-42.0(I)
B-13.0
C-19.3
F-88.4(I)
F-99.8
F -128
C26.6
Airport Blvd./San Mateo A ve./Produce Ave. (Signal)
Gateway Blvd./S. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave. (Signal)
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.1 0 1 NB Hook Ramps/W ondercolor
(Signal)
S. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave. (Signal) C-21.1 C-24.9 C-25.4
* Base Case = traffic projections from the Genentech Master Plan Revised Draft EIR (including full Genentech buildout).
* * NA = Intersection does not currently exist.
(1) The proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to this intersection experiencing unacceptable Base Case
operation as Project volume increases would be less than 2 percent.
(2) E. Grand Ave. westbound right turn to Executive Drive.
(3) Allerton Ave. southbound stop sign controlled approach right turn to E. Grand Ave.
(4) Allerton Ave. northbound stop sign controlled left turn to Forbes Blvd.
Bolded results = significant Project impact.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
C- 30.2
C-33.2
C- 30.7
F -87.3
F -109
C-26.0
PAGE 11-8
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Existing Signalization Needs
Currently, the East Grand Avenue / Allerton Avenue and Allerton Avenue / Forbes
Boulevard intersections both have AM and PM peak hour volumes below signal warrant
criteria levels (see Table 11-3).
TABLE 11-3. INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION REQUIREMENTS
EXISTING & YEAR 2015
LOCATION
Do volumes meet peak hour volume signal warrant #3 criteria levels?
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
YEAR 2015 YEAR 2015
BASE BASE CASE BASE BASE CASE
CASE + PROJECT EXISTING CASE + PROJECT
No No
( approaching ( approaching
borderline borderline
condition) condition)
EXISTING
E. Grand Ave.!
Allerton Ave.
No
No
Yes
Yes
Forbes Blvd.!
Allerton Ave.
No
No
No
No
No
No
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
VEHICLE QUEUING
Analysis Methodology
The Synchro software program has determined projections of vehicle queuing on the critical
approaches to five signalized off-ramp intersections evaluated in this study and on the
approaches to adjacent intersections that need to accommodate flow from the off-ramp
intersection:
. U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp / Airport Boulevard / Miller Avenue intersection & the
adjacent Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue intersection
. U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp / South Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane
intersection
. U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp / Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
intersection
. U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp / Dubuque Avenue intersection & the adjacent Oyster
Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection
. U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp / Airport Boulevard intersection
In addition, off-ramp queuing was also evaluated on the U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp
connection to East Grand Avenue / Executive Drive. While this off-ramp is not controlled on
its approach to this first intersection, East Grand Avenue is signal controlled at its next major
intersection to the east (at Grand Avenue Overcrossing). Queuing results from the TRAFFIX
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-9
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
worksheets for this signalized location were evaluated to see if any queuing extended back to
the off-ramp. Projections are provided for each off-ramp as well as for turn lanes and other
surface street approaches that have nearby adjacent intersections.
Queuing Standards
The standard adopted by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans is that the 95th
percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage for each off-ramp
and on the approaches to intersections adjacent to off-ramp intersections that accommodate a
significant amount of off-ramp traffic. In addition, no off-ramp traffic is allowed to back up
to the freeway mainline during the entire AM or PM peak traffic hour. The 95th percentile
queue indicates that vehicle backups will only extend beyond this length five percent of the
time during the analysis hour. Queuing analysis is presented in this study for year 2015 Base
Case and Base Case + Project conditions. Off-ramp queuing has been evaluated using both
the Synchro software output, which details queuing for one of the signal cycles during the
peak traffic hour, as well as using the SIM traffic feature of the Synchro program, which
evaluates off-ramp operation and backups during the entire peak traffic hour.
FREEWAY OPERATION
Analysis Methodology
U.S.101 freeway segments have been evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highway Capacity
Manual as specified by Caltrans and the San Mateo County Congestion Management
Program (CMP). U.S.101 existing traffic conditions have been evaluated for the weekday
AM and PM peak hour. Existing traffic volumes used for the analysis were derived from
Caltrans 2005 Traffic Volumes on California Highways (Caltrans 2005). Freeway mainline
analysis was performed using the HCS software based upon the HCM methodology for
freeway mainlines. A description ofHCM analysis methodology is provided in Appendix D.
San Mateo CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets
The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP
street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections
near the county boarder, the LOS standard was set as LOS E in order to be consistent with
the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing Level of Service in 1990/91
was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS was or will be E, the
standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to
be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000.
If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard
LOS) on a CMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using
LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS
standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are
not feasible (due to financial, environmental or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be
PAGE 11-10
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and
infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient
conditions.
A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic originating
outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance.
Existing Freeway Operation
Existing Levels of Service on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based upon
results contained in the Genentech Master Plan Revised Draft EIR circulation analysis
(December 2006). Table 11-4 shows a summary of existing u.S. 101 freeway operation and
Table 11-5 shows details of the existing freeway Level of Service results based on late 2005
traffic counts. Currently, all U.S.101 freeway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS E
or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Conditions are generally poorer along
U. S.l 01 to the north of Oyster Point Boulevard, and peak in the southbound direction during
the AM peak hour and in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour.
TABLE 11-4. SUMMARY OF EXISTING U.S.101 FREEWAY OPERATION
AM PEAK HOUR
Southbound LOS E
LOSC
LOSC
LOSD
North of the Oyster Point interchange
South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp Gust north ofl-380)
South of the S. Airport Blvd. off-ramp Gust north ofl-380)
North of the Sierra Point on-ramp
Northbound
PM PEAK HOUR
Southbound LOS D
LOSC
Northbound LOS C
LOSE
North of the Oyster Point interchange
South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp Gust north ofl-380)
South of the S. Airport Blvd. off-ramp Gust north ofl-380)
North of the Sierra Point on-ramp
TABLE 11-5. DETAILED U.S.101 FREEWAY EXISTING OPERATING CONDITIONS, DEC. 2005
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
U.S.I0l SEGMENT VOLUME LOS DENSITY VOLUME LOS DENSITY
North of Oyster Point Blvd.
Northbound Direction 7,129 D
Southbound Direction 8,246 E
North of 1-380
Northbound Direction 5,366 C
Southbound Direction 6,567 C
28.5
36.6
8,374
6,802
E
D
37.8
26.8
10.5
25.6
5,484
6,294
C
C
20.9
24.4
LOS = Level of Service
Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile.
Density is not computed when free-flow speed is less than 55 mph.
Source: Korve Engineering, 2006
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE11-11
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
OFF-RAMP OPERATION AT DIVERGE FROM FREEWAY MAINLINE
Analysis Methodology & Standards
Caltrans uses an off-ramp volume of 1,500 vehicles per hour as the maximum acceptable
limit that can be accommodated by a single lane off-ramp at its divergence from the freeway
mainline.
Existing Off-Ramp Diverge Operations
Table 11-6 shows that currently all U.S.101 freeway off-ramps serving South San Francisco
and the East of 101 area are operating acceptably and have volumes below 1,500 vehicles per
hour during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with the exception of the northbound off-
ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive during the AM peak hour (with a volume of
1,573 vehicles per hour).
TABLE 11-6. OFF-RAMP CAPACITY & VOLUMES AT DIVERGE FROM FREEWAY MAINLINE
EXISTING & YEAR 2015
VOLUMES
EXISTING YEAR 2015
CAP ACITY* DEC. 2005 BASE BASE CASE
U.S.I0I0FF-RAMP (VEH/HR) OR CASE + PROJECT
SEPT. 2006
AM Peak Hour
SB Off-Ramp to Airport Blvd. 1500 172 505 505
SB Off-Ramp Flyover to Oyster Point/Gateway 1500 899 1644 1664
SB Off-Ramp to Airport Blvd./Miller Ave. 1500 640 1085 1139
NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport Blvd. / 1500 1300 1921 2031
Wondercolor Lane
NB Off-Ramp to E. Grand Ave ./ 1500 1573 2019 2069
Executive Drive
NB Off-Ramp to Dubuque Ave. 1500 899 1674 1674
PM Peak Hour
SB Off-Ramp to Airport Blvd. 1500 383 570 570
SB Off-Ramp Flyover to Oyster Point/Gateway 1500 100 271 278
SB Off-Ramp to Airport Blvd./Miller Ave. 1500 608 709 716
NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor 1500 619 741 753
Lane
NB Off-Ramp to E. Grand Ave./Executive 1500 563 723 739
Drive
NB Off-Ramp to Dubuque Ave. 1500 580 1114 1114
* Caltrans desired volume limit that can be accommodated by a single off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline.
Existing & 2015 Base Case + Project Volumes = Korve Engineering
Bolded results = significant Project impact.
Year 2015 Base Case Volumes = Crane Transportation Group
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
PAGE 11-12
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
ON-RAMP OPERATION
Analysis Methodology & Standards
On-ramp operation has been evaluated using planning level methodology contained in the
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (page 25-4/Exhibit 25-3). Capacity is dependent upon
the free flow speed of on-ramp traffic. For single lane diamond on-ramps with higher speeds,
capacity has been set at 2,200 vehicles per hour, while for single lane button hook or curving
on-ramps, capacity has been set at 2,000 vehicles per hour.
Existing On-Ramp Operations
Table 11-7 shows that currently, all U.S.101 freeway on-ramps serving South San Francisco
and the East of 101 area are operating acceptably and have volumes well below capacity
during the AM and PM peak hours.
TABLE 11-7. ON-RAMP CAPACITY & VOLUMES
EXISTING & YEAR 2015
U.S.I0I0FF-RAMP
AM Peak Hour
SB On-Ramp from Dubuque Ave.
SB On-Ramp from Produce Ave.
NB On-Ramp from S. Airport
Blvd.!Wondercolor Lane
NB On-Ramp from Grand Ave.
NB On-Ramp from Oyster Point Blvd.!
Dubuque Ave.
PM Peak Hour
SB On-Ramp from Dubuque Ave.
SB On-Ramp from Produce Ave.
NB On-Ramp from S. Airport
Blvd.!Wondercolor Lane
NB On-Ramp from Grand Ave.
NB On-Ramp from Oyster Point Blvd.!
Dubuque Ave.
VOLUMES
EXISTING YEAR 2015
CAP ACITY* DEC. 2005 OR BASE CASE BASE CASE
(VEH/HR) SEPT. 2006 + PROJECT
2000 653 816 816
3000** 958 1136 1151
2000 291 296 296
2000 512 595 607
2200 632 901 905
2000
3000**
1118
1880
498
682
1235
1793
2766
498
1074
2302
1793
2864
498
1144
2337
2000
2000
2200
Existing & 2015 Base Case + Project Volumes = Korve Engineering
Year 2015 Base Case Volumes = Crane Transportation Group
* Planning level capacity: Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Report 209.
** Produce Avenue on-ramp has two travel lanes. One on-ramp lane merges to the freeway mainline, while the other on-
ramp lane continues as an auxiliary lane to the 1-380 off-ramp.
Bolded results = significant Project impact.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-1 3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TRANSIT & SHUTTLE SERVICE
Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service and regional rail
service. Figure 5 (in Appendix D) shows bus/shuttle service east of the U.S.101 freeway in
the Project vicinity, while Table 11-8 lists the type and frequency of transit service provided
to South San Francisco and the Project area and Table 11-9 lists the Alliance Shuttle Service
shuttles and schedule.
TABLE 11-8. TRANSIT SERVICE-SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SERVICE
SamTrans
Caltrain
BART
Caltrain Shuttle
to SSF Station
BART Shuttle
to SSF Station
FREQUENCY
ROUTE AM/PM PEAK MIDDAY AREA SERVED
Airport/Linden-Daly
City and Colma BART 20/20 30 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave.
Stations (130)
South SF BART 30/30 50 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave.
Station (132)
Airport/Linden- 30/30 60 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave.
Serramonte (133)
Palo Alto-Daly City 30/30 30 South SF BART Bay 3
(390)
Redwood City-Colma 15/30(a) 15(a) EI Camino Real/South SF
BART Station (391) BART Station
San Mateo-SF (292) 15/15(a) 30 Airport Blvd./Baden Ave.
Gilroy-SF 30/30 60 South SF Caltrain Station
Pittsburg-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station
Fremont-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station
Richmond-Daly City 15/15 Daly City BART Station
Dublin-Millbrae 15/15 15 South SF BART Station
Gateway Area 30/30 Genentech Bldgs B9, B5
Oyster Point Area 30/30(a) Gull/Oyster Point and 384
Oyster Point
Sierra Point Area 30/30(a) 5000 Shoreline Ct.
Utah-Grand Area 30/30(a) Cabot/ Allerton
Sierra Point Area 35/35 5000 Shoreline Ct.
Gateway Area 20/20 1000 Gateway
Genentech 15/15 Genentech Bldgs. B5, B54
Oyster Point Area 23/23(a) Gull/Oyster Point and 384
Oyster Point
Utah-Grand Area 23/23(a) Cabot/ Allerton
Frequency of transit service is presented in minutes.
SF = San Francisco
( a) = average frequency period.
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (511. org), San Mateo County ALLIANCE (commute.org)
PAGE 11-14
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 11-9. ALLIANCE SHUTTLE SERVICE-SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SHUTTLE STATION SERVED SCHEDULE AREA SERVED
BART eight AM & nine PM trips Oyster Point Blvd., Gull Rd.,
Oyster Point Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips Eccles Ave., Forbes Blvd.,
Veterans Blvd.
BART nine AM & nine PM trips E. Grand Ave., Utah Ave.,
Utah-Grand Harbor Way, Littlefield Ave.
Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips
BART ten AM & twelve PM trips Gateway Blvd.-BART
Gateway Area Caltrain six AM & five PM trips Gateway Blvd., Genentech
Office-Caltrain
BART four AM & four PM
Sierra Point Sierra Point, Shoreline
Caltrain four AM & four PM trips
Both shuttles alternate between 15- and 30-minute headways during both peak hours.
Source: San Mateo County ALLIANCE (Commute.org)
Bus Service
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San
Francisco. However, currently there is no SamTrans service east of the U.S.101 freeway. Bus
service running just west of the freeway is as follows.
Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center-Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and
Airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This
route operates during midday only on weekdays with headways of about two hours.
Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART-South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and
Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Colma
BART station and Daly City. It operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to
60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 60-
minute headways on Sundays.
Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/EI Camino operates along Hillside Avenue and Grand
Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak
period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways
on Saturdays.
Route 292: San Francisco-SF Airport-Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport
Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak
headways on weekdays and 30- to 60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-1 5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Caltrain
Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station
located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue Overcrossing in South San
Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during
midday.
Caltrain/BAR T Shuttles
Van shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment
centers east of U.S.1 01 during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service to/from the
Colma BART station. Shuttle stops are provided at two locations along East Grand Avenue
and at one location along Harbor Way adjacent to the Project site.
The Gateway Area/Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway
Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand
Avenue. There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six
morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle.
The Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers in the
Utah/Grand/Littlefield area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot
Court, Grandview Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Haskin Way and Utah Avenue. There are nine
trips in the morning and nine trips in the afternoon on the BART shuttle, with nine morning
and eight afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle.
All shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the
commute periods. The shuttles are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint
Powers Board (JPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the
City/County Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25
percent).
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Sidewalks are in place along the south side of East Grand Avenue and both sides of Harbor
Way in the Project vicinity. However, there are no Class II or Class III bicycle lane
designations along East Grand Avenue or Harbor Way adjacent to the Project site, although
there are numerous bicycle facilities available in the study area. Bike lanes are provided
along East Grand Avenue east of Littlefield Avenue, Sister Cities Boulevard, Oyster Point
Boulevard (east of Gateway Avenue), Gull Road, and Gateway Boulevard (south of East
Grand Avenue). Bike routes are designated on South Airport Boulevard and on East Grand
Avenue between Executive Drive and the East Grand Overcrossing. Bike paths are available
along Executive Drive, and along the shoreline. Future bike lanes are planned along Gateway
Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, Allerton Avenue, and Forbes Boulevard (east of Allerton
Avenue). Future bike routes are planned along Forbes Boulevard (west of Allerton Avenue),
PAGE 11-16
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
while a future bike path is planned along the Caltrain right-of-way. The proposed future bike
lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the General Plan Transportation Element.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to
generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)
trip generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter
20.120 Transportation Demand Management) (refer to Appendix D). The purposes of the
TDM ordinance are as follows:
. Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new
nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development
pursuant to the City's police power and necessary in order to protect the public health,
safety and welfare.
. Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment
opportunities in the City of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated.
. Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of
services, incentives, and facilities.
. Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that
new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative
transportation usage.
. Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development.
. Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this
chapter.
. Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures
are implemented.
The analysis prepared for the General Plan Amendment includes the assumption that a
moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 9.5 percent
compared to existing traffic generation rates. The objective of TDM programs is to reduce
vehicle trips at commercial/residential developments by incorporating project components
such as encouraging increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists
and pedestrians.
South San Francisco has a "menu" of potential TDM programs, each with a specific number
of points that relate to the program's effectiveness. Examples of TDM programs include
bicycle racks and lockers, free carpool parking, shuttle services, and on-site amenities.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-1 7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FUTURE BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) CONDITIONS
The proposed Project's traffic impacts have been evaluated in relation to year 2015 Base
Case conditions. Year 2015 reflects a horizon year that the 250 East Grand Project could be
completely constructed and fully occupied. This section details the process to determine Base
Case traffic operating conditions for year 2015 conditions.
Year 2015 Base Case Development., Cumulative Scenario
The year 2015 baseline conditions include traffic generated by approved and proposed
development in the study area, as well as traffic generated by projects that are under
construction. This analysis has been recently conducted as part of the Genentech Corporate
Facilities Master Plan Revised Draft EIR and has been used in preparation of the 250 East
Grand EIR at the direction of City staff. A list of projects incorporated into this cumulative
scenario is included in Appendix D . Year 2015 peak hour Future Without Proj ect conditions
were developed by adding traffic expected to be generated by all the approved and proposed
development proj ects in the greater East of 101 Area (as provided by the City of South San
Francisco) to the existing traffic network. The data in this DEIR includes expected traffic
volumes generated by several recently approved background projects, including the Lowe's,
Home Depot and Terrabay projects as well as traffic from the proposed Genentech Corporate
Facilities Master Plan. The number of trips generated by future developments is provided in
Table 11-10.
TABLE 11-10. TRIP GENERATION-ApPROVED & PLANNED LOCAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BY
2015 (WITHOUT 250 EAST GRAND PROJECT)
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL
East of 101 Total w/o
Genentech
Genentech Proposal
Total
2142
1762
3904
915
215
1130
3057
1977
5034
1244
292
1536
2435
1519
3954
3679
1811
5490
Source: Korve Engineering/Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan Revised Draft EIR & Crane Transportation
Group
Freeway segment traffic volumes for 2015 peak hour Future Without Project conditions were
developed by adding traffic expected to be generated by all approved and likely development
projects and by applying an annual 0.5 percent growth rate to existing volumes (as
documented in approved transportation studies). The growth in freeway on- and off-ramp
volumes was based on the anticipated traffic increases generated by the approved
development projects. Year 2015 Base Case (without Project) AM and PM peak hour
volumes are presented in Figures 6 and 7 (in Appendix D).
PAGE 11-18
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
YEAR 2015 BASE CASE OPERATING CONDITIONS
Roadway Improvements Planned by 2015
The following intersection improvements were projected by City of South San Francisco
Public Works staff to be in place for year 2015 Base Case analysis. These improvements will
be funded by approved proj ects or the City's East of 101 capital improvements program.
. Oyster Point Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Airport Boulevard
a. Restripe and reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities approach to provide two left turn
lanes, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right turn lane.
b. Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach.
c. Restripe the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left
turn lane, two through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane.
. South Airport Boulevard / U.S.I0l Northbound Off-Ramp / Wondercolor Lane
d. Add a second right turn lane on the northbound off-ramp approach.
. Airport Boulevard / Terrabay Phase 3 Access (when built)
e. Provide approach lanes as detailed in the Terrabay EIR.
Intersection Level of Service
All intersections with year 2015 Base Case volumes would be operating at acceptable Levels
of Service with the following exceptions (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2).
. Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.I0l Southbound (Flyover) Off-
Ramp (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS E
PM Peak Hour: LOS E
. Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp
(Signal)
PM Peak Hour: LOS F
. Airport Avenue / Grand Avenue (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F
. E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS E
PM Peak Hour: LOS F
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-19
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
. Forbes Boulevard / Allerton Avenue (Allerton Stop Sign Controlled)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F
. Oyster Point Boulevard / Gull Road (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS E
PM Peak Hour: LOS F
. Forbes Boulevard / Gull Road (Signal)
PM Peak Hour: LOS F
. Airport Boulevard / U.S.I0l Southbound Off-Ramp (Signal)
PM Peak Hour: LOS E
. Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue (Signal)
PM Peak Hour: LOS F
. Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue (Signal)
PM Peak Hour: LOS F
. E. Grand / Allerton Avenue
PM Peak Hour: LOS E
Intersection Signalization Needs
The following unsignalized intersections would have year 2015 Base Case volumes
exceeding peak hour signal warrant #3 volume criteria levels (see Table 11-3).
. E. Grand Avenue / Allerton Avenue
AM Peak Hour (borderline)
PM Peak Hour:
Vehicle Queuing
The following off-ramps and/or approaches to adjacent intersections would have 95th
percentile year 2015 Base Case queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the
Synchro software program (see Table 11-11).
PAGE 11-20
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 11-11. 95TH PERCENTILE VEHICLE QUEUES*- YEAR 2015
INTERSECTIONS AT OR NEAR U.S.101 INTERCHANGES POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY THE
250-270 E. GRAND PROJECT WITH SIGNAL TIMING FOR OPTIMIZED LEVEL OF SERVICE
YEAR 2015
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
STORAGE BASE BASE CASE BASE BASE CASE
INTERSECTION DISTANCE* CASE + PROJECT CASE + PROJECT
S. Airport Blvd.IUS.101 NB On- and Off-Ramps/Wondercolor Lane
NB Off-Ramp Left
Turn/Through/Right (Total)*
Airport Blvd.IMiller Ave.IUS. 101 SB Off-Ramp
SB Off-Ramp Left Turn/Through
(Total)*
Airport Blvd.IGrand Avenue
SB Left Turn
SB Through
SB Right Turn
Oyster Point Blvd.IDubuque Ave.
NB Left Turn 135
NB Left/Through 255
NB Right Turn 210
Dubuque A ve.IU. S. 101 SB Onl NB Off-Ramps
Off- Ramp/Left/Through/Right
(Total)*
Oyster Point Blvd.IGateway Blvd.IUS.101 SB Off-Rampl Commercial Access
SB Off-Ramp Through (Total)* 5600 1112 1112
SB Off-Ramp Right Turn Lane 360 305 315
Airport Blvd.ISB 101 On-Off Ramp *
SB Off-Ramp Left/Right Turn
Airport Blvd.ITerrabay Entrance
SB Through
SB Right Turn
E. Grand A ve.IGrand Ave. Overcrossing
NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane**
NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane**
1675
1225
320
320
75
1600
1200
450
230
800
800
1363
1509
901
895
725
512
70
154
322
17
757
523
62
149
322
17
1462
282
1462
282
232
75
1100
150
240
74
1275
125
471
483
359 362
251 268
324 324
168 169
765 765
705 705
21 22
824 824
270 270
42 43
642 642
123 124
0 0
125 150
375 375
Bolded results = significant Project impact. The proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to vehicle queuing
at any of the other intersections experiencing unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing as Project traffic contributions
would be less than 1 percent of the total.
* Storage and queues-in feet (per total lane group or approach; or per turn lane as indicated). The term "Total" applies
when storage is for a group of lanes with the same movement to which drivers have equal access or for a group of more
than one through or turn lane on an off-ramp intersection approach where drivers would be expected to access each lane in
the most efficient queuing order.
** Traffix software utilized as NB off-ramp not sign or signal controlled at adjacent East Grand/Executive Drive
intersection.
Synchro software used for all analysis unless noted.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-21
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
. E. Grand Avenue / Grand Avenue Overcrossing
AM Peak Hour: The right turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to the Grand
Avenue Overcrossing would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available
storage.
. Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Airport Boulevard southbound approach left and through
movements would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage.
PM Peak Hour: The Airport Boulevard southbound approach through and right turn
movements would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage.
. Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left and through movements
would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage.
PM Peak Hour: The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left and through movements
would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage.
The following off-ramps would have year 2015 Base Case queuing extending back to the
U. S.l 01 mainline one or more times during the peak traffic hours as determined using the
SIM traffic software program (unless noted).
. U.S.I0l Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard / Miller Avenue Intersection
AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
. U.S.I0l Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
PM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
. U.S.I0l Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard (North of Oyster Point
Boulevard)
PM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
. U.S.I0l Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive Intersection
AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline. (Projected based upon existing off-ramp backups,
significantly increased volumes expected by 2015 and extended backups from the East
Grand Avenue approach to Grand Avenue Overcrossing.)
PAGE 11-22
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Off-Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline
The following off-ramps would have year 2015 Base Case volumes exceeding 1,500
vehicles/hour on a one-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline (see Table 11-6).
. U.S.I0l Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway
Boulevard Intersection
AM Peak Hour: 1,644 vehicles per hour using off-ramp.
. U.S.I0l Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane
Intersection
AM Peak Hour: 1,921 vehicles per hour using off-ramp.
. U.S.I0l Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive Intersection
AM Peak Hour: 2,019 vehicles per hour using off-ramp.
. U.S.I0l Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: 1,674 vehicles per hour using off-ramp.
On-Ramp Operation
The following on-ramp would have year 2015 Base Case volumes exceeding ramp capacities
(see Table 11-7).
. U.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard at Dubuque Avenue
PM Peak Hour: 2,302 vehicle demand with a 2,200 vehicle capacity.
U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Level of Service
The following mainline freeway segments with year 2015 Base Case volumes would be
operating at unacceptable Levels of Service (see Table 11-12).
. U.S.I0l Southbound (North of the Oyster Point Interchange)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F operation.
. U.S.I0l Northbound (North of the Sierra Point On-Ramp)
PM Peak Hour: LOS F operation.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-23
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 11-12. YEAR 2015 U.S.101 FREEWAY OPERATING CONDITIONS
SEGMENT
BASE CASE
VOL LOS DENSITY
BASE CASE + PROJECT
VOL LOS DENSITY
AM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Blvd.
Northbound Direction
Southbound Direction
North of 1-380
Northbound Direction
Southbound Direction
PM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Blvd.
Northbound Direction
Southbound Direction
North of 1-380
Northbound Direction
Southbound Direction
7794
9907
D
F*
32.9
7810 D
10,008 F*
33.0
7289
7361
D
D
29.5
30.0
7449 D
7376 D
30.5
30.1
10,001
7643
F*
D
31.8
10,093 F*
7662 D
32.0
6417
8317
C
E*
24.9
37.1
6445 C
8415 E*
25.1
38.2
Bold results = significant Project impact. The proposed Project would result in significant impacts to this
freeway segment experiencing Base Case LOS F operation as Project volume increases would be more than 1
percent.
* unacceptable freeway segment operating conditions.
LOS = Level of Service
Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group (Base Case), Korve Engineering (Base Case + Project)
IMPACT A \lALYSIS
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 and all-way-stop operation would change from Level of
Service (LOS) A, B, C or D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the
intersection would be increased by at least two percent.
c. Uncontrolled turn movements or stop sign controlled approaches at side street stop sign
controlled intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F and total
PAGE 11-24
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least two percent. Side
street criteria are applicable only for stop sign controlled approaches with more than 25
trips during any peak traffic hour.
d. Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet
peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels, or to meet pedestrian/school crossing
signal warrant criteria levels.
e. The proposed Project would increase total volumes passing through an intersection by
two percent or more with signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case
LOS E or F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and the stop sign
controlled Base Case operation is at LOS F (and there are more than 25 vehicles on the
stop sign controlled approach).
f. The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two
percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding peak hour volume signal
warrant criteria levels.
g. Project traffic would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle queuing on all
freeway off-ramps and also on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading away
from off-ramp intersections to unacceptable levels (as determined by the Synchro
software program), or if Base Case 95th percentile queuing on the freeway off-ramps or
on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading away from off-ramp intersections is
already projected at unacceptable lengths, the Project would increase queuing volumes by
one percent or more.
h. Project traffic results in queues exceeding off-ramp storage capacity based upon SIM
traffic software evaluation for the entire peak hour of operation. Ifbase case traffic
already exceeds the storage capacity of the off-ramp, then a one-percent addition in
traffic due to the project is considered a significant impact.
1. Proj ect traffic would degrade operation of the U. S. 101 freeway or freeway ramps from
LOS E to LOS F with at least a one percent increase in volume, or would increase
volumes by more than one percent or on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with Base
Case LOS F operation.
J. If on-site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow
through various parts of the Project site.
k. Project parking would not meet City criteria.
I. Project development or project traffic would produce a detrimental impact to local transit
or shuttle service.
m. If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a
significant traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety concern would be created or worsened.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-25
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Table 11-13 shows that a total net new 283,562 square feet of research and development or
office uses would be likely to generate 349 inbound and 48 outbound trips during the AM
peak hour, with 65 inbound and 318 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This assumes a
9.5 percent reduction in peak hour trips due to a moderate TDM program and office rather
than R&D uses to provide a conservative analysis, as trip generation has been found to be
higher from office than from R&D uses.
TABLE 11-13. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
NET NEW DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
SQUARE 2-WAY TRIPS IN OUT IN OUT
USE FOOTAGE RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL
Office 283,562 SQ.FT. 11.01 3122 1.23(1) 349 .17(1) 48 .23 (1) 65 1.12(1) 318
(1) 9.5% reduction in average trip rates due to City mandated TDM program (see Appendix D).
Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Proj ect traffic was distributed to the regional roadway network based upon East of 101
development traffic patterns contained in the April 2001 Draft SEIR for the South San
Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance (see Table 11-
14) as well as traffic distribution patterns at driveways already serving development on the
Project site. Overall, about 62 percent of Project traffic is projected to be destined to/from
south and southwest of the site, with 38 percent destined to/from the north and northwest. It
is likely that Project drivers destined to/from the U.S.101 freeway either north or south would
choose to access the freeway via several routes and interchanges. AM and PM peak hour
Project traffic is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Figures 8 and 9 (in
Appendix D), while Figures 10 and 11 (in Appendix D) present resultant year 2015 AM and
PM peak hour Base Case + Project volumes.
DIRECTION
TABLE 11-14. YEAR 2015 PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEVELOPMENT
29
48
3
8
o
7
3
2
U. S.l 0 1 North/San Francisco
U. S.l 0 1 South
South San Francisco (central area)
Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd.
Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway
Brisbane
Airport Area via South Airport Blvd.
Local East ofU.S.101
TOTAL 100%
Source: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco
General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001.
PAGE 11-26
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact Traf-l: Project Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The
Project would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and
PM peak hours (397 two-way (inbound + outbound) trips during the AM
peak hour and 383 two-way trips during the PM peak hour (see Table 11-
13)). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG)
Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion
Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specifies that local
jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all
new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be
generated by the development. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-l: Transportation Demand Management Program. The Project sponsors
shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter
20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG.
These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life
of the development. Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM
measure. The Project's TDM program is included in Appendix D and will generate trip
credits to offset the 397 total AM peak hour and 383 PM peak hour trips generated by the
Proj ect.
ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND ACCESS
Proi ect Access
The Project's Parcel A would be accessed via three driveway connections to East Grand
Avenue and two driveway connections to Harbor Way. These would be the same driveway
connections currently serving Parcel A. AM and PM peak hour turn movement projections
for each driveway are presented in Figure 12 in Appendix D. All turn movements would
remain possible at the two Harbor Way driveways. A continuous two-way left turn lane
would continue to serve as a left turn deceleration lane on the southbound approach to both
driveway intersections. Along East Grand Avenue, the westerly driveway would allow
eastbound right in/right out movements only, the central driveway intersection would remain
signalized and continue to allow all turn movements, while the easterly driveway intersection
would remain unsignalized, but would also continue to allow all turn movements. The
Project's main signalized intersection with East Grand Avenue would also serve as the main
access intersection to the 250-270 East Grand Project on the north side of the street. From an
operations standpoint, this signalized intersection is projected to have an acceptable Level of
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-27
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Service during both the AM and PM commute peak hours with year 2015 Base Case +
Project volumes (LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour).
Impact Traf-2: Site lines at East Grand Avenue Driveways. Sight lines at the Project
Parcel A's only unsignalized intersection along East Grand Avenue where
left turns are allowed (the most easterly driveway) would be 600+ feet to
the west (through the Project's signalized entrance intersection) and 600+
feet to the east (through the Littlefield intersection 400 feet to the east).
Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 40 miles per hour
(five miles greater than the posted speed limit) would be 305 feet.
Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at this location assuming low traffic
volumes on East Grand Avenue. However, during peak commute periods,
eastbound traffic may back up from the Littlefield signal and begin to
obstruct the ability of drivers turning left from the site to see westbound
traffic on East Grand Avenue. Also, any westbound vehicle or vehicles
waiting to turn left into the Project site could also block sight lines of
drivers existing the Project site attempting to see westbound traffic.
This would be a significant safety concern.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-2: Project Access Safety Improvements. Prohibit left turns from the
Project's easterly driveway along East Grand Avenue.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Unacceptable site distances and blocked site lines for drivers turning left from the Project's
easterly driveway along East Grand Avenue would have resulted in potential hazards.
Prohibiting this turn movement will remove potential hazards.
Impact Traf-3: Sight Lines at Harbor Way Driveways. Sight lines at both of Project
Parcel A's two unsignalized driveway intersections with Harbor Way
would be more than 500+ feet to the north and 800+ feet to the south.
Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 35 miles per hour
(five miles greater than the posted sped limit) would be 250 feet.
Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at these driveways.
This would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore, no mitigation is
required.
Project site traffic could use existing driveways on Harbor Way that are currently
unsignalized. Site distances and lines at these intersections remain sufficient for turning
movements with adequate levels of safety.
PAGE 11-28
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact Traf-4: Queues in Left Turn Lanes on Approaches to Project Driveways. Left
turns are allowed from East Grand Avenue into the Project site at two
locations that have breaks in the raised median along the street: at the
Project's central driveway connection, which would remain signalized,
and at the Project's easterly driveway connection, which would remain
unsignalized. The left turn pockets provided on the approaches to these
intersections are 175 feet long (at the signal) and 125 feet long (at the
easterly driveway), respectively. The 175-foot-Iong pocket can
accommodate seven to eight vehicles, while the 125-foot-Iong pocket and
accommodate five to six vehicles.
This would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore, no mitigation is
required.
The 95th percentile queuing demand for the left turn lane on the approach to the signal was
obtained from the Traffix intersection Level of Service worksheet for this location, while the
queuing demand for the left turn lane on the approach to the unsignalized easterly driveway
was obtained from formula contained in an article in the Institute of Transportation Engineers
ITE magazine.2
TABLE 11-15. YEAR 2015 BASE CASE + PROJECT
95TH PERCENTILE VEHICLE QUEUES IN
WESTBOUND LEFT TURN LANES ALONG EAST GRAND AVENUE
PROVIDING ACCESS To PROJECT PARCEL A
WESTBOUND LEFT AM PEAK HOUR
TURN LANE CAPACITY QUEUE
Approaching Easterly
(unsignalized) Driveway
Approaching Central
(signalized) Driveway
PM PEAK HOUR
QUEUE
5 vehicles
2- 3 vehicles
1 vehicle
7 vehicles
1 vehicle
1 vehicle
Source: Crane Transportation Group
As shown in Table 11-15, projected 95th percentile queues in both left turn pockets could be
accommodated with year 2015 Base Case + Project volumes.
Left turns are allowed from Harbor Way into both Project driveways serving Parcel A. A
continuous two-way left turn lane is provided along Harbor Way in the vicinity of both
driveways, providing acceptable storage for vehicles turning left into the site.
2 Estimation of Maximum Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections, by John T. Gard, ITE Journal,
November 2001 (see Appendix D).
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-29
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Internal Circulation
Impact Traf-5: Internal Vehicular Circulation. The internal circulation plan as shown
on the 10/5/06 site plan by DES Architects/Engineers appears acceptable.
Each Project driveway would be channelized at least 50 feet internal to the
site, with the main signalized entrance along East Grand Avenue being
channelized at least 100 feet internal to the parking lot. In addition, all
surface lot and garage parking aisles are shown to be 25 feet wide, which
meets City code criteria and good traffic engineering practice.
This would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore, no mitigation is
required.
The circulation plan for the Project site follows good traffic engineering practices and meets
applicable City code criteria aimed at ensuring the vehicular circulation on-site does not
create safety hazards. The existing design of the Project site is adequate under these
standards and no mitigation is necessary.
Impact Traf-6: Internal Pedestrian Circulation. Internal walkways are shown on the site
plan connecting all new buildings (Buildings A, B and C), the parking
garage, and one existing building near Harbor Way. However, there are no
walkway connections shown to East Grand Avenue or to the existing
complex of buildings nearest East Grand Avenue that are to remain.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-6: Sidewalks and Crosswalks. Provide sidewalks (and crosswalks)
connecting Project buildings with East Grand Avenue as well as to all
existing buildings on Parcel A to remain.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The Project site plan does not currently show adequate internal walkways to ensure
pedestrian safety. The provision of additional walkways and crosswalks as specified in
mitigation measure Traf-6 would correct this deficiency and ensure adequate levels of safety
for pedestrian circulation.
PAGE 11-30
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
PARKING
Impact Traf-7: On-Site Parking. A total of 2,793 spaces would be required based upon
City code criteria, while a total of 2,742 on-site parking spaces would be
provided on Parcels A and B combined (2,558 spaces on Parcel A and 184
spaces on Parcel B). This is 98.2 percent of code-required parking. The
City of South San Francisco promotes reduction in parking from City
zoning standards as a way to support trip reduction goals required per the
City's TDM ordinance and supported by various policies in the General
Plan (G.P. Policies 4.3-1-8, 11 and 12).
This would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore, no mitigation is
required.
While the proposed parking is below that required by City code criteria, such a reduction is
promoted by various policies in the General Plan (G.P. Policies 4.3-1-8, 11 and 12) as a way
to support trip reduction goals. A Transportation Demand Management Plan has been
prepared and is included in Appendix D. The targeted reduction in trips would be supported
by a reduced amount of parking.
RAI L SAFETY
There are two at grade railroad crossings adjacent to the Project site: one across Harbor Way
adjacent to the southern Project boundary and one diagonally across the East Grand Avenue /
Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection. The Harbor Way two-track crossing is
protected by gates and flashing lights, while no gates or lights are provided at the East Grand
Avenue / Harbor Way intersection crossing.
Impact Traf-8: Grade Crossing Approaches Missing Signing and Pavement Striping.
The State Public Utilities Commission (September 26, 2006 letter to City
of South San Francisco) has noted in a recent inspection that the East
Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection grade
crossing is not up to minimum standards on one or more approaches for
required advanced warning signing and pavement striping (i.e. R15-1 and
W -10-1 signs as well as RxR pavement striping). This results in an
existing safety concern that would be aggravated by the addition of Project
traffic.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-8: Impacts to Grade Crossing Approach Signing & Pavement Striping.
The Project shall provide all needed signs and pavement markings on the
approaches to the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way
intersection "at grade railroad crossing" to meet minimum State Public
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-31
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Utilities Commission requirements as detailed in the 2003 Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Services by the Federal Highway Commission.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
While the Project itself does not incorporate an on-site rail line, it would aggravate an
existing safety concern at a nearby public rail crossing. Mitigation to bring this rail crossing
up to meet current regulations as described in mitigation measure Traf-8 would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION OPERATION
Impact Traf-9: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of Proj ect traffic to year 2015 Base
Case volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2).
. Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 2.6 percent at
a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-9: Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue. (see Table 11-16 and Figure 13 in
Appendix D) The following improvements would mitigate the project-
specific impacts. These improvements are included as part of the East of
101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the
Project's traffic impact fee contribution to this program:
1. Reconfigure the eastbound Grand Avenue approach from one
exclusive right turn lane and one shared through/left turn lane to
provide an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane.
2. Reconfigure the southbound Airport Boulevard approach from one
right, one through, a shared through/left and an exclusive left turn lane
to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one through lane and a shared
through/right turn lane.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-46.8 seconds control delay
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-47.8 seconds control delay
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
PAGE 11-32
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 11-16. MITIGATED I NTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
YEAR 2015
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
BASE MITIGATED BASE MITIGATED
BASE CASE + BASE CASE BASE CASE + BASE CASE
INTERSECTION CASE PROJECT + PROJECT CASE PROJECT + PROJECT
East Grand Ave.lForbes E-79.0* F.101 E-72.8(1) F -146* F-154 F -96.7(1)
Blvd. (Signal)
Airport Blvd.lSan Mateo
A ve.lProduce Ave. C-30.2* C-30.3 C-30.2(2) F-87.3* F-99.8 D-45.1 (2)
(Signal)
Gateway Blvd.lS. Airport
Blvd.lMitchell Ave. C-27.7* C-27.9 C- 26.9(3) F-109* F-128 D-50.7(3)
(Signal)
Airport Blvd.lGrand Ave. E-74.3* F-88.6 D-46.8(4) D-48.7* D-49.1 D-47.8(4)
(Signal)
* Signalized intersection level of service-vehicle control delay (in seconds).
(1) Widen southbound Forbes Blvd. from one right, one through/right and one left turn lane to one left, one through and
two right turn lanes. Restripe northbound Harbor Way from one left, one left/through and one right turn lane to one
left, one through and one right turn lane. Widen eastbound E. Grand Avenue to provide an exclusive right turn lane.
Adjust north and southbound signal timing from split to protected phasing.
(2) Restripe westbound Airport Blvd. from a left, left/through, through and right turn lane to two lefts, a combined
left/through and a right turn lane.
(3) Add a second right turn lane to the southbound Gateway Blvd. approach.
(4) Restripe southbound Airport Blvd. from one left, one through/left, one through and one right turn lane to provide two
left turn lanes, one through and one through/right turn lane. Restripe eastbound Grand Ave. from one left/through and
one right turn lane to one left and one through/right turn lane.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
The City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program provides a mechanism for
collecting fair share contributions toward necessary area improvements and pooling them to
pay for these improvements. This program is funded via the traffic impact fee that is assessed
with all new projects in the area.
The planned implementation of these improvements would maintain or improve the current
levels of service at these intersections (see Table 11-16), which would mitigate potential
Project impacts. Specific improvements planned for the Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
intersection and the resultant level of service are presented in mitigation measure Traf-9.
Impact Traf-l0: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of Proj ect traffic to year 2015 Base
Case volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2).
. E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-33
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 4.8 percent at
a location with unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation and would
degrade operation to LOS F.
PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 5.0 percent at
a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-l0: E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way. (see Table 11-16
and Figure 13 in Appendix D) The following improvements would
mitigate the project-specific impacts. These improvements are included as
part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be
funded via the Project's traffic impact fee contribution to this program.
1. Widen the southbound Forbes Boulevard approach from one left, one
combined through/right and one right turn lane to provide one left, one
through and two exclusive right turn lanes.
2. Widen the eastbound East Grand approach to provide an exclusive
right turn lane.
3. Restripe the northbound Harbor Way approach from one left, one
combined through/left and one right turn lane to provide one left, one
through and one right turn lane.
4. Adjust north-south (Harbor Way-Forbes Boulevard) signal timing
from split phase operation to protected left turn phasing and north and
southbound right turn overlap phasing.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS E-72.8 seconds control delay (which would be
better than Base Case LOS E-79.0 seconds control delay operation)
PM Peak Hour: LOS F-96.7 seconds control delay (which would be
better than Base Case LOS F -146 seconds control delay operation)
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection is included in the City's
East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the traffic impact
fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned improvements to this
intersection that would maintain or improve the current levels of service and reduce the
PAGE 11-34
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Project's impact to a level of less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for this
intersection and the resultant level of service are presented in mitigation measure Traf-1 o.
Impact Traf-ll: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of Proj ect traffic to year 2015 Base
Case volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2).
. Airport Boulevard I San Mateo Avenue I Produce Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 2.6 percent at
a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-ll: Airport Boulevard I San Mateo Avenue IProduce Avenue. (see Table
11-16 and Figure 13 in Appendix D) The following improvements would
mitigate the project-specific impacts. These improvements are included as
part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be
funded via the Project's traffic impact fee contribution to this program.
1. Restripe the westbound Airport approach from one left, one combined
through/left, one through and one right turn lane to provide two left
turn lanes, a combined through/left turn lane and an exclusive right
turn lane.
2. Reconfigure the Produce Avenue intersection leg to provide a third
southbound departure lane.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-45.1 seconds control delay
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue /Produce Avenue intersection is included in the
City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the traffic
impact fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned improvements
to this intersection that would maintain or improve the current levels of service and reduce
the Project's impact to a level of less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for
this intersection and the resultant level of service are presented in mitigation measure Traf-
11.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-35
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Impact Traf-12: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of Proj ect traffic to year 2015 Base
Case volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2).
. Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 3.4 percent at
a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-12: Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue. (see
Table 11-16 and Figure 13 in Appendix D) The following improvements
would mitigate the project-specific impacts. These improvements are
included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program
and will be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee contribution to this
program.
1. Widen the southbound Gateway Boulevard approach to provide a
second exclusive right turn lane.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-50.7 seconds control delay
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue intersection is included in
the City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the
traffic impact fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned
improvements to this intersection that would maintain or improve the current levels of
service and reduce the Project's impact to a level of less-than-significant. Specific
improvements planned for this intersection and the resultant level of service are presented in
mitigation measure Traf-11.
The proposed Project would not result in significant impacts at other intersections
experiencing unacceptable Base Case operation as Project volume increases would be less
than 2 percent.
AM Peak Hour:
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover
PAGE 11-36
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Road
.
Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue
PM Peak Hour:
.
Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps
.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp
.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover
.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Road
.
East Grand A venue/Allerton Avenue
.
Forbes Boulevard/Gull Road
Impact Traf-13: Intersection Signalization Needs. The analysis concluded that no
unsignalized intersections would receive a significant signal warrant
impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case
volumes or that Project traffic would not increase volumes by more than
two percent at the one nearby intersection (East Grand Avenue/Allerton
Avenue) where Base Case volumes would already be exceeding peak hour
signal warrant criteria levels (see Table 11-3).
This would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore, no mitigation is
required.
While the proposed Project would increase traffic levels at area intersections that are
currently unsignalized, the increased level of traffic would remain below levels that would
trigger the need to signalize the intersections, with one exception as follows. The nearby East
Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue intersection would meet criteria for signalization even
without Project traffic. However, because Project traffic would contribute less than two
percent of the volume to this intersection, the Project's impact would be considered less-
than-significant with no mitigation required.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-37
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE VEHICLE QUEUING
Impact Traf-14: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing - Traffix software evaluation. The
following off-ramp/approach to an adjacent intersection leading away
from an off-ramp would receive a significant queuing impact due to the
addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-
11).
. E. Grand Avenue / Grand Avenue Overcrossing
AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 4.5 percent in
the right turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to the Grand
Avenue Overcrossing at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th
percentile queuing. The right turn lane queue would be extended from
1,100 up to 1,275 feet in a location with only 800 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-14: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Figure 14 in Appendix D) The
following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impact.
These improvements are included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project's traffic impact
fee contribution to this program:
. E. Grand Avenue / Grand Avenue Overcrossing
1. Widen the east/northbound East Grand Avenue approach to Grand
Avenue Overcrossing to provide a second exclusive right turn lane.
This lane should extend at least 250 feet and ideally the entire
distance back to the U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp/Executive
Drive intersection. Today, the left and right turn lanes on the East
Grand Avenue approach to Grand Avenue Overcrossing extend the
entire distance from the off-ramp to Grand Avenue Overcrossing.
By 2015, the left turn lane will have a 95th percentile queue
extending no more than 200 feet during the AM peak hour and 500
feet during the PM peak hour. Rather than extending one left turn
and two right turn lanes the entire length between the off-ramp and
Grand Avenue Overcrossing, the City may wish to provide two
lanes leaving the off-ramp (as exists today), which will then widen
to three lanes at least 400 feet from the Grand Avenue
Overcrossing intersection. The center lane should be striped for
both left and right turns, which will allow the approach to
adequately serve the heavy right turn movement in the morning
and the heavier left turn movement in the evening.
PAGE 11-38
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The E. Grand Avenue / Grand Avenue intersection is included in the City's East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the traffic impact fee collected
for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned improvements to this intersection
that would improve vehicle queuing capacity and reduce the Project's impact to a level of
less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for this intersection are presented in
mitigation measure Traf-14.
Impact Traf-15: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing - SYNCHRO software evaluation.
The following approach to an adjacent intersection leading away from an
off-ramp would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of
Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-11).
. Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 7.6 percent in
the left turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to
Grand Avenue at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th
percentile queuing. The 95th percentile vehicle queue would be
extended from 725 up to about 760 feet in a location with only 320
feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-15: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Figure 14 in Appendix D) The
following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impact.
These improvements are included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project's traffic impact
fee contribution to this program:
. Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
1. Reconfigure the eastbound Grand Avenue approach from one
exclusive right turn lane and one shared through/left turn lane to
provide an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right turn
lane
2. Reconfigure the southbound Airport Boulevard approach from one
right, one through, a shared through/left and an exclusive left turn
lane to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one through lane and
a shared through/right turn lane.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-39
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue intersection is included in the City's East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the traffic impact fee collected
for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned improvements to this intersection
that would improve vehicle queuing capacity and reduce the Project's impact to a level of
less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for this intersection are presented in
mitigation measure Traf-14.
The proposed Project would not increase traffic more than one percent on the approaches to
any other location which is projected to experience unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile
queuIng.
Impact Traf-16: Off-Ramp Queuing To Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours
- SIM traffic evaluation. The following off-ramp would receive a
significant impact with backups extending to the freeway mainline
sometime during one or both peak hours due to the addition of Project
traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes.
. U.S.I0l Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue/Executive
Drive Intersection
AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 2.5 percent at
a location with year 2015 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally
backing up to the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-16: Improvements for Off-Ramp Queuing. (see Figure 14 in Appendix D)
The following improvements would mitigate project-specific impacts.
These improvements are included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project's traffic impact
fee contribution to this program:
. U.S.I0l Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive
Drive Intersection
1. Provide a fair share contribution to providing a second off-ramp
lane extending back to the freeway mainline.
PAGE 11-40
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive intersection is
included in the City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion
of the traffic impact fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned
improvements to this off-ramp that would improve vehicle queuing capacity and reduce the
Project's impact to a level of less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for this
off-ramp are presented in mitigation measure Traf-16.
Impact Traf-17: Off-Ramp Queuing To Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours.
SIM Traffic evaluation The following off-ramp would receive a
significant impact with backups extending to the freeway mainline
sometime during one or both peak hours due to the addition of Project
traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes.
. U.S.I0l Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard / Miller
Avenue Intersection
AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 5.0 percent at
a location with year 2015 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally
backing up to the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-17: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Figure 14 in Appendix D) The
following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impact.
These improvements are included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project's traffic impact
fee contribution to this program:
. U.S.I0l Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard / Miller
Avenue Intersection
1. Provide improvements to the Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
intersection as listed under Mitigation Measure 2.
2. Provide an exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Airport
Boulevard approach to Miller Avenue.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard / Miller Avenue intersection is
included in the City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-41
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
of the traffic impact fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned
improvements to this off-ramp that would improve vehicle queuing capacity and reduce the
Project's impact to a level of less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for this
off-ramp are presented in mitigation measure Traf-17.
CUMULATIVE FREEWAY MAINLINE AND ON/OFF-RAMP OPERATION
Impact Traf-18: Off-Ramp Operation At Mainline Diverge. The following off-ramp
diverge location from the U.S.101 freeway mainline would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of Proj ect traffic to year 2015 Base
Case volumes (see Table 11-6).
. U.S.I0l Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard /
W ondercolor Lane Intersection
AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase off-ramp volumes by 5.7
percent (from 1,921 up to 2,031 vehicles) with Base Case volumes
already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-18: Improvements for Off-Ramp Operation. (see Figure 14 in Appendix D)
The following improvements would mitigate project-specific impacts.
These improvements are included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project's traffic impact
fee contribution to this program:
. U.S.I0l Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard /
W ondercolor Lane Intersection
1. Provide a fair share contribution towards a second off-ramp lane
connection to the U.S.1 01 freeway mainline.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The U.S.1 01 Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane intersection
is included in the City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a
portion of the traffic impact fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund
planned improvements to this off-ramp that would improve off-ramp operation and reduce
the Project's impact to a level of less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for
this off-ramp are presented in mitigation measure Traf-18.
PAGE 11-42
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact Traf-19: Off-Ramp Operation At Mainline Diverge. The following off-ramp
diverge location from the U.S.101 freeway mainline would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of Proj ect traffic to year 2015 Base
Case volumes (see Table 11-6).
. U.S.I0l Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive
Drive Intersection
AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase off-ramp volumes by 2.5
percent (from 2,019 up to 2,069 vehicles) with Base Case volumes
already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-19: Improvements for Off-Ramp Operation. (see Figure 14 in Appendix D)
The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impact.
These improvements are included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project's traffic impact
fee contribution to this program.
. U.S.I0l Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive
Drive Intersection
1. Provide a fair share contribution towards a second off-ramp lane
connection to the U.S.1 01 freeway mainline.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive intersection is
included in the City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion
of the traffic impact fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned
improvements to this off-ramp that would improve off-ramp operation and reduce the
Project's impact to a level of less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for this
off-ramp are presented in mitigation measure Traf-19.
Project traffic would not significantly increase volumes nor produce a significant impact at
the two other off-ramp locations which would have year 2015 Base Case AM peak hour
volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour:
. Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
. Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-43
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Impact Traf-20: On-Ramp Operation. The analysis concluded that one on-ramp to the
U.S.101 freeway would receive a significant impact due to the addition of
Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-7).
. U.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard
PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by more than one
percent (1.5%, from 2,302 up to 2,337 vehicles) with Base Case volumes
already exceeding 2,200 vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-20: Improvements for On-Ramp Operation (see Figure 14 in Appendix D).
The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impact.
These improvements are included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project's traffic impact
fee contribution to this program.
. U.S.I0l Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard
1. Provide a fair share contribution towards a second on-ramp lane.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard is included in the City's
East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the traffic impact
fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned improvements to this
on-ramp that would improve on-ramp operation and reduce the Project's impact to a level of
less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for this on-ramp are presented in
mitigation measure Traf-20.
Impact Traf-21: Freeway Mainline Operation. The following U.S.101 mainline segment
would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to
year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-12).
. U.S.I0l Southbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interchange)
AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 1.01 percent
(from 9,907 to 10,008 vehicles per hour) at a location with
unacceptable LOS F year 2015 Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
PAGE 11-44
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measure
Traf-21: Improvements for Freeway Mainline Operation.
. U.S.I0l Southbound (to the North of the Oyster Point
Interchange, AM Peak Hour)
Mitigation of this impact would require widening the current freeway
or construction of a new freeway. Given the location of the mainline
freeway and its close proximity to surrounding development, such
mitigation is not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be
prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would
benefit. Given these specific concerns, mitigation of Impact 8 is not
feasible as defined by CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code S21061.1
(defining "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished... taking into
account economic.. . and technological factors.").) Under CEQA, the
City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives,
including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the
Project. (See Pub. Resources Code S21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA
Guidelines, S 15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a
particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject
the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code S21081. subd. (a)(3).)
As there are no feasible mitigation measures that can reduce the significance of
Impact Traf-21 to a less than significant level, this would be a significant and
unavoidable impact.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 11-45
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 11-46
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
12
UTI LITI ES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes existing public utilities on and in the vicinity of the Project and
evaluates the impact of the proposed project on the provision of public utilities and possible
adverse physical impacts to the environment that could result from constructing expanded
facilities.
SETTI \lG
WATER SUPPLY
South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company
Peninsula District (CWSC) serves that portion of the City east of Interstate 280, which
represents the majority of the City's area. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo,
with no restrictions on water allocation among these communities. The company's current
contract with the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) entitles the City to 42.3 million
gallons per day (MGD) per year. An additional 1.4 MGD can be pumped from groundwater.
The Westborough County Water District serves the area west of 1-280, an area not targeted
for growth in the City's General Plan. I
Water use has increased steadily, and at a rate faster than increases in the number of users.
Water use has rebounded significantly from the levels of the late 1980s and early 1990s,
when an extended period of drought and resulting conservation measures brought water use
levels down considerably. I
While residential users comprise approximately 90% of the water accounts in South San
Francisco, less than half of the total consumption may be attributed to these users. On the
other hand, industrial users comprise only 0.46% of the water accounts but use 11 % of the
total water. Part of the reason for the high industrial water usage in the City is the
predominance of biotechnology firms in the City. Pharmaceutical manufacturing requires
extremely pure water, and large quantities of water are used to achieve necessary water
purity levels. I
1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 12-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The CWSC bases its future water use projections on estimates of both the number of future
water users and the amount of water each type of user will consume. The five year average
growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the utility's projections of the number of
water users through 2020. Water use projections for 2020 range from 5.9 MGD to 9.1 MGD.
Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modified during the remaining contract
period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand.2
Water lines in the East of 101 Area would generally be adequate to serve new development
allowed under the East of 101 Area Plan.3 The water distribution system in the area was
designed and constructed to meet industrial water demands. It consists of a network of 12-
inch lines in relatively good condition, adequate to serve the 2,500 gallons per minute fire
flow requirement and use demands for the land uses planned for the area.
WASTEWATER
South San Francisco Municipal Wastewater System
The existing wastewater system serving the Project site and surrounding community is
operated and maintained by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. The
complete sewer network consists of approximately 155 miles of 6-inch through 36-inch
diameter pipes, which convey flows from the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and
portions of Daly City and Colma to the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality
Control Plant (WQCP) located at the end of Belle Air Road in South San Francisco.4
Much of the existing South San Francisco sewer collection system is over sixty years old,
and portions of the system are in need of repair. In the area east of Highway 101, subsidence
of sewer lines has resulted in reduced capacity though these issues are being addressed
through an area master plan to replace or repair these lines. Pump Station #4, which serves
the South San Francisco area north of Colma Creek and east of South Airport Boulevard, will
be upgraded in Summer 2007 to improve reliability and handle increased flows from
proposed new development. Since 1997, the City of South San Francisco has been under a
Cease and Desist Order (CDO) from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) to upgrade its facilities in order to protect the environmental quality of the
Bay. The required work at the WQCP has been completed; the remaining work within the
sewer collection network was not accomplished by the CDO deadline of November 2005,
however the remaining work is in process or planned.5
2 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999,
p.194.
3 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994, p. 98.
4 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, 249 East Grand Ave EIR, 2005
5 Castagnola, 2007
PAGE 12-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES
Currently, the WQCP has the capacity to provide secondary treatment for 13 MGD in dry
weather and 60 million gallons per day in wet weather. Average dry weather flows to the
plant are 8.8 MGD; peak wet weather flows approach 40 MGD.6 Wastewater treatment at the
WQCP consists of screening, grit removal, chemical addition to aid settling of solids,
primary settling under vacuum, aeration, clarification, and disinfection by chlorination.
Excess chlorine is removed prior to discharge of the treated water 2 miles offshore in San
Francisco Bay. 7
In an ongoing Recycled Water Feasibility Study conducted by the City of South San
Francisco and other agencies, the WQCP is being considered as a potential source of
recycled water to serve portions of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Colma. The aim of
the study is to evaluate the feasibility of developing a recycled water treatment and
distribution system to reduce the demand on the potable water supply in the San Francisco
Peninsula area. The Recycled Water Feasibility Study is expected to be complete around the
time this DEIR will be published; however, they are considering implementation for large
irrigation uses only at this time and are not likely to be in a position to provide or to request
recycled water capability for an office/R&D project such as the proposed Project.8
Proiect Site Sewer System
Figure 12-1 shows the portion of the South San Francisco municipal sewer system that
serves the Project site and adjacent areas. The sewer along East Grand Avenue is an 18-inch
pipe that runs westward to Harbor Way, where it connects to a 30-inch pipe running south on
Harbor Way. The 30-inch pipe was installed in 2000 to replace an old, subsided 21-inch pipe.
It receives flows from all of the area north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and
all of the area east of Littlefield Avenue; it is intended to serve most of the expected future
development in the City's East of 101 Area. Flows through this pipe are conveyed to Pump
Station #4 on Harbor Way (near the intersection with Mitchell Avenue), from which they are
pumped to the WQCP.9 Pump Station #4 is scheduled for upgrade in the fiscal year 2007-08;
including a new structure, four new pumps, and new motor controls. A new force main will
be installed as a separate project expected to closely follow the pump station upgrade, giving
the station a new dry weather capacity of 5 MGD, and a wet weather capacity of 13 MGD.IO
The City's design wastewater flow criterion for commercial/industrial buildings is 0.4
gallons per day (gpd) per square foot of building space. II The four existing buildings on the
6 Castagnola, 2007
7 South San Francisco Public Works, SSF Water Quality Control Plant webpage
http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/news/ disp laynews. asp?N ewslD=3 05
8 Razavi, personal communications, Feb. 2, 2007
9 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, 249 East Grand Ave EIR, 2005
10 Razavi, personal communications, Feb. 2, 2007
11 Razavi, personal communications, Feb. 2, 2007
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 12-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Project site have a total floor area of 177,938 square feet, which translates to a flow of
approximately 71,175 gpd using the City's standard flow criteria.
Figure 12-1: Project Area Sanitary Sewer System
Source: City of S. San Francisco, 2005
REGULATORY SETTING
Wastewater treatment and disposal in the City of South San Francisco is governed by laws,
regulatory programs and policies established by the Federal government, the State of
California, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, and the City of South San Francisco. Most of the
pertinent requirements affecting wastewater facilities for the proposed Project are contained
in the following:
Federal Laws and Regulations
Clean Water Act (CW A)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times
since its inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States,
and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to
reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters.
The CW A prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as
PAGE 12-4
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES
set minimum water quality standards for all waters of the United States. At the Federal level,
the CW A is administered by the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A). At the state
and regional level, the CW A is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The
State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations to
assist in the implementation of the CW A and related Federally mandated water quality
requirements. In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards, and the laws,
rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards are more restrictive, i.e.
more protective of the environment.
State Laws and Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as
the principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling
water quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the
RWQCBs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin
Plans), which set forth the state's water quality standards (i.e. beneficial uses of surface
waters and groundwater) and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial
uses.
San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and
implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay
region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal,
technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay
Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within
its region and specifies effluent limitations, discharge prohibitions, and water quality
objectives to maintain the existing potential beneficial uses of the waters. The proposed
Project is required to adhere to all applicable requirements of the Basin Plan.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Requirements
The San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP operates under an NPDES permit issued by the State
of California. One of the requirements of the permit is that the WQCP implement a
Pretreatment Program to regulate the collection of toxic and hazardous wastes in municipal
sewers. Under the Pretreatment Program, dischargers of industrial wastewater are required to
abide by specific wastewater discharge limits and prohibitions. Industrial dischargers are also
required to submit self-monitoring reports on the total volume and pollutant concentrations of
their wastewater, and to allow for inspections by the City of South San Francisco.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 12-5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Local Programs and Regulations
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 Area Plan was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in 1994 in order
to guide and regulate development in the City's East of 101 Area, which includes the Project
site. The Plan provides detailed planning policies for land use, circulation, public facilities,
design, conservation, financing and other related elements. With respect to wastewater
collection and treatment, the Plan outlines policies for the repair and reconstruction of East of
101 Area sewer collection lines, pump stations, and the WQCP. The Plan also addresses the
issue of increasing wastewater treatment demand, and recommends that new projects that
will generate large wastewater quantities be required to lower their wastewater treatment
needs through water recycling, on-site treatment, graywater irrigation, or other similar
technologies wherever feasible.
STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed
for industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Thus, any
redevelopment of existing development will generally not increase runoff.
SOLID WASTE
Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed
at the South San Francisco Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer
station. Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain
Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the landfill, has
a permit for forward expansion of the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When
the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio
Canyon will be opened for fill.
The South San Francisco Scavenger Company's facility is permitted to receive a daily
maximum of 1,250 tons per day of wastes and recyclable materials. This facility gives the
Company increased capability to recover valuable materials from wastes, reducing the
amount of waste being sent to the landfill. South San Francisco recycles both household and
industrial solid waste and sewage sludge.
With an expected buildout population of 67,000 residents in South San Francisco, the City
will generate approximately 38,000 tons of solid waste each year, based on the assumed
generation rates used by San Mateo County.
PAGE 12-6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES
IMPACT A \lALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon
CEQA Guidelines:
1. Would the Proj ect exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
2. Would the Project require substantial expansion or alteration of the City's water or
wastewater treatment and collection facilities?
3. Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
4. Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
5. Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
6. Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs?
7. Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
INCREASE IN WASTEWATER FLOWS
The proposed Project would contribute both domestic sewage and industrial wastewater to
the City of South San Francisco's municipal sewer system. Each of the three new
office/research and development buildings proposed for the Project site would have two
separate waste disposal systems (a domestic sewer system and an industrial waste system)
that would combine into one sewer outside of each building. The domestic sewer system
would be used for discharges from restrooms, break rooms and other similar areas, while the
industrial waste system would collect wastewater from laboratory sinks, fume hoods, floor
drains, autoclaves, glass washers and other similar equipment. An outdoor sampling port
would be located in the industrial waste system before the connection to the combined sewer
but after any necessary pre-treatment on-site to enable monitoring by the City of South San
Francisco. The combined sewer would then connect to the City's existing 18-inch sewer
pipeline on East Grand A venue. 12 Potential wastewater impacts would be primarily related to
12 Baker, Personal correspondence, Feb. 12, 2007.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 12-7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
the increased flows that would be contributed by the Project to the City's existing sewer
facilities.
Together the buildings would have a combined gross area of 461,500 square feet. According
to the City's design wastewater flow criterion of 0.4 gallons per day (gpd) per square foot of
building space, the projected wastewater flows for the proposed Project would be 184,600
gpd. This represents an increase of approximately 39 percent over the wastewater flows
which are estimated at approximately 71,175 gpd for the 177,938 square feet of existing
building space to be replaced (per City criteria). The proposed Project does not include
specific plans for graywater recycling, on-site treatment, or any other method that would
reduce its wastewater flows to the municipal system.
Impact Vtil-l: Increased Wastewater Flows. According to City of South San Francisco
design wastewater flow estimates, the Project would contribute 184,600
gpd of sewage and industrial wastewater to the City's sanitary sewer
system, which amounts to an increase of approximately 39 percent as
compared with the existing building square footage on the site. The
Project does not include conservation or recycling technologies that would
lessen its wastewater flows to the municipal system. This is a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Vtil-Ia: Sanitary Sewer Fees. The City of South San Francisco is currently
upgrading its sanitary sewer facilities to handle increased flows from new
development. In order to recover the costs of these upgrades, the City
charges new development a flat-rate sewer connection fee and a monthly
impact fee. The amount of the impact fee is based on the quantity (flow)
of wastewater generated. The occupants of the proposed Project
development shall pay the sanitary sewer fees imposed by the City of
South San Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of the sewer system
upgrades necessary to manage the wastewater flows generated by the
Proj ect.
Mitigation Measure
Vtil-Ib: Wastewater Recycling. The proposed Project development is intended
for office/Research and Development uses. However, a particular
occupant or occupants for the Project site have not yet been identified.
Depending on the laboratory practices of the future occupants, it may be
possible to recycle process and/or clean-up water at the Project site. The
occupants of the proposed Project development shall evaluate the potential
for on-site wastewater recycling and shall implement feasible wastewater
recycling methods.
PAGE 12-8
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES
The implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of the Project's
wastewater flows to a level of less than significant. The funding of South San Francisco's
ongoing pipeline improvements and the scheduled upgrade of Pump Station #4 would ensure
that the City's wastewater system has sufficient capacity to handle the increased flows
generated by the Project. Wastewater recycling at the Project site would also help by
reducing the Project's flows to the municipal system.
EFFECTS ON GROUNDWATER, WATER QUALITY, AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Wastewater flows from the proposed Project would include both domestic sewage and
industrial wastes. The industrial wastewater at the Project site would be collected separately
from the domestic sewage, and a sampling port would be installed in the industrial sewer line
in accordance with the San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP Pretreatment Program. After the
monitoring point, both wastewaters would be combined and routed through the City's
sanitary sewers to the WQCP. The WQCP treats wastewater to secondary levels and
discharges effluent to the San Francisco Bay in accordance with RWQCB Waste Discharge
Requirements. The proposed Project would not have a negative effect on groundwater
recharge, water quality, or public health. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is
required.
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY
Impact Util-2: Increased in Demand for Utilities. The Project would lead to an increase
in demand for utilities such as potable water and sewer capacity. However,
the new demand can be accommodated with existing facilities or planned
upgrades. The Project would have a less-than-significant impact on utility
services and infrastructure with no mitigation warranted.
The proposed Project would not lead to an increase in demand for potable water that could
not be fulfilled by the California Water Service Company, as stated in the South San
Francisco General Plan.
The wastewater treatment plant that serves the City and the trunk sewer system that would
serve the Project site have recently been, or are in the process of being expanded and
upgraded. This work will ensure adequate wastewater collection and treatment service over
the City's buildout horizon.
Because the existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and
constructed for industrial development, it is capable of accommodating large amounts of
storm water from the large amount of impervious surfaces in the area. Thus, any
redevelopment of existing development, including on the Project site, will generally not
increase runoff.
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on utility serVIce and
infrastructure in the City of South San Francisco and East of 101 Area.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 12-9
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
LAN DFI LL CAPACITY
Impact Util-3: Solid Waste Disposal. The landfill would be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste
disposal needs, and would not require or result in construction of landfill
facilities or expansion of existing facilities nor would it impede the ability
of the City to meet the applicable federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. The Project would have a less-than-
significant impact with no mitigation warranted.
The City of South San Francisco's solid waste is transported to the Ox Mountain Landfill
Facility, which has a permit to receive waste until 2016.13 Upon expiration of the permit,
either Corinda Los Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for
fill. Given the large amount of space still available at Ox Mountain, and the option of
opening Apanolio Canyon after Ox Mountain is no longer available, the proposed Project
would have a less than significant impact on solid waste service capacity.
ENERGY
The Project would be considered to have a significant impact related to energy use if it would
violate applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations relating to energy standards
and/or if energy consumption increases resulting from the Project would trigger the need or
expanded off-site energy facilities.
Impact Util-4: Increased Energy Consumption. The Project would have an incremental
increase in the demand for gas and electrical power given the increase in
development on the Project site. However, the Project is expected to be
served with existing capacity and would not require or result in
construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing off-site
facilities and would not violate applicable federal, state and local statutes
and regulations relating to energy standards. The Project would have a
less-than-significant impact relating to energy consumption with no
mitigation warranted.
The Project proposes replacement and expansion of existing office/R&D uses for 283,562
square feet of office/R&D space over what is currently on the Project site. Overall, the level
of energy required for a Project of this size and type would not be expected to violate
applicable federal, state and local statues and regulations relating to energy standards or
exceed PG&E service capacity or require new or expanded off-site facilities. The Project
would be required by the City to comply with all standards of Title 24 of the California Code
of Regulations, aimed at the incorporation of energy-conserving design and construction.
13 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
PAGE 12-10
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES
PG&E infrastructure exists on the Project site, and any improvements and extensions
required to accommodate the Project would be determined in consultation with PG&E prior
to installation. As a result, although the Project would incrementally increase energy
consumption, it would not result in a significant impact related to the provision of energy
serVIces.
CUMULATIVE UTILITIES IMPACTS
Impact Util-5: Cumulative Demand for Utilities and Service Systems. The increased
development resulting from the proposed Project, in conjunction with
other foreseeable development in the area, would not result in cumulative
impacts on utilities and service systems and would be considered less-
than-significant with identified project-level mitigation measures.
As discussed previously in this chapter, the Project after mitigation would not result in
significant project-level effects on the ability of the City of South San Francisco and other
service providers to effectively deliver water supply, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage,
solid waste, and energy services to the Project site. The Project site is located in a largely
built-out urban area where utility services are currently provided. While the proposed Project
as well as other foreseeable projects in the area would increase demand for utilities and
service systems, intensification of development in the area is and has been anticipated by the
City and service providers and is within what is planned for future capacity of these systems.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 12-11
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
PAGE 12-12
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
13
ALlER \IA liVES
INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines, 1970, as amended,
Section 15126.6) require an EIR to include a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives
to the proposed Project. The CEQA Guidelines also require that the EIR explain why specific
project alternatives considered at one time in developing the project proposal were rejected in
favor of the proposed Project. The selection of alternatives is to be guided by the provision of
reasonable choices and the promotion of informed decision making and informed public
participation. An EIR need not evaluate alternatives that would have effects that cannot be
determined, or for which implementation would be remote and speculative.
The Guidelines also require that the EIR specifically evaluate a "no project" alternative
within this discussion and that an "environmentally superior" alternative be identified
(Section 15126.6 ~e]).
The alternatives addressed in this EIR were selected based on the following factors:
1. The extent to which the alternative would accomplish most of the basic project objectives
2. The extent to which the alternative would avoid or lessen any of the identified significant
environmental effects of the project (discussed in Chapters 4 through 12)
3. The potential feasibility of the alternative (as discussed in this Chapter)
4. The extent to which the alternative contributes to a "reasonable range" of alternatives
necessary to permit a reasoned choice
The proposed Project is fully described in Chapter 3 of this EIR (Project Description). The
environmental consequences associated with this Project are fully addressed in Chapters 4
through 12 of this EIR. In addition to the proposed Project, this EIR includes a discussion of
the following alternatives:
. No Project Alternative, which would leave the Project site in its current state
. Reduced Intensity Alternative
. Reduced Parking Alternative
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 1 3-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The proposed Project results in modification and expansion of an existing business park.
Alternative locations are not considered in this analysis because the Project is intended to
integrate with the existing Britannia Pointe Grand II business park. Alternate locations could
not accomplish this important project objective.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following are applicant and city objectives that are fulfilled by the proposed Project (also
outlined on page 3-2 of this document). Alternatives will be evaluated in part based on their
ability to meet these objectives.
1. Upgrade a portion of a high technology research and development business park,
2. Build a project that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco,
3. Generate net property tax and other fees from the development project and enhance
property values,
4. Build a project which is viable in the East of 101 Area based upon market conditions and
projected service requirements for the Area,
5. Develop a project that has the high quality of design that is called for in the Design
Policies and Guidelines of the East of 101 Area Plan while integrating with the existing
Britannia Pointe Grand II business park,
6. Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the General Plan
designation of the site for Business and Technology Park facilities, and
7. Continuing to develop the East of 101 Area into a nationally recognized research and
development center that will attract other life science businesses.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Development of the proposed Project would result in significant or potentially significant
impacts to the following resources (before mitigation):
. Aesthetics
. Air Quality
. Geology and Soils
. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
. Hydrology
. Noise
. Transportation and Circulation
. Utilities and Service Systems
PAGE 13-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
Most of the potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels
through incorporation of mitigation measures.
The following analysis presents the alternatives that were considered for this project. Each
alternative is examined for its ability to reduce environmental impacts relative to the
proposed Project, feasibility of implementation, and ability to meet most basic project
objectives.
The three alternatives considered in this EIR would all have the same or lessened impacts on
Traffic and Circulation and Air Quality than the proposed Project. Impacts in the other topic
areas of Aesthetics, Geology and Soils, Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Utilities would be
the same or minimally reduced by these alternatives. Table 13-4 at the end of this Chapter
shows a summary comparison of the impacts of these alternatives, while a more detailed
discussion of each alternative is provided below.
NO PRO ECT ALTERNATIVE
Description
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain as it is today, with four
existing 1 & 2 story buildings totaling 177,938 square feet on the Project site, for a total of
630,528 square feet of office/R&D buildings in the Britannia Pointe Grand II business park.
The site is currently developed as a business park and while it is possible the site will be
redeveloped at some future point even if a project does not proceed at this time, there is no
reason to believe this would happen in the near-term or that new development would
necessarily be more dense than the existing development. Therefore, the No Project
Alternative presumes the site would remain in its current state.
Impact Analvsis
The No Project Alternative would not involve any change to the Project site and so would not
introduce any new environmental impacts. The existing business park has impacts related to
operation of a research and development facility that are similar to the proposed Project.
These impacts are consistent with the baseline for evaluation of this EIR, and are therefore
not considered new impacts. Additionally, leaving the site in its current state would avoid all
construction-related impacts as demolition, grading, and construction would not be necessary
under this Alternative. Because the No Project Alternative would not involve modifications
to the existing Business Park, it would not improve landscaping to levels aesthetically
consistent with other modern development in the area and as required in applicable land use
regulations.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 13-1. TRIP GENERATION - No PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Building
1
Square Footage
Trips
2
per Thousand Square Feet
Daily Trips
Project
No Project Alternative
Notes:
1 Building square footage on the Project site is in addition to an existing 452,590 square feet of office/R&D uses
that will remain in the non-project area of the Britannia Pointe Grand business complex.
2 See Chapter 11; Traffic, Trip Generation Table 11-13. This rate presumes office uses as those are higher
traffic-generating than R&D uses and the proposed mix of the two is unknown. No reductions from the TDM
program are shown for this comparison as TDM reductions are targeted at peak hours rather than daily rates.
461,500
177,938
11.01
11.01
5,081
1,959
Abilitv to Accomplish Proiect Obiectives
The No Project Alternative would not change the existing condition of the site, and so would
not meet any of the Project's basic objectives to the same degree as the proposed Project.
This Alternative would not upgrade or expand Research and Development uses, nor would it
provide new jobs or increased revenues.
This alternative would not fulfill the East of 101 Sub-Area Plan's stated purpose "to
maximize the potential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City's traditional
industrial East of 101 area. Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for quality design are
important components of the Plan."l It would prevent the establishment of the large amount
of landscaping and design improvements that are being proposed for the site by the Project
applicant to further meet the design guidelines for the East of 1 0 1 Area.
REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Description
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a measurement of the intensity of development calculated by
dividing the total square footage of the building by the total square footage of the site. A one-
story building that covers 100% of a site would have an F AR of 1 as would a two-story
building that covers only 50% of a site. For this analysis, the FAR of the entire Britannia
Pointe Grand Business Park is considered although the Project involves modification of only
a part of the site.
Under this alternative, the Britannia Pointe Grand Business Park's FAR would be reduced
from the currently proposed 0.688 FAR for a total 914,090 square feet of building space
1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994
PAGE 13-4
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
(including the 461,500 square foot Project), to a FAR of 0.659, for a total square footage of
875,500 (including a smaller 422,910 square foot project as part of the Reduced Intensity
Alternative). This Alternative represents an 8% reduction in the amount of building space
proposed to be built on the Project site, which equates to approximately one story of either of
the two larger buildings.
Impact Analysis
The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be potentially
significant under the proposed Project. Less than significant impacts are discussed only if
implementation of the alternative will substantially increase the impact.
Impact Summary
Reduced development intensity proposed under this Alternative would produce fewer vehicle
trips and less air pollutant emissions. Fewer vehicle trips would result in better freeway
Levels of Service and better Levels of Service on street intersections near the Project site.
Reduced square footage would result in a shorter construction phase so a reduced impact
related to construction noise and diesel emissions from construction vehicles. Reduced
square footage would also be expected to result in a reduced number of workers/level of
operations so would translate to a reduction in the operational use of hazardous materials and
potential for hazardous materials-related impacts. A reduction in the number of workers on
site would also slightly reduce impacts related to geological events that could pose a danger
to people as there would be fewer people on site.
Overall, this Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project.
Aesthetics
Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be upgrading the
site with highly designed buildings and extensive landscaping and would have no significant
aesthetic impacts.
Air Quality
Because this Alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips to the Project site than the
proposed Project, air quality impacts associated with vehicle trips would be slightly less than
those identified under the proposed Project. While the building size would be reduce under
this Alternative, the footprint of the buildings would be expected to remain the same.
Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same or similar air quality impacts related to
construction activities at the site as the proposed Project and mitigation measure Air-l would
be required to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
As with the proposed Project, despite contributing only less-than-significant levels to
cumulative air quality impacts, the Project will be required to create and follow a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan (Mitigation Air-3) that will reduce the
number of vehicle trips and therefore the amount of emissions.
Geology and Soils
Impacts to the exposure of people and/or structures to strong seismic groundshaking and the
effects of liquefaction, densification, and settlement would be slightly reduced under this
Alternative as compared to the proposed Project due to the fact that fewer people would be
employed at the Project site, thereby slightly reducing the risk of human injury. Mitigation
measures Geo-2a, Geo-2b, Geo-2c, Geo-3a, Geo-3b, and Geo-4 would be required to reduce
these impacts to less than significant levels.
Impacts related to increases in erosion during the construction phase of the Project and the
potential for differential settlement due to unstable soils and Bay Mud would be the same as
those described for the proposed Project. It is assumed that while there would be less square
footage constructed under this Alternative, the footprint of the project would not change. As
a result, no decreases in the potential for erosion or the exposure of structures to differential
settlements would be realized by this Alternative. Mitigations Geo-4, Geo-6a, and Geo-6b
would be required to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts related to the potential for accidental upset, release, and environmental
contamination of hazardous materials during project operation, and the potential impacts on
the nearby children's center would be slightly reduced under this Alternative as compared to
the proposed Project due to the fact that reduction in building size would reduce research and
development activities on site with fewer employees and decreased use of hazardous
materials. Mitigation measures Haz-la through Haz-le, Haz-2b, Haz-5, Haz-6a, and Haz-6b
would be required to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Similar to the proposed Project, this Alternative would result in impacts related to
construction such as release of hazardous materials from structure materials during
demolition, fugitive contaminated dust during grading and construction, potential contact
with contaminated soils and groundwater, and the potential impacts on the nearby children's
center. It is assumed that while there would be less square footage constructed under this
Alternative, the footprint of the buildings would not change. Therefore, hazardous materials
impacts related to construction would remain the same as with the proposed Project with the
following mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels:
Haz-2a, Haz-3a, Haz-3b, and Haz-4.
PAGE 13-6
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
Hydrology
While the square footage on the Project site under this Alternative would be reduced by
approximately 8%, the project footprint would not be expected to change under this
Alternative. As a result, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the same or similar
impacts to hydrology and water quality as those described for the proposed Project.
Mitigations measures Hydro-l through Hydro-4 would be required to reduce impacts to less-
than-significant levels.
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not result in any
significant land use impacts.
Noise
Because the total square footage of the Project would be reduced by approximately 8% under
this alternative, it is expected that construction phases would be shortened, thereby
decreasing the duration of construction-related noise in the Project area and resulting in
somewhat reduced construction-related noise impacts compared to those described for the
proposed Project. Mitigation measure Noise-2 would be required to reduce the impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Transportation and Circulation
Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in new
vehicle trips in the vicinity. Reduction of building square-footage would be expected to
reduce daily traffic to the site as shown in Table 13.2. and therefore somewhat reduce
impacts to freeways and area intersections.
The number of trips generated under this Alternative would still result in an increase over the
threshold of 100 new vehicle trips, triggering the requirement of a TDM Plan. Mitigation
measures Traf-2, Traf-6, Traf-8 through Traf-12, and Traf-14 through Traf-21 would be
required to reduce impacts related to transportation and circulation.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 13-2. TRIP GENERATION - REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Building
1
Square Footage
Trips
2
per Thousand Square Feet
Daily Trips
Project
Reduced Intensity Alternative
Notes:
1 Building square footage on the Project site is in addition to an existing 452,590 square feet of office/R&D uses
that will remain in the non-project area of the Britannia Pointe Grand business complex.
2 See Chapter 11; Traffic, Trip Generation Table 11-13. This rate presumes office uses as those are higher
traffic-generating than R&D uses and the proposed mix of the two is unknown. No reductions from the TDM
program are shown for this comparison as TDM reductions are targeted at peak hours rather than daily rates.
461,500
422,910
11.01
11.01
5,081
4,656
Utilities and Service Systems
As the Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the total square footage of the project,
fewer employees would be accommodated at the Project site. This reduction in employees
would translate to reduced wastewater flows relative to the proposed Project. Therefore,
impacts related to increased wastewater flows would be somewhat reduced under the
Alternative as compared to the Project. Mitigation measures Util-la and Util-lb would be
required to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Ability to Accomplish Proiect Obiectives
Like the proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would support all project
objectives including increasing quality jobs, generating taxes and other fees, upgrading and
providing quality research and development facilities for the continued development of the
East of 101 Area. However, this Alternative would result in a Project of reduced size, which
therefore would meet all the objectives to a lesser degree than would the proposed Project.
REDUCED PARKING ALTERNATIVE
Description
Under the Reduced Parking Alternative, the Project's parking would be reduced from the
currently proposed 2742 stalls to 2527 stalls, as shown in Table 13-3. The reduction in
parking would coincide with the target reduction in peak hour single occupancy vehicles of
9.5 percent, which is derived from the conservative assumptions used for the traffic modeling
for the General Plan Amendment, from the City's standard Research and Development
parking requirements (City of South San Francisco Municipal Code section 20.74.060).
This Alternative would allow for a reduction in the size of the proposed parking structure and
would translate to fewer vehicle trips and consequently, fewer air emissions. Reduced vehicle
PAGE 13-8
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
trips would also result in improved Levels of Service on nearby freeway segments as well as
on surface street intersections near the project site.
TABLE 13-3. COMPARISON OF PARKING PROVISIONS - REDUCED PARKING ALTERNATIVE
R&D Regulations
Proposed Project
Reduced Parking Alternative
Notes:
1 Required parking as per the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code section 20.74.060: Research
and Development - 1 parking space for every 250 sq. ft. up to 50,000 sq. ft. plus 3 parking spaces for every
1,000 sq. ft. over 50,000 sq. ft.
Parking Spaces
2792 1
2742
2527
Reduction from Required Parking
n/a
2%
9.5%
The Reduced Parking Alternative more closely aligns the amount of parking provided with
the projected vehicle trips based on the reductions assumed for the proposed TDM plan.
Inclusion of reduced parking shows a commitment to creating and maintaining a successful
TDM Program over the life of the business park. Reduced parking would coincide with the
City of South San Francisco's policy to promote reduction in parking from City zoning
standards as a way to support trip reduction goals required per the City's TDM ordinance and
supported by various policies in the General Plan (G.P. Policies 4.3-1-8, 11 and 12).
Impact Analysis
The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be potentially
significant under the proposed Project. Less than significant impacts are discussed only if
implementation of the Alternative will substantially increase the impact.
Impact Summary
Reduced parking would reasonably be assumed to result in fewer vehicle trips and therefore
lessened traffic and related air quality impacts. This alternative would also allow for a
reduced parking structure and therefore a somewhat shorter phase for construction-related
noise. With no other changes to the Project, all other impacts would remain the same or
similar under this Alternative as under the proposed Project.
Overall, this Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project.
Aesthetics
Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Parking Alternative would be upgrading the site
with highly designed buildings and extensive landscaping and would have no significant
aesthetic impacts.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-9
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Air Quality
Because this Alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips to the Project site than the
proposed Project (See discussion of Transportation and Circulation below), air quality
impacts associated with vehicle trips would be slightly less than those identified under the
proposed Project. As compared to the proposed Project, this Alternative would result in the
same or similar air quality impacts related to construction activities at the site, which would
not be reduced because the building footprints are not expected to change. Mitigation Air-l
would be required to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. As with the Project,
despite contributing only less-than-significant levels to cumulative air quality impacts, the
Project will be required to create and follow a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Plan (Mitigation Air-3) that will reduce the number of vehicle trips and therefore the amount
of emissions.
Geology and Soils
Impacts to the exposure of people and/or structures to strong seismic groundshaking and the
effects of liquefaction, densification, and settlement would be the same or similar under this
Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. Mitigations Geo-2a, Geo-2b, Geo-2c, Geo-
3a, Geo-3b, and Geo-4 would be required to reduce these impacts to less than significant
levels.
Impacts related to increases in erosion during the construction phase of the Project and the
potential for differential settlement due to unstable soils and Bay Mud would be the same as
those described for the proposed Project. It is assumed that while the parking garage would
have reduced square-footage under this Alternative, the footprint of the buildings would not
change. As a result, no decreases in the potential for erosion or the exposure of structures to
differential settlements would be realized by this Alternative. Mitigations Geo-4, Geo-6a, and
Geo-6b would be required to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
While the size of the parking structure would be reduced under this Alternative, the footprint
of the buildings would not be expected to change. Therefore, as compared to the proposed
Project, this Alternative would result in the same or similar impacts related to construction
such as release of hazardous materials from structure materials during demolition, fugitive
contaminated dust during grading and construction, potential contact with contaminated soils
and groundwater, the potential for accidental upset, release, and environmental
contamination of hazardous materials during project operation, and the potential impacts on
the nearby children's center. Mitigation measures Haz-la through Haz-le, Haz-2a, Haz-2b,
Haz-3a, Haz-3b, Haz-4, Haz-5, Haz-6a, and Haz-6b would be required to reduce impacts to
less-than-significant levels.
PAGE 13-10
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
Hydrology
While the square footage of the parking garage under this Alternative would be reduced, the
project footprint would not change under this Alternative. As a result, the Reduced Parking
Alternative would result in the same or similar impacts to hydrology and water quality as
those described for the proposed Project. Mitigations measures Hydro-l through Hydro-4
would be required to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Parking Alternative would not result in any
significant land use impacts.
Noise
While the footprint of the buildings would not be expected to change under this Alternative,
noise impacts would be somewhat reduced compared to those described for the proposed
Project because the construction phase would be shortened by the reduced square footage of
the parking garage. Mitigation measure Noise-2 would be required to reduce the impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Transportation and Circulation
Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Parking Alternative would result in new vehicle
trips in the vicinity. However, it is assumed that while the square footage of the project
would not change, AM and PM peak hour trips would be somewhat reduced under this
Alternative, compared to the proposed Project. Further, because on-street parking is largely
prohibited in the vicinity, including on East Grand Avenue or Harbor Way, it is assumed that
the reduced parking provisions would result in either increased car/van pooling or increased
use of public transit. Mitigation measures Traf-2, Traf-6, Traf-8 through Traf-12, and Traf-14
through Traf-21 would be required to reduce impacts related to transportation and
circulation.
Utilities
As compared to the proposed Project, this Reduced Parking Alternative would result in the
same or similar impacts related to increased wastewater flows and mitigation measures Util-
la and Util-lb would be required to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Ability to Accomplish Proiect Obiectives
Like the proposed Project, the Reduced Parking Alternative would support all project
objectives including increasing quality jobs, generating taxes and other fees, and upgrading
and providing quality research and development facilities for the continued development of
the East of 101 Area. Because this Alternative would have the same square-footage for
office/Research and Development activities, it would result in a Project that would meet all
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-11
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
the objectives to the same degree as would the proposed Project and would additionally
coincide with the City's policy to promote reduction in parking from City zoning standards in
conjunction with a TDM Plan.
E \lVIRO \lME \IT ALLY SUPERIOR ALTER \lA TIVE
The CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed
project be identified in an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines also require that "if the
environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify
an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives" (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6( e )(2)). In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes
adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives.
Consideration of the alternatives to the proposed 250-270 East Grand Avenue Project reveals
that the environmentally superior alternative would be the No Project Alternative, since it
would result in no new environmental impacts.
However, in the absence of the No Project Alternative, the Reduced Parking Alternative
would be designated as environmentally superior because it would reduce the project's
significant impacts with regards to traffic and air quality while fulfilling the Project
Objectives to the same degree as the proposed Project. A reduction in vehicle trips and
related air emissions would be achieved by project design, through provision of a reduced
amount of parking in conjunction with a TDM Plan, rather than by an overall reduction in the
size of the Project. The square footage of office/R&D would be the same in this Alternative
as for the proposed Project so would generate the same amount of jobs and revenue and
improvements to the site.
Table 13-4, on the following pages, provides a summary comparison of the environmental
impacts between the proposed Project and the alternatives.
PAGE 13-12
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
TABLE 13-4. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS, PROPOSED PROJECT AND
ALTERNATIVES
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Potential Environmental Impacts
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
1m pact Vis-I: Scenic Vista. Areas from which
views of San Bruno Mountains-a prominent
visual landmark in South San Francisco-may be
adversely affected are not designated scenic vistas,
nor are they places where people might be expected
to gather in order to view the San Bruno
Mountains.
LTS
s
s
1m pact Vis-2: Light and Glare. The many
windows and outdoor lights associated with
increased development intensity on the Project site
could potentially be substantial sources of day and
nighttime glare. However, the Project proposes use
of materials and lighting that would reduce the
amount of glare.
LTS
s
s
1m pact Air-I: Construction Dust and Exhaust.
Construction activity involves a high potential for
the emission of air pollutants. Construction
activities would generate exhaust emissions from
vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter
emissions that would affect local air quality.
S
s
s
Impact Air-2: Carbon Monoxide. Mobile
emissions generated by proj ect traffic would
increase carbon monoxide concentrations at
intersections in the project vicinity. However, these
increases would be below significance thresholds
of the Air Quality Management District.
LTS
Impact Air-3: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts.
The proposed Project would contribute to regional
air quality emissions but would not exceed
BAAQMD emissions thresholds for ROG, NOx
and PMIO.
S
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-13
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
Impact Air-4: Future Emissions Near Sensitive
Receptors. The Project could include laboratory
facilities or stationary equipment (e.g., standby
emergency generators) that emit air pollution.
These sources could emit small amounts of toxic
air contaminants with the potential to affect
sensitive receptors, such as the childcare facility at
371 Allerton Avenue.
Impact Air-5: Construction-Related Diesel
Odors. During construction, the various diesel-
powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site
would create odors. These odors would be
temporary and not likely to be noticeable much
beyond the Project site's boundaries.
Impact Air-6: Operational-Related
Objectionable Odors. While it is not known at this
time exactly what businesses will occupy the
completed project, these businesses will be
required to conform to applicable air quality
regulations.
Impact Geo-l: Surface Fault Rupture.
According to the latest available maps, the Project
site is not contained within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. Published
geologic maps of the area show the Hillside fault as
lying 1,100 feet north of the site, but this fault is
not considered active or potentially active, with an
estimated age of most recent movement greater
than 1.6 million years ago.
Impact Geo-2: Seismic Ground Shaking. There
is a high probability that the proposed development
will be subjected to strong to violent ground
shaking from an earthquake during its design life.
Impact Geo-3: Liquefaction, Densification, and
Ground Surface Settlement. The Association of
LTS
s
LTS
s
s
LTS
s
LTS
s
s
S
s
S
s
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
PAGE 13-14
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Potential Environmental Impacts
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
Bay Area Governments identifies the proj ect area
as an area of high hazard for liquefaction.
Liquefaction or densification of soils underlying
the site could result in settlement and differential
settlement of site improvements including
buildings, pavements, and utilities and pose a threat
to human health.
Impact Geo-4: Unstable Soils and Bay Mud.
Undocumented fill soils are present on most of the
subj ect site. Due to the presence of soil
contamination at the site, these soils have not been
reworked to provide a stable foundation for
buildings, pavements and utilities. Fill soils of
unknown quality are present in the proposed
building and parking areas. Fill soils may settle due
to new building loads. Bay Mud and alluvial soil
deposits are present on adj acent sites and also
constitute areas of potentially unstable soils. Bay
Mud is likely present under portions of the proj ect
site and may settle under design loading conditions
resulting in differential settlement of structures.
S
s
s
1m pact Geo-5: Expansive Soils. Expansive soils
may be present in the soils underlying the site, but
are not considered a hazard to construction.
According to the Draft Site Management Plan
prepared by GrafCon (October 2006), the site will
be capped by a minimum one-foot soil cap, which
may be composed of a structural fill material in
areas of pavements and concrete slabs-on-grade.
LTS
s
s
Impact Geo-6: Soil Erosion. The Project would
involve mass grading in a sensitive area near the
San Francisco Bay. Demolition of existing
structures and pavements could expose underlying
contaminated soil to the elements. Excavation of
soil for construction of new buildings and
pavement sections would also be performed and
temporary stockpiles of loose soil will be created.
Additionally, as part of proj ect development, a soil
cap consisting of one-foot of imported clean fill
S
s
s
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-15
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
will be placed on the site. Soils exposed during site
grading would be subj ect to erosion during storm
events. Grading would disturb site soils potentially
leading to impacts to the San Francisco Bay.
Impact Geo-7: Cumulative Geology and Soils
1m pacts. Strong seismic ground shaking,
liquefaction and densification during seismic
ground shaking, underlying unstable soils and bay
mud, and soil erosion during proj ect construction
and post construction are common impacts to
proj ects located in the vicinity. The proposed
Project would be one of numerous sites anticipated
to undergo development/redevelopment in the
vicinity and would contribute to a cumulative
increase in sites facing these impacts.
1m pact Haz-l: Routine transportation, use or
disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed
development is for construction of a three-story
office and Class-A laboratory building, two 5-story
office and Class-A laboratory buildings, a parking
garage, central courtyard, and associated
landscaping and infrastructure. Class A refers to a
research laboratory, not merely an instructional
laboratory. Depending upon the nature of research
planned at the proposed facilities, for which
detailed information has not yet been provided,
there are likely to be both hazardous and potentially
hazardous materials stored and used on the site that
will eventually require disposal. There are likely to
be biological hazards, chemical hazards and risk of
fire or explosion. There is also likely to be
transportation of hazardous materials to and from
the site, probably traveling along Highway 101 and
East Grand Avenue.
Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials
Release. During demolition operations hazardous
materials could be released from structures at the
site or from the underlying soils. Following
construction, operations at the proposed facilities
LTS
s
S
s
S
s
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
PAGE 13-16
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Potential Environmental Impacts
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
are expected to represent a continuing threat to the
environment through accidental release of
hazardous materials since the site is proposed to
include Class A laboratory facilities, where
hazardous materials may be stored, used, and
disposed of.
Impact Haz-3: Exposure to contaminated soil
and groundwater. During demolition and
construction, workers could be exposed to
contaminated soil and groundwater. Following site
development, future maintenance work is also
likely to penetrate into the subsurface where
contamination remains. Soil and groundwater
disturbance presents an exposure hazard to workers
and trespassers. Disturbance of the subsurface also
increases the potential for contamination to spread
through surface water runoff, creation of seepage
pathways, and through wind blown dust.
s
s
s
1m pact Haz-4: Contaminated Dust. The Early
Years Children's Center is located at 371 Allerton
Avenue, approximately one-quarter mile eastward
and downwind of the northeast corner of the
property. During grading, contaminated soils that
are currently buried would be disturbed. Disturbed
soils could be mobilized by movement of heavy
equipment and the wind, resulting in potential
dispersal of contamination. Dispersed
contaminants, of which the most probable is lead,
could be inhaled, ingested or adsorbed and present
a potential health hazard.
s
s
s
Impact Haz-5: Future Emissions Near Schools.
Since the proposed development includes research
laboratory facilities, it is likely that hazardous
chemicals will be stored and used on the property.
In certain circumstances these chemicals could
spill, mix, ignite, or volatilize and cause a
hazardous emission near the childcare center.
s
s
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-17
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
1m pact Haz-6a: Handling of laboratory wastes
within one-quarter mile of a school. The Early
Years Children's Center is located at 371 Allerton
Avenue, approximately one-quarter mile east of the
site. Since the proposed development includes
research lab facilities it is possible that hazardous
chemicals or biological hazards would be present
and handled in close proximity to the childcare
facility .
Impact Haz-6b: Handling of demolition waste
and contaminated soils within one quarter mile
of a school. During demolition, potentially
hazardous waste would be generated and require
disposal. During grading and construction,
contaminated site soils would be disturbed and
require handling and possible disposal unless
reused and buried under a clean cap.
1m pact Haz-7: Airport Land Use Plan. The
proposed Proj ect would be located within the
jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the
San Francisco International Airport. According to
the East of 101 Area Specific Plan (available online
through the City of South San Francisco Planning
Department website), the most stringent height
limits in South San Francisco are south of Forbes
Boulevard and Lindenville, including the project
area. In this area F ederal Aviation Regulations, Part
77, limits building heights to an elevation of 161
feet above mean sea level, approximately 12 to14
stories. Since the tallest proposed buildings are 5
stories and the parking garage is 7 levels, no
buildings would exceed 161 feet in height,
therefore, the structures would be in compliance
with the Airport Land Use Plan.
1m pact Haz-8: Cumulative Hazardous 1m pacts.
The proposed Proj ect would be one of numerous
sites, some of which are also existing hazardous
materials sites, that are anticipated to undergo
development/redevelopment in the vicinity. The
S
s
LTS
s
s
LTS
s
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
PAGE 13-18
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Potential Environmental Impacts
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
Project would contribute to a cumulative increase
in the number of sites handling hazardous
materials, both in the vicinity in general as well as
near a school, and would result in a cumulative
increase in transportation, use, disposal, and
potential for exposure to and/or accidental release
of hazardous materials during both construction
and operations.
Impact Hydro-I: No Treatment of Parking
Garage Runoff. Development of the proposed
Project would contribute to the levels ofNPS
pollutants and litter entering downstream waters,
including the San Francisco Bay. An increase in
NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on
wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS
pollutants also have the potential to infiltrate into
groundwater and degrade the quality of
groundwater drinking sources. No water quality
BMPs have been proposed for the Parking Garage.
Parking areas represent a source of suspended
solids, petroleum hydrocarbons, and heavy metals.
s
s
s
Impact Hydro-2: Site Soil and Groundwater
Elevations May Be Unsuitable for Vegetated
Swales. Appropriate evaluation of site conditions is
critical to the effectiveness of vegetated swales.
The site history of soil contamination and the
required maintenance of an existing of a I-foot
clean fill soil cap impose restriction on the depth of
vegetated swales that can be constructed.
Additionally, groundwater conditions in the Project
area can be as high as 2 to 3 feet below ground
surface during winter months. If vegetated swales
are to a depth that is at or near the I-foot soil cap,
shallow depth to groundwater could cause
underlying soils to become saturated and allow
groundwater to surface water contamination.
Vegetated swales are not considered suitable for
sites that use or store chemicals or hazardous
materials unless hazardous and toxic materials are
s
s
s
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-19
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
prevented from entering the swales.
1m pact Hydro-3: Potential Contamination of
Local Groundwater. The Project site is located
within a groundwater basin as defined by the
D WR. The potential for groundwater
contamination from infiltration BMPs must be
carefully considered, especially in areas where the
distance between groundwater and the swale invert
is small or where groundwater is or could
potentially be used for human consumption or
agricultural purposes. The infiltration of industrial
and parking lot pollutants into shallow groundwater
could potentially impair the quality of local
groundwater sources.
1m pact Hydro-4: Erosion or siltation on- or off-
site. Construction of the proposed Project would
involve demolition of existing structural
foundations and pavement areas that currently help
to stabilize site soils. Although no cut/fill estimates
were available for review, significant site grading is
expected to occur. Construction operations
associated with the Project would present a threat
of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subj ecting
unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces
of runoff. Additionally, new onsite stormdrains
may require excavation of the soil cap and
potentially, the soil below.
Impact Hydro-5: Inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow. The Project site is not
located in an area that would expose persons to
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The
site is nearly level and does not lie in close
proximity to a large lake or the ocean. Although
seismically induced waves are a possibility in the
Bay, the site elevations are above those considered
to be at risk for tsunami wave run-up.
S
s
s
S
s
s
LTS
s
s
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
PAGE 13-20
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Potential Environmental Impacts
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
1m pact Hydro-6: Cumulative 1m pacts on
Hydrology and Water Quality. The increased
construction activity and new development
resulting from the Project, in conjunction with
other foreseeable development in the city, would
result in less than significant impacts on hydrology
and water quality conditions.
LTS
s
s
Impact Noise-I: Permanent Noise Increases.
Project-generated traffic noise and other
operational noise sources such as HV AC
equipment would not exceed noise standards and
would not significantly increase ambient noise
levels nor substantially impact noise-sensitive
receptors.
LTS
s
Impact Noise-2: Construction Related Noise.
Project construction would result in temporary
short-term noise increases due to the operation of
heavy equipment.
S
Impact Noise-3: Cumulative Noise Increases.
The proposed Project, together with anticipated
future development in the area could result in long-
term traffic increases that could cumulatively
increase noise levels. However, these increases are
not anticipated to be noticeable in the context of
existing ambient noise.
LTS
Impact Traf-l: Project Trip Generation
Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The
project would generate more than 100 net new trips
during the AM and PM peak hours (397 two-way
(inbound + outbound) trips during the AM peak
hour and 383 two-way trips during the PM peak
hour (see Table 11). The San Mateo City/County
Association of Governments (C/CA G) Agency
Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003
Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG
Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must
ensure that the developer and/or tenants will
mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first
S
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-21
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
100 trips) projected to be generated by the
development.
Impact Traf-2: Site lines at East Grand Avenue
Driveways. Sight lines at the Project Parcel A's
only unsignalized intersection along East Grand
Avenue where left turns are allowed (the most
easterly driveway) would be 600+ feet to the west
(through the proj ect' s signalized entrance
intersection) and 600+ feet to the east (through the
Littlefield intersection 400 feet to the east).
Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle
speed of 40 miles per hour (five miles greater than
the posted speed limit) would be 305 feet.
Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at this location
assuming low traffic volumes on East Grand
Avenue. However, during peak commute periods,
eastbound traffic may back up from the Littlefield
signal and begin to obstruct the ability of drivers
turning left from the site to see westbound traffic
on East Grand Avenue. Also, any westbound
vehicle or vehicles waiting to turn left into the
project site could also block sight lines of drivers
existing the proj ect site attempting to see
westbound traffic.
1m pact Traf-3: Sight Lines at Harbor Way
Driveways. Sight lines at both of project Parcel
A's two unsignalized driveway intersections with
Harbor Way would be more than 500+ feet to the
north and 800+ feet to the south. Minimum
stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 35
miles per hour (five miles greater than the posted
sped limit) would be 250 feet. Therefore, sight lines
are acceptable at these driveways.
Impact Traf-4: Queues in Left Turn Lanes on
Approaches to Project Driveways. Left turns are
allowed from East Grand Avenue into the project
site at two locations that have breaks in the raised
median along the street: at the project's central
driveway connection, which would remain
S
s
s
LTS
s
s
LTS
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
PAGE 13-22
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Potential Environmental Impacts
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
signalized, and at the project's easterly driveway
connection, which would remain unsignalized. The
left turn pockets provided on the approaches to
these intersections are 175 feet long (at the signal)
and 125 feet long (at the easterly driveway),
respectively. The 1 75-foot-Iong pocket can
accommodate seven to eight vehicles, while the
125-foot-Iong pocket and accommodate five to six
vehicles.
1m pact Traf-5: Internal Vehicular Circulation.
The internal circulation plan as shown on the
10/5/06 site plan by DES Architects/Engineers
appears acceptable. Each project driveway would
be channelized at least 50 feet internal to the site,
with the main signalized entrance along East Grand
Avenue being channelized at least 100 feet internal
to the parking lot. In addition, all surface lot and
garage parking aisles are shown to be 25 feet wide,
which meets City code criteria and good traffic
engineering practice.
LTS
s
s
Impact Traf-6: Internal Pedestrian Circulation.
Internal walkways are shown on the site plan
connecting all new buildings (Buildings A, Band
C), the parking garage, and existing building near
Harbor Way. However, there are no walkway
connections shown to East Grand Avenue or to the
existing complex of buildings nearest East Grand
Avenue that are to remain.
S
s
s
Impact Traf-7: On-Site Parking. A total of
2,793 spaces would be required based upon City
code criteria, while a total of 2,742 on-site parking
spaces would be provided on Parcels A and B
combined (2,558 spaces on Parcel A and 184
spaces on Parcel B). This is 98.2 percent of code-
required parking. Of the 2,558 spaces 1,134 spaces
would be provided in a new multistory parking
garage, with the remaining 1,424 spaces surface
parking. The City of South San Francisco promotes
LTS
s
s
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-23
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Potential Environmental Impacts
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
reduction in parking from City zoning standards as
a way to support trip reduction goals required per
the City's TDM ordinance and supported by
various policies in the General Plan (G.P. Policies
4.3-1-8, 11 and 12).
Impact Traf-8: Grade Crossing Approaches
Missing Signing and Pavement Striping. The
State Public Utilities Commission (September 26,
2006 letter to City of South San Francisco) has
noted in a recent inspection that the East Grand
Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way
intersection grade crossing is not up to minimum
standards on one or more approaches for required
advanced warning signing and pavement striping
(i.e. R15-1 and W -10-1 signs as well as RxR
pavement striping). This results in an existing
safety concern that would be aggravated by the
addition of proj ect traffic.
s
s
s
Impact Traf-9: Intersection Level of Service.
The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of proj ect
traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Tables
11-1 and 11-2). S
· Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The proj ect would increase
volumes by 2.6 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
Impact Traf-lO: Intersection Level of Service.
The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of proj ect
traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Tables
11-1 and 11-2). S
· E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor
Way
AM Peak Hour: The proj ect would increase
volumes by 4.8 percent at a location with
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
PAGE 13-24
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Potential Environmental Impacts
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation and
would degrade operation to LOS F.
PM Peak Hour: The project would increase
volumes by 5.0 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized
operation.
1m pact Traf-ll: Intersection Level of Service.
The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of proj ect
traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Tables
11-1 and 11-2).
· Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue / Produce S
Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The project would increase
volumes by 2.6 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized
operation.
Impact Traf-12: Intersection Level of Service.
The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of proj ect
traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Tables
11-1 and 11-2).
· Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard /
Mitchell Avenue
S
PM Peak Hour: The project would increase
volumes by 3.4 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized
operation.
1m pact Traf-13: Intersection Signalization
Needs. The analysis concluded that no unsignalized
intersections would receive a significant signal
warrant impact due to the addition of project traffic
to year 2015 Base Case volumes or that project
traffic would not increase volumes by more than
two percent at the one nearby intersection (East
LTS
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-25
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue) where Base Case
volumes would already be exceeding peak hour
signal warrant criteria levels (see Table 11-3).
Impact Traf-14: 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing - Traffix software evaluation. The
following off-ramp/approach to an adjacent
intersection leading away from an off-ramp would
receive a significant queuing impact due to the S
addition of proj ect traffic to year 2015 Base Case
volumes (see Table 11-11).
E. Grand Avenue / Grand Avenue Overcrossing
Impact Traf-15: 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing - SYNCHRO software evaluation.
The following approach to an adjacent intersection
leading away from an off-ramp would receive a
significant queuing impact due to the addition of
project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see
Table 11-11).
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The proj ect would increase
volumes by 7.6 percent in the left turn lane on the
southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Grand
Avenue at a location with unacceptable Base Case
95th percentile queuing. The 95th percentile
vehicle queue would be extended from 725 up to
about 760 feet in a location with only 320 feet of
storage.
Impact Traf-16: Off-Ramp Queuing To
Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours -
SIM traffic evaluation. The following off-ramps
would receive a significant impact with backups
extending to the freeway mainline sometime during
one or both peak hours due to the addition of
project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes.
. U.S.IOl Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand
S
S
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
PAGE 13-26
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Potential Environmental Impacts
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
A venue/Executive Drive Intersection
AM Peak Hour: The proj ect would increase
volumes by 2.5 percent at a location with year 2015
Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally backing up
to the freeway mainline.
Impact Traf-17: Off-Ramp Queuing To
Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours -
81M Traffic evaluation. The following off-ramp
would receive a significant impact with backups
extending to the freeway mainline sometime during
one or both peak hours due to the addition of
project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes.
s
U.S.IOl Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport
Boulevard / Miller Avenue Intersection
AM Peak Hour: The proj ect would increase
volumes by 5.0 percent at a location with year 2015
Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally backing up
to the freeway mainline.
Impact Traf-18: Off-Ramp Operation At
Mainline Diverge. The following off-ramp diverge
locations from the U.S.IOl freeway mainline would
receive a significant impact due to the addition of
project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see S
Table 11-6).
. U.S.IOl Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport
Boulevard / W ondercolor Lane Intersection
This would be a significant impact.
Impact Traf-19: Off-Ramp Operation At
Mainline Diverge. The following off-ramp diverge
location from the U.S.IOl freeway mainline would
receive a significant impact due to the addition of
project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see
Table 11-6).
s
U.S.IOl Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand
Avenue / Executive Drive Intersection
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-27
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Potential Environmental Impacts
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
AM Peak Hour: The proj ect would increase off-
ramp volumes by 2.5 percent (from 2,019 up to
2,069 vehicles) with Base Case volumes already
exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour.
Impact Traf-20: On-Ramp Operation. The
analysis concluded that one on-ramp to the U.S.IOl
freeway would receive a significant impact due to
the addition of proj ect traffic to year 2015 Base
Case volumes (see Table 11-7).
U.S.IOl Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster
Point Boulevard
S
PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase
volumes by more than one percent (1.5%, from
2,302 up to 2,337 vehicles) with Base Case
volumes already exceeding 2,200 vehicles per hour.
1m pact Traf-21: Freeway Mainline Operation.
The following U.S.IOl mainline segment would
receive a significant impact due to the addition of
project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see S
Table 11-12).
. U.S.IOl Southbound (to the north of the
Oyster Point interchange)
Impact Util-l: Increased Wastewater Flows.
According to City of South San Francisco design
wastewater flow estimates, the Project would
contribute 184,600 gpd of sewage and industrial
wastewater to the City's sanitary sewer system,
which amounts to an increase of approximately 39
percent as compared with the existing building
square footage on the site. The Project does not
include conservation or recycling technologies that
would lessen its wastewater flows to the municipal
system.
s
s
Impact Util-2: Increased in Demand for
Utilities. The Project would lead to an increase in
LTS
s
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
PAGE 13-28
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
Level of
Significan ce
Impact Relative to the Proposed Project
Potential Environmental Impacts
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
In tensity
Alternative
Reduced
Parking
Alternative
demand for utilities such as potable water and
sewer capacity. However, the new demand can be
accommodated with existing facilities or planned
upgrades.
1m pact Util-3: Solid Waste Disposal. The landfill
would be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs, and would not require
or result in construction of landfill facilities or
expansion of existing facilities nor would it impede
the ability of the City to meet the applicable
federal, state and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste.
LTS
s
Impact Util-4: Increased Energy Consumption.
The Project would have an incremental increase in
the demand for gas and electrical power given the
increase in development on the project site.
However, the Project is expected to be served with
existing capacity and would not require or result in
construction of new energy facilities or expansion
of existing off-site facilities and would not violate
applicable federal, state and local statutes and
regulations relating to energy standards.
LTS
s
Impact Util-5: Cumulative Demand for Utilities
and Service Systems. The increased development
resulting from the proposed Project, in conjunction
with other foreseeable development in the area,
would not result in cumulative impacts on utilities
and service systems.
LTS
s
L TS = Less Than Significant
S = Significant
A " -" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed Proj ect.
A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-29
CHAPTER 1 3 : ALTERNATIVES
This page intentionally left blank.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 13-30
14
REFERE \ICES
REPORT PREPARERS
Lamphier - Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, Ca. 94606
510-535-6690
Lamphier-Gregory
(Primary Report Preparers)
Joan Lamphier, President
Rebecca Gorton, Planner
Questa Engineering
(Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology)
Will Hopkins, Senior Engineering Geologist
Crane Transportation Group
(Transportation and Circulation)
Mark Crane, Principal
Illingworth and Rodkin
(Air Quality, CO analysis)
James Reyff, Senior Consultant
REFERE \ICES
Association of Bay Area Governments, www.abag.ca.gov. accessed Feb. and March 2007.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised
1999).
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries, 2003-
2005.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 14- 1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Bonilla, M.G., Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and
Part of the Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California: A digital
database, USGS Open-file Report 98-354, 1998.
California Division of Mines and Geology, Earthquake Fault Zone Map of the South San
Francisco Quadrangle, 1982.
California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent
Areas, 1994.
California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Evaluation Reports Prepared Under the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, CGS CD 2002-01, 2002.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), New Development and Redevelopment
Handbook, 2003.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), California Stormwater BMP
Handbook, Industrial and Commercial, January 2003.
Caltrans, Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, 2005.
City of Daly City, City of Daly City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, 1998.
City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan,
adopted July 1994.
City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General
Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997.
City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, City of South San Francisco
General Plan, adopted October 1999.
City of South San Francisco, prepared by Carollo Engineers, City of San Francisco East of
Highway 101 Sewer System Master Plan, September 2002.
City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, 249 East Grand Avenue
Project Environmental Impact Report, Draft December 2005, Final June 2006.
City of South San Francisco and Crane Transportation Group, Terrabay Phase 3 Final EIR,
October 2006.
City of South San Francisco, prepared by EIP Associates and Korve Engineering, Genentech
Corporate Facilities Master Plan Draft EIR, December 2006.
PAGE 14-2
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
CHAPTER 14: REFERENCES
Department of Toxic Substances and Control, Database (www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov).
accessed Feb. 2007.
Department of Water Resources (DWR), California's Groundwater - Bulletin 118. Updated
2003, 1975.
DES Architects and Engineers, Britannia Pointe Grand II Site Boundary Plan, December 6,
2006.
DES Architects and engineers, Britannia Pointe Grand II Preliminary Drainage Plan,
December 4,2006.
Environmental Data Resources, Incorporated Radius Map and Geocheck database, January 6,
2004.
Gard, John T., Estimation of Maximum Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections, ITE
Journal, November 2001.
Geomatrix, Geotechnical Study Sugen and Metaxen Buildings, Britannia Pointe Grand
Business Park, August 1997.
Geomatrix, Geotechnical Study Sugen Phase II Building, Britannia Pointe Grand, January
1999.
Geomatrix, Geotechnical Study, Exelixis IL Britannia Pointe Grand, May 2000.
Geomatrix, Geotechnical Study Sugen Phase III Building Britannia Pointe Grand, May 23,
2002.
GrafCon, Draft Site Management Plan Draft Site Management Plan Britannia Pointe Grand
250, 256, 260 and 270 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California., October 2006.
Knudsen, K.L., Noleer, J.S., Sowers, J.M., Lettis, W.R., Quaternary Geology and
Liquefaction Susceptibility, San Francisco, California 1: 1 00,000 Quadrangle: A Digital
Database, USGS Open-File Report 97-715, 1997.
Phillips, Steven P., Scott N. Hamlin, Eugene B. Yates, Geohydrology, Water Quality, and
Estimation of Ground-Water Recharge in San Francisco, California 1987-92. US Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4019, 1993.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Screeningfor Environmental
Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, 2003
State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Database (geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov),
accessed Feb. 2007.
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PAGE 14-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.
Wentworth, C.M., Graham, S.E., Pike, R.l., Beukelman, G.S., Ramsey, D.W., Barron, A.D.,
San Francisco Bay Region Landslide Folio Part C - Summary Distribution of Slides and
Earthflows in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, USGS Open File Report 97-745 C,
1997.
Western Regional Climate Center. Weather Station: San Francisco WSO AP, California
(047769),2005.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Earthquake Probabilities in the San
Francisco Bay Region, 1001-2031, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-214.
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Baker, Bernie, Per email correspondence with Chadrick Smalley, Associate Planner at City
of South San Francisco and Bernie Baker, Project Manager for the applicant, PMA, Inc.,
February 12, 2007.
Castagnola, David, Per telephone conversation between Rebecca Gorton, Planner at
Lamphier-Gregory, Inc. and David Castagnola, Superintendent, South San Francisco-San
Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, February 2, 2007.
Razavi, Ray. Per telephone conversation between Rebecca Gorton, Planner at Lamphier-
Gregory, Inc. and Ray Razabi, City Engineer, City of South San Francisco Public Works
Department, February 2, 2007.
PAGE 14-4
250-270 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT