HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 35-2008RESOLUTION NO. 35-2008
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE MILLER
AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco proposes to develop a public parking
structure consisting of a 4'/z story building containing 256 parking stalls and up to 13,700 square
feet of ground floor commercial space and related improvements, on 24,500 square feet of land
area located on the south side of the 300 block of Miller Avenue in the City of South San
Francisco ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Public Resources Code, § § 21000, et seq., a mitigated negative declaration (MND), incorporated
by reference and attached hereto as Exhibit A, was prepared analyzing the potential
environmental impacts of the project; and
WHEREAS, a previous MND for the Project, dated December 20, 2007, was circulated
for public review from December 20, 2007 to January 8, 2008, during which time comments
were received on the Project concerning the MND's analysis of aesthetic and traffic impacts; and
WHEREAS, comments received on the original MND prompted staff to obtain additional
expert analysis regarding shadow impacts of the Project, and re-evaluate the Project's traffic
impacts; and
WHEREAS, the revised analyses confirmed that the Project would not have significant
aesthetic or traffic impacts; and
WHEREAS, the revised MND was recirculated for another public review period from
February 5, 2008 to February 25, 2008; and
WHEREAS, additional comments regarding the project's aesthetic and traffic impacts
were received during the comment period for the recirculated MND, to which staff prepared a
response letter, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, the Project will have potentially significant impacts to air quality, cultural
resources, and noise, for which mitigation measures have been proposed and incorporated into a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit B, which mitigation
measures will reduce these impacts to less than significant; and
WHEREAS, revisions to the Project and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
ensure that the Project's environmental impacts will be reduced to a level of less-than-
significant; and
WHEREAS, the MND, including comments and responses, reflects the City Council's
independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Miller
Avenue Parking Structure Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project as proposed is consistent with the policies of the 1999 General
Plan applicable to the Downtown planning sub-area, the Downtown/Central Redevelopment
Plan, and South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20 (Zoning Ordinances); and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the MND, including comments and responses
and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the Chief
Planner, Planning Division of the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco, CA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which
includes without limitation, design plans prepared and dated December 7, 2007 for the Miller
Avenue Parking Structure, the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared and dated February 1,
2008 for the Miller Avenue Parking Structure, comments received on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the response to comments prepared by staff, agenda, minutes, and reports
prepared for the November 14, 2007 City Council study session, agenda, minutes and reports
prepared for the December 12, 2007 City Council meeting, agenda, minutes and reports prepared
for the January 23, 2008 City Council meeting, agenda, minutes and reports prepared for the
March 12, 2008 City Council meeting, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
1. The MND, dated February 1, 2008, represents the City Council's independent
judgment and analysis.
2. The MND has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the implementing
Guidelines, and adequately described the impacts of the Project.
3. There is no substantial evidence on the record that the proposed Project, as mitigated,
will have a significant effect on the environment. Potentially significant impacts, of
which there are only three, will be mitigated to ales-than-significant level, as
follows:
a. Air Quality -The physical removal of the existing parking lot and structures
is a construction activity with a high potential for creating air pollutants. In
addition to the dust created during removal activities, substantial dust and
construction exhaust emissions could be created during grading for the
project. Mitigation Measure 1 A will require BAAQMD dust suppression
measures be included in construction contracts for the Project. These
measures will reduce the Project's particulate matter emissions to a less than
significant level. Mitigation Measure 1B imposes construction equipment
measures that will operate to reduce impacts from construction exhaust to a
less-than-significant level. Accordingly, the Project, as mitigated will not have
any significant air quality impacts.
b. Cultural Resources Development of the parking structure as proposed
would necessitate the removal of an existing residential duplex locally listed
as a "potentially historic resource". Removal of this structure could constitute
a "substantial adverse change" in the significance of the resource. Mitigation
Measure 2 requires preparation and implementation of a Preservation Plan that
will require relocation or salvage and re-use of the historical materials in the
structure. This Mitigation Measure ensures that the historical character of the
structure will not be lost. Therefore, the Project, as mitigated, will not have
any significant impacts on cultural or historical resources.
c. Noise Construction of the project would result in temporary noise increases
due to operation of heavy equipment. Mitigation Measure 3 requires that the
restrictions on construction activities promulgated by the City of South San
Francisco's Noise Ordinance be incorporated into bid documents for the
Project, thereby limiting the hours of operation and noise generation of
individual pieces of equipment to acceptable levels. Therefore, the Project, as
mitigated, will not have any significant noise impacts.
4. The Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community. It does not reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal. It does not eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or pre-history because there is no identified area at the
Project site which is habitat for rare or endangered species, or which represents
unique examples of California history or prehistory. In addition, the Project is within
the scope of use contemplated in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and the
Project does not have any significant, unavoidable adverse impacts. Implementation
of specified mitigation measures will avoid or reduce the effects of the Project on the
environment and thereby avoid any significant impacts.
5. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to
the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
6. The Project does not involve impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable, because the described Project will incorporate mitigation measures to
avoid significant impacts of the Project in the context of continued growth and
development in the City of South San Francisco.
7. The Project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the proposed
development will enhance and complement the existing traditional commercial core
of the City and improve the appearance of the area, all adverse effects of the Project
will be mitigated to an insignificant level.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, consisting of attached Exhibit A ,and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program consisting of attached Exhibit B for the Miller
Avenue Parking Structure Project.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of
March 2008 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mark N. Addiego Richard A. Garbarino and Kevin Mullin,
Mayor Pedro Gonzalez
NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Karyl Matsumoto
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: N
ATTEST:
Cit Jerk
O
O
N
O
N
x,
v
a~
C
t,
O
a
a~
"O
C
bA
C
.~
~~y
M
50
F..yy
~I
0
~n
.~
i,
V
D
i.
bA
C
S~
CK
a
ri
F-.I
~~
L 0
~ ,.y
> "V
~
.~
O ~ ~+-~ ~ O y
O ~ U.s O
..~.
~ Uv°~w W L1
c°
y ~
~ U ^ o on .b
G ~ ~ = c
O
3 ~ .~
~~° o ~.~ ~ y ~ ~
r.' _
~ U ~ +~+ L". ~ N ~." . ~ Q
"" S b +'~-. ~ v -~ g i b ~
c
as
~ ~
~,
O
y v
d "_' O
~ ~
a
O ~ ~ .V' 'b
. ~ •
~ vi
'rt
°
o '~ O O
~ ~
~ .1
" .
V,
3 O
~ ~ O ~
i ~ ~
°~ O ~
~ ~ c
.
ry ~ .~ ~i ~
a
~ •~ ~' y ~' 3 ~
'~ ~
~'~ i ~ .
3
w •~ ~
~ ~
~
'~
~ b
~ ~
' i.n
~ fA
~ '
.
a ~
o y (V
~ .. ~
.
3 ~
~
y
~ O ~ a
i ~
, ~
rn ~
3 N ,~
~, on,
Gam. N
y
,
~
;? .~
~
p ~; w
O O CO a~
O N x ~ ~
~ ~ a a •~
~
N ~ O O Cd ,1~. w .b .
N C y
~
!
ti ~ ~ ~" ~ ^'
~
~ G A. O ~ U N O N .
N O
• O ~ ~ N
fy
W N ~ S-
r b N
w C~ ~ ~ V fC C ~.
~++ Ri ~ V~ CJ
'C ~ V~ ,~ ~ C~
G
'
~ dq OU .
~
yy bU ~'+
~ a~ L.
N ,~ ~
L." ~
+.. it
N j, ~
Y. ""
O t. 4. . ~ W
a~ y O Q„ .~ ~
a> N ~ ~1.:'~! +~+
O O
~~ N
G. ~.+
, • 3
o.~ q3b ~. ~,
~ ~ 3 ~ 3•~ 0 ~ ~w ~ ~.~ ~ ~, ~:.
U
~
ti w i+ r O O O ~ O O O O O O
U ~
v Q Q
~ ~ '~ w bA ~ O ~ u.
01 ~ ou ~ ~ `~ a~i ~ 4"
° ~ a. 3 00 0
'
~'
~
o ° '~
. a°i ~ 'k ~ ~ b o .5
O
~ ~ p±
~ C
y ~ y y ~
L.
N
' ~ + ~ ~„~
+
N .b -
.~., S O
O ~ ~ O
v ~
~
~ ~ 4 3 .
o .~ N ~
° ~
~ U O
O cq ~
•~ ~ U
~ ~ . ~ ~
a .~ ~ ,~
"
~ ~ ti
p~ 4. y ~
O +. y
U 't7
O
r w ~
~ ~ O
y 0
C$ ~ ~ •y ~
LL W O
~ U ,~ ti ^
~ N ~
~
~ • U
.,
,
'a.+ •
i
O
Z
o_
t-O
W
J_
V
m O
H V
m
W V
b
y' ~
o a'~ ~
p. ti~
~ O O O O O O p ~ co ~
a
C
rn
(D ~n ~ .
a~~~ N "b
a
o A~
~ "''
~ ~
~
~~° ~ r..]
~ 2 ~ O O N "C3 ~ A ~TJ
~ w ° ~ ~
° ~ _ f1
~ N C N
~ ~ a~ ~ ~ gyp' ~ y
~ o
n .
y ~ `~ . ' C)
~ .
~
A
•'O ('i'
~
'
" ~
~
~ ~
`~. ~ A
' ~
i"j
~ ~
~ O. ~ ~ N
'3 .
A~ ~ "+ ~.
UQ
A A `~ k
t
t ^
^
~~
7
~
f~
A
~ ~c ~ G
N v,
~
'
'~ 0
^' "(S
A M _ ti r
y !
n (D r7 N .7 G
.r O
~ e
-1. ~ ~
CD 1
~ '
J' N
D r.
~ y ~ ~ G '
S "
J"' n "Ot ~ N fD a, O Q'1 O '~~' `~~ M O
~ .S] f~~ O r~
C
°: ~' CD N G P7 .
..
~ ~
co' ~
~
~ .
-'
o
`~
:
~ '°. ~'
"
y a °
~' ~
~ ~
,.,. ~. 6. ~
co ~ ^
'~ < ~ .
° ,; ~
Y
.
~ vo o ~ -, ~ c ~ O
~ ~ :. c
o
c
o
;
r, a o. n
~ ~
co
ti c ° °. a 5' ~
o
'' ~ N ~ =; y ,
°
mss' "
`~ o' ^
~ ~ o w c~o
o ~ ~ ~ as
, .
o
, ~ ~
~ ~ ~
• .y N :J (D ~ .~-. fD ~ C A~ A ~ y
• (D ~ vCDi v^i O O ~ „Ay (D
ti y ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ a Q d N O A. l~ K~
w ~ ~ H.
"
~
~ 0
~'
< .r.
O
n ~ ~ ~ ^At 0. ..T ~ ~ A7 (gyp ."3
~ (A .7 0 ~.
j C~ ~
~ ~
~ ' ~ A ~
.'7 p M O ~ ~
d ~ co `G e O~ rf ,~O p
O X ~ fA O ~ ~ O
y ~ ~
O O ~ ~ ~ ~ p
~ k to ~
.`T, ' At G ~ y A N fD
„ (D ~ (D ~ ~ (D Ty
~
`
o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c
C y a. o c. ~ o o.
-Oj~ ^~~'
y ~ ~ 1 '~`
an
o•
OC ~ ~ .~
Uv~waL1 ~ C ~ ~ ~
Uv°~ww0
0
~, ° c 4r
a
C U
•° aAi '~ M j 0 'n U y 'b • p C
a ss.~cN•,Q a. °~c°~ ~ a°
~.
U ~ ~,
U °
O ° O O
a ~n a °^
~ ~ .° 3 ° ° ° ~° ~ a ~ ° c
.~
~ ~" ce
~ °' .., Ca Q ~. ce ~ ..~ . a, U rn co a~ U C C
. O ~ • O ~
h C ~ 'L3 .r..7' A. ~ O U ~ N i., C .
+ . ~ ~ ~ h C
!+.:
~ a0i '~ oA '° O ~ Y o .O °''r: ~ .~ d s.,
ti :~ ^ o b ~ to
0'04.. c
h ~, ° ~
as ~ oA ~•=°~ ° o
~ v, ~ ~ ,
~ °.° X'
~ a~ ~., .^-. y a'p.~ c °
y .r y C
~+ c~ ~ U
~ .C
+r
~i ~ G
C
`~
Z
C
U ~ ~
~ C ~ . ~ O
~ O 4~
o
°~ C
O
y C ~.. ~' Gl.
a, ~ o ° a ,~. O bq
O p
O .Ca U U
.~ 3 ~ ° ~
~ d U
4:
~
.~. ~ v~ C O a+
a~ ~ ~
o °
. c
fy O `n ~
~c°~ C 'r-1- O
•
c°'°
' ~ cd ~ U a> ^p
°'~~ h ~ ~ ~
a
p
~ "
O ~ .~ cCi p, •G•' .~
'd
~
°"~
~
.-. U ro
~ O~ ,3~
~ ~
4r
~
W N ^C •-~
v w. O h
a ~ ~ cd U b U
ao ~ a~ ~ 01 O G~ i N C
~
~
° W C ~ O
° a A
° ~
° a~ ~, ..~
.a .
~
«~ .a
~ O N ~ ~ U O o ~
C
~ ° ~ cVd U ~
~ ~ O ~ .b O • i1 a~
~
U > M . ~ -d . ~ .
~
~
H
~
~ C I
' a+ A.'
~p a. ! ~ ~ Rf .
'r U
j U v
•y iN. ~ C
y .~ '_' O .
. N .
U y
O ~ bA }, ~
~
~ .
? .~ C ics ~ ~
N ~
~
C cd C
~ YJ tom
~ O N
G
O
aXi N ~ .~~
, ti p
y~ N. .
.
d ~ ~ ~ ..+
~ b ~ ~ • ~
O +. ~ U U .U
'' C
~ • ~ 4
~ p • `
a`"i .
~ y 4••i ° •O ~
~ +O-' ° ~" ~ ~ a~i
.
, ~ ~ qp
^
ar 'T3 L1. "Ly ~ .~ u O ~ Sr" .~
0> U
y b ~ ~ b ~ O .h ? •~ O
O
'~ ~ cd at .• ~ ~ ~ •~ V •~ O.
~O ~ b O
~ O
.p ~
~
~ °
`~ U
,s 3 .,
~ ~ ~ ~
°
~ ~ p ~ O ~
O '~ ~ '1
U
~
~
~ O
T3
O ,S a>
;•'
U~ ~ N
~ ~ V p y
O y 4
p
c~C O Cd ~
'~
O ~ ~ ~ ~
~ N
~ U
~
~n ., GL ~ U N +
^ fn •~
~ ~ " ' ~ N U
~ ~ O
~ ~
I
~ ~ ~ 4. ro a~
i a~ ~ ~ ~ W w °
s d
O
~
~° °
C
° °' ° C ~
•o •~
'~
U U ~: v
a C .~ ~ c
V
°~ ~ ~ O ¢'
~
,
~ rY y ~ '~ ?' •a'
U U L y
Q 3 ~ ~
~ .~ o . ~
U ~ c ~ a~i
U ... .C
clnr couNCiL coos
H SAI~i
~ ~•- N
H ~
U O
c~ I~R~%
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(650) 877-8535
FAX (650) 829-6639
March 7, 2008
Peter W. Daniel
Hannig Law Firm LLP
2991 EI Camino Real
Redwood City, CA 94061-4003
PEDRO GONZALEZ, MAYOR
KARYL MATSUMOTO, MAYOR PRO TEM
MARK N. ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, COUNCILMEMBER
KEVIN MULLIN, COUNCILMEMBER
BARRY M. NAGEL, CITY MANAGER
Re: Response to Comments on Revised Miller Avenue Parking Structure Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts
Dear Mr. Daniel:
Thank you for your comments on the recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
for the proposed Miller Avenue Parking Structure. The Planning Division is in receipt of
your office's comments and has prepared the following response to the substantive
environmental concerns raised ire your letter. As noted in your letter, your comments
focus on two areas of concern: ('1) light and view impacts, and (2) traffic impacts. Both
issues are discussed below.
Light and View Impacts
As detailed in the MND, staff hats carefully analyzed the view impacts, as well as the
shade and shadow impacts of tlhe proposed project on surrounding properties. Both
impacts are analyzed as components of the project's broader aesthetic effects. The
issues have not been "parsed"; ralther, the reason that they appear under separate sub-
headings in the MND is for clarity and organizational purposes, and is consistent with
how courts have traditionally separated the two issues when evaluating a project's
aesthetic impacts. (See, e.g., Banker's Hill v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th
249, 279-280; Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 586.) The case
law cited in your letter addresses; CEQA "piecemealing" principles, which do not apply
EXHIBIT C
CITY CQUNCIL RESQLUTICN
315 MAPLE AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
s~uaw6as ~(ennpeoa uey~ aay~e~i 'suol~oasaa~u[l]„ `}~oda~ s,}aadxa ol~.ea~ aye ul pa~ou sy
•e~ep uol~oas~a~ul uo pasaq paa.enlena aae uol~elno~lo o~ s~oedwl ~u6lsap ~oafoad ~uaa~no
aye uo pasaq e~ep sa~eaod~ooul s!s~(leue paslnaa ayl •uol~elnoalo pue ol}}ea~ o~ s~oedwl
~ueo~lu6ls ~(ue aney you pine ~oafoad aye ~ey~ uolsnlouoo leul6uo aye w~~uoa o~ In}diay
uaaq aney suolslna~ asayl •aNW pa~elnoaloaa sly ul suolslna~ lel~ue~sgns auo6~apun
sey sls~(leue ol~}ea~ aye 'aNW leul6uo aye uo s~uawwoo s,aol}}o anon( o~ ~uensmd
s~oedua~ o~eal
•~oafoad sly ~o~ pasodwl aq s~loeq~as leuol~lppe ~tue ~ey~ puawwooaa
you saop }}ens `aao~a~ayl •anl~oafgo sly y~lM ~ua~slsuooul aq pinonn suol~eulwaa~ap
6uluoz pue 6uluueld s,/(~l~ aye ~o ~uawlll}In~ apadwl o~ sasn 6ulwao~uoouou
6ul~slxa 6ulnnolld ('L89 `£89 K~Z•le~ L£ (~56~) ua~an~~oW •n o6aip ues ~o ~~uno~
`•fi•a `aas) •sasn 6u!w~o~uoouou ~o uol~eulwlia lenpea6 aye sl 6uluoz ~o anl~oafgo /~ewlad
e ~ey~ pazlu6ooaa aney s~ano~ •slao~ed ~uaoefpe uo ~uawdolanap ln~^Ael ulea~suoo
you plnoys sasn 6ulwao~uoouou uo s~oedwl yons ~ey~ sl uol~lsod s~e~s `pa~eda~d
uaaq sey nnalnaa le~uawuoalnua a~enbape /(Ile6al a pue `apoo 6uluoz pue s~uawnoop
6uluueld s,~(~l~ ay} y~lM ~ua~slsuoo sl ~oafoad pasodoad aye sy •sasn 6ulw~o~uoouou
aae ~oafo~d aye ~o ~(~lul~ln aye ul pa~eool asn lel~uapisa~ ~ool~-sal} ao~ paan6l}uoo
s6ulpilnq ~uaw}~ede aye a~o~a~ayl •uol}eu6lsap asn puel lelo~awwo~ unno~unnoa aye
ul sasn lel}uaplsa~ aool~ ~s~l~ s~lglyoad Ueld leaaua~ aye `~(lleuol~lppd •sasn lel~uaplsa~
apnloul ~ey~ saan~ona~s ao~ paalnbaa aye s~lwaad asn pue `suogou~saa ~y6lay ~noy~lnn
pa~lw~ad sl ~uawdolanap cull 301-off-cull col a~aynn `~ola~slp 6uluoz lelo~awwo~ unno~unnod
aye ul pads aae /(~aadoad ,s~uallo ~no~( pue ~oafad aye `aNW aye ul pa~ou se `~ay}an~
•alq!sea~ul ~lleoluyoa~ ~oafo~d
aye ~apuaa plnoo ails lel~ue~sgns ~o ~loeq~as a '6ulpue~sy~lnn~ou suol~eolldwl olwouoo~
•saoeds 6ul~~ed ~o ssol a ul 6ul~lnsaa `s}~oddns lean~on~}s pue 6ulw~o~ pa~eolldwoo
aaow aalnbaa wnwlu!w a ~e II!nn suol~eol}lpow Yong •adolanua 6wpllnq ~allews e
uly~lnn am~on~~s 6ul~laed a a~epowwoooe o~ ~ap~o ul wa~s~(s 6uldwe~ aye o~ suol~eo~lpow
o} anp ~lledloul~d sl slyl •alglsea~ul ~loeq}as a yons a~lew swaouoo olwouooa
pue leoluyoa~ '~anannoy `~oeq~as a~enbape ue aplnad o~ a~n~on~~s aye 6ulu6lsapa~
~o ~~!I!q!ssod aye aau6lsap ~oafo,ad aye y}lnn passnoslp sey }}e}g •~oafo~d aye ao~ paalnbaa
aq ~loeq~as a fey} pa~sanba~ aney no~('s~oedwl nnopeys pue nnaln o~ ~oadsa~ y~lN- `~(lleUl~
•sls~(leue aay}~n~ sa~lnbaa ~ey~ waouoo
le~uawuoalnua ~(ue ~uasa~d op ~nq 'uoluldo ~o aouaaa}}lp a ~uasaadaa ~(ew s~oedwl
nnopeys pue nnaln uo s~uawwoo aye `yons sy •uolsnlouoo sly y~lM ~(oenbapeul le6al
~(ue aslea o} ~eadde you op s~uawwoo mod •pa~oa~.e aae snnaln asoy~ yolyM o~ aa~6ap
aye ~o ssalp~e6aa 'adeospuei uegm alge~aewa~un ~o snnaln a}enlad ~oa~oad you saop
y~~~ ~ey~ a~eaa~laa ann ~nq `}oal'oad ay} ~o s~oedwl nnaln aye ~o ln~pulw sl }}e}g •~ay}a6o}le
snnaln ~iay~ a~eu!w!la II!M ~! ~eull aay~ea ~nq `se~sln oluaos }o snnaln ~(ue a~eu!w!la II!M
uol~ona~suoo ~ey~ you sl ~oafoad aye o~ uol~oafgo ,s~uallo ano/( }eye a}ens s~uawwoo mod
•~uawnoop
dD3~ al6uls a ui sls~(leue al6uls a ~o fed se pa~enlena aae sanssl aye aaaynn away
Z abed
8002/U£
s}uauawo~ o} asuodsa~ - asn}one}g 6u!~~ed anuany ~all!W
Miller Avenue Parking Structure -Response to Comments
3/7/2008
Page 3
between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any
circulation system." (MND, appen.D.)
Contrary to your assertion, the 1traffic impacts of the loading and delivery area have
been adequately discussed in the MND. The document shows how trucks will access
the project site, and where they will be parked while making deliveries. While a final
determination regarding loading ;activities on Fourth Lane has not yet been made, the
analysis of the impacts of such activity complies with CEQA's requirement that all
reasonably foreseeable consequences of approval be analyzed. (See Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents c-f Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376.) Since staff has
reviewed the reasonably foreseeable consequences of project approval, including
potential loading activities on Fourth Lane, and determined that project approval will not
result in significant environmental impacts, the lack of a final use determination for
loading on Fourth Lane does not prohibit the City from approving the MND at this time.
With regards to the MND's analy;>is, Figure 3 demonstrates that there is adequate room
for a loading truck to maneuver in Fourth Lane. Further, the project has been designed
such that when a truck is parked at the loading station, it will not block circulation in
Fourth Lane. (See MND, fig. 3.) Wehicles will still be able to travel the length of the Lane
and tenants of 321 Miller Avenue will be able to access the Lane.
Conclusion
Your concerns throughout this process have been evaluated by staff and contributed to
the decision to revise and recirculate the MND. Your February 25, 2008, comments,
while appreciated, do not present a fair argument based on substantial evidence that
the project may have significant Environmental effects for CEQA purposes. Accordingly,
the MND is a legally adequate CEQA document. As no other substantial evidence of
significant impacts exists on the record, it is appropriate for the City Council to approve
the project based on the Revised MND.
Sincerely,
Chadrick malley,
Associate Planne
Cc: Joseph P. & Janice M. Caron
P.O. Box 389
South San Francisco, CA 94083
1065017.1
John H. Blake
Parma
DIRECT DIAIS
(650) 453084
I$~IAIL
[email protected]
l'ia U.S. Mail, Fax and E-Mail
Chadrick Smalley
Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
CORNER OF SELBY LANE~ATHERTON
AND EL CAMINO REAL~REDWOOD CITY
www.hanniglaw.com
2991 EL CAMINO REAL
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061-4003
TELEPHONE (650) 482-3040
Fncsnvm.E (650) 482-2820
January 8, 2008
ras~sas:
Tso J. HANNIc
Joriw FI. sLARB
ELLEN B. HAAS
WIId.IAM R WARH[1RS1+
PETER W. DANIEL
LORI A. BISFi
DAVID M. SHFSGRBEN
DAVID M. WOOLFB
•ADSIITI'ID W NEVADA 6c
ca>.~onNu
Re: Comments by Owners of 321 Miller Avenue to Mitigated Negative Declaration for Proposed
Miller Avenue Pazking Structure, under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Public Resources Code §§21000-21177
1. Introduction
This firm represents the owners of the ten-unit apartment building located at 321 Miller
Avenue in South San Francisco (the "321 Miller Owners"), which is adjacent to the proposed
project on the south east side. This is the right side of the project as viewed in figure 2
"Preliminary Site Plan" in the Mitigated Negative Declazation. The 321 Miller Owners, who
were not properly notified of the status of the project, still voiced objection to the proposed
project at the December 12, 2007 meeting.l
On December 12, 2007 the City Council began to consider a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has not been approved and this
matter is on the Council's January 23 agenda.
This letter focuses on (1) the need for a consideration of a set-back on the east side of the
proposed parking structure because of the devastating aesthetic impact of a four and a half story
structure situated mere feet from the windows of a residential structure, and (2) the traffic impact
of the project and the shortcomings in the traffic element of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
~ There are no meeting minutes available for the December 12 hearing as of the date of this letter. The 321 Owners
have obtained and reviewed a DVD recording of the meeting, and references in this letter are to the time stamp on
that DVD.
{9009:TEMP:PWD:H0064068.DOC.1 }
{ ['~OQ'8904900H~QAAd~dW3.L~6006)
•am;on.Rs sc~ uo ~ooi ~ucdo{s g st asaq~ pus ~~ ~aozs auo s< ~gM aq,1, z
tios~ •~sdun aq~3o aoaso~~is a~3o uoi~sutuua~ap aq~ uo ~uusaq uot~on.~sgo a~~o ,uiurcxoid
aq~ pus pa~oa~s snnarn3o zaqumia a~~o aor~siapisuoa s ~u~n `ssaoozd d~~~ aq~ m paiapisuoo
aq pinogs snnatn a~snud ~~ `iaq~s.~ `a~s~s u~aiatp panto saquo~ns a~ pus suotstoap asoq,I,
•ZLS ~~'dd~'•is~ ZZi (b00Z) ~falaa~.rag~o ~?~ •n unru^aoS P~ 6bZ ~~•dd~'iB~ 6£i (900Z)
o8a?Q unSJo ~Ct?~ •n dno.r~ uounn.rasa.~d ~?uncuu~o~;saw ~.rnd `;sa.roll?H 11?H s,laa~ung sa~io
~S •~uacua~s~s s eons a~stu uo?gM ~o ia~tau `suoTStoap .moo a~siiaddg onn~ sa}to ~S
•nnsi atg3o ~uacua~s~s ~oauoaui us st ,~uruas usgm us ui pa~scuis uagnn
,~iasinopssd `snnatn Bons ~aa~oid you saop yag~ boa Cozd a~ ~q pa~osdan aas snnain a~snud bus
~stp ~aa~xa aq~ off„ ~sqx uopsisiaaQ ani~sSaK pa~s~r~ry~ aq~~o tii a~sd ~s ~uaura}8~s sS
('(a)I P~ (s)I saot~sanb `~ xtpaaddd `sautlaP~J)
«Ls~utpanoams ski pus axis aq~~o ~tisnb io ia~asasga isnsin ~a~stxa a~ aps.~ap ~iisRas~sgns
~aafoui ark pino~„ pas «~,s~stn otuaos s uo ~oa~a aslanps ist}us~sgns s ansq ~oafoid aq~ pino~„
:s~aa~a p~uaazaonnua isqua~od s,~oa fold s ~o ~sipjaago auk ui suogsanb ~uuhoiio3 a~ ~uipniou~
,fq soRa~sas ~o ~daauoa aft o~ ~ua~uoo anti saugapm~ yZjg~ au,I, •~oa~ozd o~ pa~saio ssm
~~jg~ ~sq~ sanssi or~a~sas aq~~o ~sd ais anuany;atitYll iZ£ ~o apisat aq~ u~oz3 sn~atA
•~g us 3o sissq acp aq pinogs `~usognz~is
pauzaap 3i pus `n~atnai p~uauraoirnua ~Cus ut pa~snisna aq pinogs ~asdun sags, •anuand
•TaiIFY~I iZ£ ~~3 nnatn aq; uo ~aafoid a~~o ~osduzi aq~ ssnusip o~;oauooui si ~T~ aci,I,
•o~ogd a~ 3o auk aq~ ~o doh aq~ usq~ ia~ aq
pinom `pasodosd sB ~imq 3t `am~onr~s ~upjisd aq,I, •~tq sauo~s 31~ s pus mod `iisnn poi ~urxisd
acp ~q paosidai aq iii^~ qo~~ `'an~v' miITJH £Z£ ~ z~~Pimq ~o~s-auo ~urpimq ~ai~sixa a~ o~
(gai aq~ uo) anaany ~ailiL~I iZ£ is $~Pimq ~aau~sdB atg 30 ,~iuzixoid a~ snnogs i o~ogd
•astgan.gs ~i~gd aqy utau,~ ;aanQ anuan~
1a[ItL1i IZ£ uI s,~opu~M aqZ moi,~ s.~a~A aq;;o uo~uaiunt~ I~os. a~I.L 30 ~s sub .~p
QoU~apisao~ off s~}uo~;I asnuaag;uaw3aQ sI aopu.~slaaQ an~u aH pads ~tyq aqZ •z
•~Zj~~ iapun a~ua~o is~ai
p~ssa~ns s s~su 1T ~uauznaop panns~ s~ uodn sagas ~I~ aq~ ~I •sts,iisus pus ,~osmoos ~o lanai
a~ismbai aq} un~uoo you saop ij asnsoaq ~uaiogap si aoRsasioaQ anRB~aK pa~s~t~iy~ aq,I,
om,L a~sd
$OOZ `8 ~'.renusr
~aiisuiS ~orzPs~t~
Chadrick Smalley
January 8, 2008
Page Three
of these cases indicates that factual analysis is necessary and that each situation should be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
Decisions cited by the Court of Appeal in the Bowman opinion further demonstrate this
requirement. In Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn, Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist. (2d Dist.
2004), 116 Ca1.App.4th 396, 402, the court wrote: "The District cites nothing in CEQA that
relieves it from considering the impact of the project on private views. To say there is no
common law right to a private view, is not to say that the District is relieved from considering
the impact of its project on such views.... That a project affects only a few private views may be
a factor in deterrlin~ng whether the impact is significant." In Mira Mar Mobile Community v.
City of Oceanside (4a' Dist,. 2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 492, the court wrote: "aesthetic issues,
such as public and private views, aze properly studied in an EIR to assess the impacts of a
project."
Further, the cases cited by Staff are factually distinguishable and the projects in those
cases had nowhere near the impact of this project. In the Banker's Hill case, the project
proponent voluntarily implemented significant setbacks to its project to m;nim;~.e the impact on
neighbors. Banker's Hill, supra at 272. In Bowman, the nearest residential property was 50 feet
away from the project, and the project proponent took steps to m;nim;~e shading impacts.
Bowman, supra at 585. In Ocean View Estates, the private residences surrounded a reservoir but
did not abut a tall structure the way that 321 Miller does. Ocean View Estates, supra at 399. In
contrast, the residents of 321 Miller Avenue will likely not even be able to see the sky through
those windows if the project is built as proposed.
Accordingly, the severely obstructed views of the residents of 321 Miller Avenue from
the windows facing the wall of the pazking structure should be considered and mitigated under
CEQA. The City should analyze the impact of the placing of a four and a half story structure
mere feet away from residential windows. Appropriate mitigation measures may include but are
not limited to an appropriate set-back.
3 The Mitigated Ne ative Declaration Is Deficient Because It Contains No Consideration
Of Shadows And Shading Issues Resulting From Locating A Four and Half Story
Structure Onlv Five Feet Awav From An Ezisting Residential Structure.
Shadows and shading are potential significant environmental effects under CEQA. The
City has failed to even consider the impact of the lazge parking structure on the neighboring
properties. The Court of Appeal for the First District has written: "We presume that many if not
{9009:T'EMP:PWD:H0064068.DOC.1 }
{ I'~OQ'8906900H~QMd~dYd~.L~6006}
o~e.R LOOZ `L ~Sascuga3 ~ uo salsas uol~szeioaQ angB$aN pa~s8l~ly~t aq~ `~sil3 :s~sm 8uinnoiio3
a~ ut a~snbapeul sl uol~eisioaQ anl~g~aN pa~s8l~ly~ arp `s~asdun og~ of paeSaz ~1~c1
•panoidds aq ~iis4ai ~ouuso uol~sieioaQ anRsSaN
pa~~eBAIy~I aq~ pus `sls~Cisus 3o lanai a~lsmbaa a~ ~Cq pa~oddnsun st uolsniouoo srgy •uol~s8t~luz
8uumbai ~oafosd aq~ ~o ~sduzl ~ueo~lu8ls ~nsr~ua~od s se sanssl a~s~ ~uapl uana o~ si?s3
uol~sasioaQ anl~sSaH pa~s8l~liili acli, •ssaoozd y~g~ aq~ ul paiaplsuoo aq pinogs ~sq~ sio~os3
~uauiuoilnua se ate pus uops~odsue.~ sa~r~uapt suor~einSag ~o apo~ sltuo~lis~ ate,
.s;ate
a~uiy 3o sls isuy ~aala~nS s Qls;nod ;oH saoQ uous.~BiaaQ ant;B art Pang N6I~1i aAS '~
•~ualogap `aio~aia~ `sl pus ansst snp saaou~l
uol~B~BioaQ anl~sBaN pa~sBl;IY~i ~uauno aqs •Tosduzl ~usogtu8ls sli,B3o ~oa~a a~ aanpas o~ sxosq
-has of pa~luIli;ou ~nq 8ulpnioul samseaui uot~BBr~nu aigsuoseai iaptsuoo pinogs ~l~ aui,
'Zt~9 `0£9 ~b'dd~''ls~ 9 i x£66 i `'3sIQ PZ) salaSu~ so7 jo
~1~ •a .ro~iuoy~1nuo~Sa~ ~ Inao71~ P~ `•68£i `58£i ~ti'dd~''is~ £SI ~LOUZ `~sIQ PZ) `salaSu~
so7 jo ~:~ •a dno.~~ a;nlsg lna~ srar~;org iunyy apnioul s~oBdun ~uauzaonnua ~ueor~lu8ls
~r~ua~od se pa~aplsuoo aiann 8ulpsgs pus snnopsgs golgnn ul saseo ia~p •s~oa~a nnopsgs
uns ou ansu pinonn ~oafoid aq~ asneoaq pailnbas ssm uogs~plui ails-uo ou ~~ papniouoo uolunn
`~pn~s 8ulpsgs s 8unis~zapun ~q uor~szaplsaoo o~ul s.~oq~lau aq~ xoo~ Flo ~, «•aiglsea~ asaclen
`snnaln a~snud„ ~uaosfps aesasaid o~ pau8lsap seen pus asn ~uaosCps aq~ o~ anAlsuas„ sem ~~
~oafoid s panoidds ~Bq~ Flo s~o s8ulpug a~ piagdn isaddy~o ~.mo~ aq~ `~6ti `LLb y,b'ddB•p;~
6i i ~b00Z '~sIQ t~) aptsuz~aop jo ~T~ •n ~tunu~ruo~ aligoy~ .~z~yy b.~:yTr ui •uol~siaplsuoo o~ul
ua~ aq pinous ~ulpsus pus senopBgs ~eqT uotTisod a~ uoddns suolsloap yag~ ia~p
•paTsBl~lu~ aq pinogs pue isrius~sgns aq iilnn 8ulpsgs s~~afoid
pasodosd aqi, •~~ sauo~s ~ieti s pus mod `ilsen poi Sulxasd a~ ~q paosidai aq II?~ uo?gM `'any
~aiITY~I £Z£ ~ 8ulpimq ~ul~slxa aq~ o~ anuany iaiity~ i Z£ ~ $utpimq ~uaux~asds aq~ ~o ,f~lunxoad
aq~ smous uolgnn `i o~ogd uis8s aas •senopulnn Tuau~ds aqi is}ua iilnn ~g8ipzns ~ius3i ai~li pus
`uosud s axli x~i iii ~I 'a~niosgs dixeau aq iilnn s;uau~sds anuany ~zanly~i iZ£ aq~~o snnopulnn
a~ Luor~ ~aa~ S ~~~ iii ~ni }~~ 09 iaags s ~Cq pasnso 8ulnnopsus pus 8ulpsgs aci,L
'98S `ZLS ,~ti'ddy'ie~ ZZi ~'b00Z) ~Cajaa~.~ag jo ~c~ •a
unutMOg «•~osduzl ~uauzuoilnua ~uso~lu8ls s Tuasaidai pinoo `isl~us}sgns ~Cpualogins 3l `s~a~a
asoq~ i~3 pus `sat~adozd ~(q~eau uo s~oa~a 8ulpsgs autos ansq iilnn s~uauidoianap uegm ~soui
.mo,~ a8ed
$OOZ `$ ~zsnuer
~atieui5 slauP~i~
Chadrick Smalley
7anuary 8, 2008
Page Five
study by the Crane Transportation Group that completely ignores the traffic impact on Fourth
Lane, the narrow one-way alley that borders the project on the south side. Second, the Traffic
Study is based on an estimate of the office space square footage that has since been significantly
revised upward. The traffic study must be revised to address these issues before it can form the
basis of any traffic conclusions in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
In addition, City staff stated on the record that several traffic-related issues raised by the
public and the Council members would be addressed at a later date. As explained below, this
violates CEQA.
4.a. Description Of Fourth Lane Corridor and Traffic Impacts.
Fourth Lane is an important corridor to the 321 Miller owners and their tenants.3 It is a
narrow one-way alley (see Photos 2 and 3) spotted with vehicles, some parked legally, some not.
The back side of 321 Miller appears in Photo 4 on the right side, with a red truck parked
alongside. The ten-space parking area for 321 Miller Avenue is accessible only from Fourth
Lane. Residents leaving the parking area at 321 Miller must turn right and travel west (away
from the photographer) because Fourth Lane is a one-way alley.
Photos 4 and 6 show a common occurrence; a person stopping their car behind the St.
Vincent DePaul Society (street address 344 Grand Ave) in order to donate items. The 321 Miller
Owners and their tenants attest that it is not uncommon to see more than one car in this area as
people queue to drop off donations.
Directly across the alley from this point, Photo 5 shows a shed at the location of the south
east corner of the project area. According to the Preliminary Site Plan, this is where the Loading
Area will be.
At the December 12 hearing the architect suggested that delivery or trash trucks might
back into this loading area, if it is used for loading at a114 Such a driving maneuver would be
challenging under the best of conditions because of the narrow alleyway, and Photos 4 and 6
show that it would be impossible if there was a car (or two) parked behind St. Vincent De Paul.
It is not hard to imagine what would happen on that alley if more than one delivery truck arrived
at the same time. Businesses on Grand Avenue which back onto Fourth Lane on this block also
include a grocery store, a bakery, and a hardware store.
s The photographs of Fourth Lane were taken at about 3:00 pm on January S, 2008.
a 12/12/07 Meeting, minute 2:33-2:35.
{9009:TEMP:PWD:H0064068.DOC.1 }
{ i'~OQ' 8904900H~QAnd~dl^i9.L~6006}
'(aseaiotn %OS ~Iasau s) coeds aot~o~o ~aa~ OOL`£i mou st aaaq~
isq~ os pa~uet;o uaaq setj ~afotd atp autq ~ql aatns pue `coeds aot~o 30 ~aa~ OOZ6 ~l plCtonn ataq~
~stg pa~s~s uoRsaslaaQ anr~sBaN pa~s~i~ry~ atp ut pasta ,ipn~s o~s.~ LOOZ ~iasntga3 aqs,
•~ a2I ~~z.L a~ ~ Pa;s~s~ tip u0
~tp a s~oo3 a.tBn s acs S aot,~p a~oy~ %OS ~H nnoK }~.OZd aiLL 'i'a'b
•pasinai aq ~sntu ~pn~s ot~e.R acQ, •~pn~s ot~e.~ a~smoosui ue uo ~Iaa o~ sau}
~T 3i d~g~ ~o uot~Bjoin a s~su ~t~ atQ, •a~smaasut ~ipn~s ate aapuai gatgn~ LOOZ ,S.iBruga3 ~
auez~•,fq ~pnys ot~,~ atp~o uopanpotd atp corns paitnaoo anstt sa~usgo ~ueogcu~ts ones
•suoi~ umss~ pub s~os3 pa~sp~np up saila~ ~I
asnsoag alsmoo~ ~oN sI s~uau ~d loa.~d atLL S u n PatIa2I PAS o~.L atl.I. 'a'b
•ausZ tpano3 ui stua~sd a~e.~ a~snlsna
o~ ~.teSSaoau pus a~sudatdds ~iaa~ua si ~t sntl,I, '9-SSL `8bL P£'ddd'is~ ZZZ (0661) ~falucv~
•a s~uapnlS 11 ~' an.~as o~ uopay uazut,7 •s~uaut8as peon pus suo~oasza~tn tpoq aapisuoo use
~iptus a~enbaps ue `patpn.~s aq plnogs suopoasza~ut ~Iuo ~stp uotsniouoo s~ausa~ ~o adds uI
•(a~snbapsui aq o~ puno3 seen s~osdun aat~o
pus o~3o uor~duosap atg uo~M tn) ZZI i `60i i ~,b'dd~''Is'J 09 (L66I) •~siQ ~uau~a.8nuny~
.ra~n~ nlnsutuad ~'a.~a;uoy~ •n p.rn~faus~ a;unln~ acs •s~osdun;oa[oad az,Cleue ~Iaadoad o~
ajgtssodun it stapaaz suot~ipuoo ot~e.r~ Sugstxa aquosap ~ia~snbaps o~ amjre~ s~~i~ atQ•
•~ g~ sa~siotA os oQ oZ amlre3 atp pus
spas uti ot~saZ asat~, paaaptsuo~ ansH plnotlS uoi~sistoaQ anus aK pa}s t~iyq atQ• •q•~
•aus~ tpmo3 ui s~osdun o~ .toy uor~s~pitu ss boa [oid panoidds ,bus ~o ~tsd se (puno~.tapun
paosjd sat~tjpn atp pus) panouta~t aq pinogs uorgnn `,fans atp ut saiod ~q~n3o .taqutnu
s nnot;s osls so~oucl atQ, •aueZ tptno3 uo satlinpos pus sash atn ~ut~st~snllt .tatnm3 `~Csnn~ajls
atn ut saa~sdump tlse.~ Isaanas pus zappsl s uo ustu s nnot;s osle g pus L `g so}oqd
•stseq asp~ai s uo uaddsu
o~ ~ia~ si uonsn~is (aiglssedun pus) aigtssoduti stg1, •~iails ,isnn-auo atn ~o asnsoaq o~ o~ paoto~
aie anuany ialltlnI iZ£~o s}uapisai ~ur~ixa atp aiatlnn ~t~u st xoaua~oq Ie~ua~od sig1,
xis abed
8002 `$ ~.tenut.r
~aITs~S ~ta?•tPsu~
Chadrick Smalley
January 8, 2008
Page Seven
Without anv facts in support, the Mitigated Negative Declazation states: "Though the
project contains 4,500 more square feet of commercial space than originally analyzed by the
traffic study, this difference would not represent a material change in project impacts." This
conclusion is not supported by any data or explanation.
On the other hand, professional transportation engineers and major city governments
understand that an increase in square footage leads to an increase in trip generation (See: Trip
Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Journal 7th Edition; see also, San Diego
Municipal Code, Land Development Code, Trip Generation Manual 2003).
The First District Court of Appeal would likely disagree with Crane's conclusion. In
American Canyon Community United for Responsible Growth v. City ofAmerican Canyon (1~`
Dist. 2006), 145 Ca1.App.4th 1062, the Court of Appeal held that a city's reliance on a low
squaze footage estimate, rather than a higher and more accurate estimate, in order to make traffic
projections, was not supported by substantial evidence and violated CEQA. The court wrote:
"The City's low calculation of the (project's) square footage fatally undermines its conclusion
that the (project) would have no significant effects on traffic requiring supplemental
environmental review."
4 c 2 The Traffic Study Presumed that Traffic Would Exit Onto Fourth
Lane, Which is No Longer the Case.
The February 2007 traffic study cited in the Mitigated Negative Declaration presumed
that cazs would be exiting onto Fourth Lane, which is no longer the case.
Figure 8 of the Crane Traffic Report contemplates that a number of cars will be exiting
the parking structure onto Fourth Lane. Since the report, the City has changed the plan so that all
exiting vehicles will exit on Miller Avenue This impact is amplified because of the increased
square footage as described above.
Because of this new information the Crane Traffic Study does not support a "no
significant impact" finding on the traffic issue. The errors and omissions in the Crane Study
discussed above result in an incomplete, distorted-and hence inaccurate-picture of the
project's traffic impact.
{9009:TEMP:PWD:H0064068.DOC.1 }
{ I'~OQ'8904900H~QMddYd3.L~6006}
'S£~Z-££~Z ainunu `~utiaay~ LO/ZI/ZI s
•9b£T `£££T ,~b 'ddd'1g~T0i ~ZUOZ) 'u[uto,~ Su?uunld
na.r~ ~[allo~l u~nos •ti •aul `sas?.~dra;u~ •r~?~~) ~aoa aq~ o} aouapina ~i~u~sgns si azac~~ uana
(SL ~~ n.~dns •oul `I?O off) ~~ogdun ~uauraonnua ~ugog~ts angu,iguc ~oafo~d a~ ~~ aouapina
igr~ug~sgns 3o stsgq arg uo pan~ig ~tite~ aq ugo ~i aanauatinn„ pa~Bdaid aq ~snui 2iI3 ~' '(L T £ t
-9T £i `LO£ i ~,b•dd~d•ig~ 9 (Z66 T) o~ouos• jo ~[tuno,~ •ti qnl,~ n.rra?s) «nnatnai ~uauiuonnua
~o ~ong~ ut s~gnop 8utntosas .~o~ aouaia3azd„ B pug (b8 `89 P£'ig~ £i (bL6T) sata8ulr so7
jo rtt?~ •a •oul Y?O ot~i) «2II3 ug ~o uopnigdasd ion ~uautaxmbaz ptogsa.~ moT g„ si a~acH,
•Z09T `L6SI ~,b'ddH'ig~ 6Z (b66T) sn;?utou~ jo ~?,~ •~ •oul ~uounpunod
suap.m~ Ino?un~og Ilona •m~o ~gui s~ogdun ~ugo~is ~~ « <~uaum~.~ i~,I, ,> g st
asaq~ zanauagnn paambai st ~g uy ' T90IZ § apo~ saomosag atTgnd •ioafozd aq~ o} san~euia~Tg
sa~gotpui pug pazuz aq ~ct`dnu s~aa~a }usar~~is ua~nn ut s~ignn s~stT `~uauiuonnua aq~ uo
anBu ~gui ~oaCoad pasodoid E ~oa~a ~Ta~?T a~ }noq~ uoi~guuo~n paire~ap sapinozd ~g ud
'Z9iSi
§ 2I~~ bi o~ ~ugnsmd paiaptsuoa aq pinogs ~g ug aTgissodun st s~~ pug `s~ogdun zugag~is
zoo paxmba~ st uoRE~r~tuz a~gnbapy •~afo~d a~3o s~ogdun o~gr~ a~ pug `~utpimq ~uauz~dg
Tgr~uaptsaa ~ut~sixa ug ~o snnoputnn aq~ uioq ,ignng ~aa3 and ~snC iignn ~oo~ 09 g BuiPimq ~q
pasnga s~agdun aq~ iaptsuoa ~Ciit13 0~ uor~.rulaaQ anpv~a~ pa;n8uty~ pasodord arl; jo jvao~ddn
ploygnn~ of itauno~ acp aim s.~aunnp jaIIT7~I T Z£ a~ `anoq~ passnaszp suosgas acg ao3
uotsniauo~ •S
['96Z P£'dd~'Tg~ ZOZ ~886i) ou?oopuay~,~o ~uno,~ x u~o.gspuns `•$•a
`aaS] •d~g~ sa~gioin ~ugogn~is asg s~agdun ia~agm auiuua~ap o~ sts,~ign8 amp uo aaugiia~
•pasn aq pinonn Bang ~utpBOT aq~ nnoq auturia~ap o~ panoaddg uaaq sgu uougreiaaQ anr~g~aN
pa~EgRty~ a~ aa}ig Tr~un ~~nn pug nnou uoisiaap g a~u o~ ig~aii? PnB ~uoinn aq pinonn 1I
•siagio pug anuan~ ianty~ iZ£3o s~uaptsai a~ ~ogdun
ping `auaZ gamo3 o~uo iTids o~ ~ia~ an3 sar~tnriog ~utpgoT asngoaq ~ugog~is si srg1, •}r-d aq II~
Barg ~~ asn;ggnn o~ again you si Tt pug S`pautcug.~oid,~TTgogioads uaaq you sgq ~gar~ ~uipgo~,
aq~ sg pa~gu~tsap gang aq~ 1~ paTsa~~ns ~oa~~aag a~ Suragaq Z T aaquiaaaQ aq~ id
•s~ae u11 oi~as anEH ilitlA uoisiaaQ snp sd oN ap
utpgoZ ao~ Paso aq it~ad iittltl. nog S utpBO'I acp aaq~aunn saptaaQ t~ acp
Ii}un uogBagioaQ anp~ aK Pam Rry~j aq~3o ~noa ~' ol~i ~i PTnogS aaau,I, •£ 'o'b
~u~t~ a8gd
SOOZ `8 ~n~f
~CaitgcuS ~ataPgu~
Chadrick Smalley
January 8, 200$
Page Nine
The time is right for further review, as the Council has made no decision on the project,
and no notice of determination has issued. Traffic issues in this area are a high priority for the
City and its citizens, and traffic impacts should be thoroughly analyzed in compliance with the
law.
Encl.: Photos 1-8
cc: Client
{9009:TEMP:PWD:H0064068.DOC.1 }
j
1
-},
PHOTO 1
.4
~~
~. ~ ~~
.~.
~,
~P `~ .,~'! ~~ ---
~` __`~'~ ~.~r
,~ , ..w...rl
.... ~:
~~
:.
~~..
,~
PHOTO 3
'=~~*~M
_* ~4:.
3rk~
'nc
'i~
,`i
p r
~~ .d
f i 1;M1
u:'~ _
b
~.
f
f ~,~~ ~ 3
•. ...~..._. ~~r
PHOTO 4
:.
u.
.~'~'
~•_
~ ~ 9
~- w.
r. ~ a . , : .
~:,_y„,~~~y~
~~ r
u
3
~~
`ri, 7
PHOTO 5
~i, ~.
~,«, ~ .R
1' +.'
' Cf rh ,.
~ ~ ~~ ~:.
~'~ t ~~ S.
I ~~'
~ ~ J•
~ y ~
F
t '~. 1..
~~~
"~
PHOTO 6
f;
PHOTO 7
~,
!J".
~~
d'
;;.
~~
t
,~
~ ~~
d~ _,
t
t
PHOTO 8
,t
~"
- F ~~' 1 [
_ Vk~ y~
~~ ~ ~~~ r ~ r~ " Y,
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ,_ ~~`~ ~ 4
~~ 20®8
PUBLIC REVIEW,AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO A~~~~l
RECIRCULATEIJ,4~NiITIGATED NEGAT.[«.DECLARATIOl<T~"ter F~~~~,`~
FOR MILLER A,~TENUE PARhI~ G STRUCTURE
~f_ ~ _~
~. ,:_
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of South San-Francisco has completed the Negative
Declaration for the Miller Avenue Parking Structure, and it is available for public review and
comment for 20 days. Copies are available at the Orange Avenue Library- 804 W. Orange
Avenue, the Grand Avenue Library - 306 Walnut Avenue, Planning Division - 315 Maple
Avenue and in the offices of the City Clerk - 400 Grand Avenue.
PROJECT
Miller Avenue Parking Structure
City of SSF Redevelopment Agency/applicant-owner
Miller Avenue (AP:iVs 012-312-040 through 012-312-070)
The Miller Avenue Parking Structure is proposed to be a 4%2 story public parking structure with
up to 13,700 square feet of ground floor commercial space, to be located on the three existing
surface parking lots on the south side of the 300 Block of Miller Avenue (APNs 012-312-040,
050 and 060) and the existing residential properties at 323 Miller Avenue (APN 012-312-070) in
the Downtown Commercial (D-C) Zoning District.
The comment period for this document commences on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 and will
close on Monday February 25, 2008. Written comments regarding the Negative Declaration
must be received by the Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, by no later
than 5:00 PM on February 25th, 2008. Please send all comments to: Chadrick Smalley,
Associate Planner, Planning Division, City of South San Francisco, P.O. Box 711, South San
Francisco, CA 94083.
If you have any questions, please call Chadrick Smalley, Associate Planner, at (650) 877-8535
and FAX 650/829-6639.
/s/ Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner
Planning Division, City of South San Francisco
~'^ ~
~t'l lv ~9~-
ADELA HERNANDEZ
WRITTEN COMMENTS
ozi ~ aloe
,:.
~~:
• ~ - ~~`~
'til ~~~~~!
~~
~~
~ m ~~ ~ ~~~
l
n1~
G~'~Y~ OOSTOITEZ uL n0 O T `uoiSTnT ~uT~
. 3 S ~ S .I ~.O .. .Q id
zauu~Id ~a~O `ur~~}I ~snS /s/
'6£99-6Z8/OS9 Xy3 PTA
S£S8-LL8 (059) ~~ `zauu~Id aa~~taossy `~all~uzS xa?~P~uO it~o aseald `suor~sanb ~;u~ an~u no~i~I
'£8016 ~dO
`oasiau~z3 usS il~noS `I iL xog •O•d `oastau~z,~ u~S q~noS ~o ~T~ `uoistniQ ~uiuu~Id `zauu~td
a~~eiaossy `~alpuzS xoup~Tlp :off s~.uaurcuoa IIe peas as~atd '8002 `A,SZ ~-~~nn~P uo Y~Id OO~S ~~
za~~I ou ~iq `oastousz,~ u~S Tpno S `anuany ald~y~ S I £ `uotsiniQ ~utuuejd aTp ~Cq pantaaaz aq ~snuz
uoT~EZEIoaQ ant~~~aN aip ~urpzs~az s~uaunuoa ua~urn '8002 SZ ni~n.~ga3 npuoyq uo asoia
III PAS 8002 b -~~naga3T~ puoy~ uo saauauzuzoa ~uauznoop s~ zoo pouad ~uauzuzoa aTlb
•~au~siQ ~utuoZ (O-Q) ~iazauzuzoO umo~unnoQ aip
ut (OLO-ZI£-ZIO Ndb') anuany zatIjI~I £Z£ }~ sai~.zadozd I~t~.uapisaz ~u~sixa atp puE (090 P~ OSO
`O~b0-ZI£-ZIO sNdy) anuan~T zati?Y~i,Io ~IaoIg 00£ aip.~o apis Tpnos aTp uo s~ol ~unlz~ed aa~~zns
~ur~stxa aazq~ a~ uo pa~EOOI aq o~ `aa~ds p;iazauzuzoo zoos punoz~ ~o ~aa~ az~nbs OOL` £ I o~ do
r~inn azn~anz~s ~u~z~d aTlgnd ~;zo~s Z/ib ~ aq o~ pasodozd sT azn~anx~S ~uplzed anuany zallt~ aT~,
(OLO-ZT£-ZTO~ q~no.~q~ Oi~0-ZT£-ZTO sN~) anuany .~adry~
.~aun~o-~ue.igdd~/~faua~y ~uaiudoianaPa2i dSS ~o ~i~
a.zn~an.us ~t~a~d anuany ~a~
Z~~P02Id
•anuany pu~zrJ 00~ - xzalO PTO atp ~o saar~o aq} uT pug anuany
aid~y~ S I £ - uotsrntQ ~u~ruueld `anuany }nu~m 90 £ - ~zgt'I anuany pu~zp aTp `anuany
a~u~zO 'Ac1 X08 - ~.rezgtZ ,anuany a~u~zO a~, }~e alq~elren~ aze satdoO •s~fnP OZ zoo ~uauzuzoa
pue mainaz oilgnd zoo alq~Iren~e sT ~.i pub `a:n~~rt.~~ ~u~.cnd anuaa~ aallPllt ash; .ro, f uot~ntv1aaQ
anun~a~ acp pa~alduzoa s~TI oastau~z3u~~T~nos ~o ,~~ a~_~p~ N3AIJ ~g~2I~H SI ~OI,LOI~I
,.mss y ~ "~" ~ ~ ~
_° ~ _.
_,_
LL l.LL 1W~~~~FV ~ll ~l`~ I. ~~~ llO~
uois~za~Q ~~z~~ Q~~~:li~: ~Q~z~zn~iu,~~x
~ saoa~ os i~~i~ 30 ~ai~:~o~ a~ ~in~ ~IZgna
ao -~~,I~zr~~.~ ~o ~~rau
~~~.
~-
.'. ~ ~~
- - ~ ~~=
y~r
k; ;;
~ ~~~~
~:~ . `>T
~.~
~~ ~ ~ ~®®
PUBLIC RED
RECIRCULA'
FOR
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
OFD AY~ILABILIT-Y OF ~ ., ~
,..s ~ ~~F
t;~ ~~TIC~F OF INTENT TO AD `P'~~'~~r~ ~,
~IOA'I'ED NE~~TIVE DECLARATION ~~<,
`iTENUE PARKING S:T'RUCTURE
4.
7,
~~.
e; City o~ South San Francisco has completed the Negative
Declaration for the Miller Avenue Parking Structure, and it is available for public review and
comment for 20 days. Copies are available at the Orange Avenue Library - 804 W. Orange
Avenue, the Grand Avenue Library- 306 Walnut Avenue, Planning Division - 315 Maple
Avenue and in the offices of the City Clerk - 400 Grand Avenue.
PRC:,TECT
Miller Avenue Parking Structure
City of SSF Redevelopment Agency/applicant-owner
Miller Avenue (APNs 012-312-040 through 012-312-070)
The Miller Avenue Parking Structure is proposed to be a 4%z story public parking structure with
up to 13,700 square feet of ground floor commercial space, to be located on the three existing
surface parking lots on the south side of the 300 Block of Miller Avenue (APNs 012-312-040,
OSO and 060) and the existing residential properties at 323 Miller Avenue (APN 012-312-070) in
the Downtown Commercial (D-C) Zoning District.
The comment period for this document. commences on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 and will
close on Monday February 25, 2008. VG'ritten comments regarding the Negative Declaration
must be received by the Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, by no later
than 5:00 PM on February 25t~, 2008. Please send all comments to: Chadrick Smalley,
Associate Planner, Planning Division, City of South San Francisco, P.O. Box 711, South San
Francisco, CA 94083.
If you have any questions, please call C'hadrick Smalley, Associate Planner, at (650) 877-8535
and FAX 650/829-6639.
/s/ Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner
Planning Division, City of South San Francisco
~'
~ c ~~~
C~
~~ il~
~_ ~
~;~~
~~
~ ~l~dw
~~
. ~ _s •S
oasIauLZ,d ueS ~noS ~o [~ji~ `uoiSTAIQ ~unILlBtd
zauuEtd.IaT~tO `~It~?I ~isnS /s/
'6£99-6Z8/OS9 Xw'3 P~
S£58-LL8 (OS9) ~~ `zauu~id aa.~iaossy `~iaii~~S ataTZP~u~ It~a as~atd `suoi~sanb ~u~ an~eq no~~I
' £806 y0
`oasiou~z3 u~S TI~noS `I iL xog •O•d `oostauezd ueS i~noS~o CIO `uoisintQ ~uiuu~id `zauu~id
a~~iaossy `~at~uzS xoup~gp :off s~.uauzuzoo tip puas as~ald '8002 `A~SZ ~z~nu~p uo L~Id OO~S ~~
za}~t ou ,~q `oaslau~ez3 ue S ipno~8 `anuany atd~y~ S i £ `uoisintQ 8uiuuetd aq~ ~q paniaaaz aq }snuz
uor~~zutaaQ ani}~~aN aip ~ut~pze~az s~uauzuzoa ua~izrn '8002 SZ a~n.~ga,~ spuoy~ uo asola
IIZ^s Pn~ 8002 t~ -~nnaga3 Bpuoy~ uo saouauzuzoo ~uaumaop s~ zoo pouad ~uauzuzoo ate
•~oiz~siQ 8uiaoZ (~-Q) tutazauzizzop unno}unnoQ aq~
Tz? (OLO-ZI £-ZIO Nd~d) anuany zatity~ £Z£ ~~ saiazadozd tet~uapisaz 8uusixa aq} pug (090 P~ OSO
`0~0-Z I £-Z I O sNdy) anuany zattiy~ ~o ataotg 00£ aip ~o apis ipnos aip. uo s~oj 8u~z~d aaE~zns
~uI}sixa aazip aip uo pa}soot aq off. `aauds ~tazauziuoa zoos punoz~ ~o ~aa~ az~nbs OOL`£ i o~ do
Iptn~ azn}alu~s ~uixz~d attgnd ~;zo~s z~~ ~ aq o} pasodozd sI azn~onagS ~u~zed anuany zadty~ aim,
(OLO-ZT£-ZTO q~no~q~ Ob0-ZI£-ZIO sN~) anuany .~a~
.~aun~o-~u~~~gddB/~faua~~;uauidoianapag 3SS ~o ~11~
a.zn~anx~s ~upj.~~d anuany ~a~
Z~~1'02id
•anuany pu~ezp 00{, - xzat~ CIO a~ ~o saa~o aIp ui pug anuany
atd~y~ S I £ - uotsinlQ ~uiuu~id `anuany ~nu~~ 90 £ - ~rezgi7 anuany pu~~.z~ aip `anuany
a~u~z0 'm X08 -~.rezgiZ .anuany aSu~zQ aip`~~e atq~t~n~z az~ saido0 •s~ep OZ zoo ~uauzuioa
pug nnatnaz altgnd zoo aIa~irenie st ~T pug `aatu~n:i1,~ :~ut~.cvd anuany .ta11zyy a~; dv,~'uoyv.rn1aaQ
aa?~v.~a~ a~ pa~atduzoo s~r~ oasiou~3 u~~-ipno~~~o d1i~ aq.~}ELF Ng~p Ag~2I~H SI dOI,LON
.. _ ~.
~Ins~n~~ ~ ~a ~~~~ ~ xo3
I~IOI.L~2I~'I~~Q ~[11t.~~OI Q~;I~~'O'~,LII~1~-Q~.L~rIl1~2II~~2I
~ .LdO(I~ OZ .Li~I~,LI~II.30 ~~I~O~I QI~I~ ~~ ~I'Iglld
_...._
3Q,.-.~ZIrII~'~II~AV ,~0 ~~~~0'I~I
,,. -~ ~,
s~~ ~ ~ :,.
~~.
i ~ ~~_
Peter W. Daniel
Aasodate.9ttomey
650/482.3039 CORNER OF $ELBY LANE/ATHERTON
AND EL CAMINO REAL/REDWOOD CITY
~L www.hannielaw.com
pwdC3hanniglaw.wm 2991 EL GAMINO REAL
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061-4003
TEltrl-xolvB (650) 482-3040
FAr4IIv~F (650) 482-2820
By Facsimile, U.S. Mail and Elec~!ronic Mail
February 25, 2008
Chadrick Smalley
Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
DLIITN49C•
'1$D J. HAt~Ntc
Joxiv H. BLAT~
FI.[.S1N B. HAAS
WII.uAbi R WARHURST'r
ASSl2CdA17~S:
PETSY W. DANIEL
LORI A. SLSH
DAVID M. SI~SGRHBN
DAVID M. WooIFB
y-a~ nr Neven-t ciuosr~u
Re: Comments by Owners of 321 Miller Avenue to Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dated February 1, 2008 for Proposed Miller Avenue Parking Structure, Under California
Environmental Quality Act (C:EQA), Public Resources Code § §21000-21177
1. Introduction.
This firm represents the owners of the ten-unit apartment building located at 321 Miller
Avenue in South San Francisco (the "321 Miller Owners"), which is adjacent to the proposed
project on the south east side. This is the right side of the project as viewed in figure 2
"Preliminary Site Plan" in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
In order to comply with CEQA, City Planning Department Staff has prepared a revised
Mitigated Negative Declaration wbuch will shortly be under consideration. The most recent
version of this document is dated February 1, 2008. The previous version of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration was dated Dezember 20, 2007. No Mitigated Negative Declaration has
been approved.
This comment is directed ai; the February 1, 2008 revised Mitigated Negative Declaration.
On January 8, 2008, the 321 Millen Owners submitted comments to the prior version of the
{ZAMM2054:PVJD:H0066285.DOC.1 }
HANNIG LAW FIRM
WRITTEN COMMENTS
o2i2s~oe
{ t ~ooa•saz99oox~anaa~vsoz.v~u~n+z}
•snnopatnn asaq~ azog ~q~q ioua~xa ~oanpuc pus ~oaacp
Its ~Ciaeau;no ~ooiq tt~ sue, •anogs ~ipoairp sauo}s once usq~ azoui Sunuooi pas `snnopuinn nab
axo.~ ssosas ~poastp `,~snns }aa~ nna~ s ~snC item ~s~ s ansq nnoa iiu~n S~Pimq IZ£ aq~3o s~usaa~
lszanaS 'iii se3is~i ~pzo st goi~fM Suipimq isquapisa~ SauoggStau s cuoz~ ~snns ~aa3 nna~ s ~sn[
Pa~~Oi `SaiPtTnq ~~ 31sq s pue :mo3 iI~ man s aq iiTnn ~oafoid pasodoid aq~ `~iiduns ~
'CIA P~ ~~ !Z t[d u~uui~ml~ mpl~g ~}uapisa~
araoq ,aH ~ oZ asoi~ oS ~PimS i1B.L ~ ~1nd 30 s~au ~ azl,L ssnasiQ a;un p~
oZ ~g3 ~I;g~i,L aI assn apuul sI uoug.~uiaaQ anc1u Iii pa3g . ry1t pasinag aqy •z
•uor~sasioaQ ant~sSaN
pa~sSRry~ aq;~o ~uauiaia or~a~ atp ui sSunuoo~sogs aql pas ~oafoid aq~3o ~sdun or~s.A aq~
(Z) p~ `am~n.x}s isi;uapisaz s ~o snnoparnn aq~ uio~ ~aa~ aiaui pads am}onAs ~o~.s ~gq s pue
mod s3o ~sdan oRatgsas Saq~senap aq~~o asnsaaq am}mss Sa~sd pasodozd aq~~o opts ~ssa
aq~ ao ~sq-has s ~o uops~apisuo~a a ion paau aq.~ (i) uo sasnao; aa~lai s~ `aor~sasioaQ anReSaK
pa}s8gry~ ~uaz~no a~ is passaipps ~tia~scibape uaaq you ansq saa~guz asaq~ asnsoag
(Za~OS i 'sS~ apo~'is'J b i `saugapmrJ V~~~) 'panionai
aas s~oa~a p~aaumonniaa ~usagiaSis~i asogo ~i~aa~s atp iauusiu aq~ at ~afoid
aq~ panosdds ,iouaSs p~aaa~nuanoS ~ ~ignn saoseai aq~ otignd aq; o~ asoiasip (i,)
pus :aigisea~ aq o~ saSuego aq~ spag ~ioaaSs ~uaa~anoS aq~
uagnn samseatu uor~sSgn~u io sanpsaaa~is 3o asn aq~ gSnonp s~oa[oid ui saSusgo
Suumbai ~q ~uauiaonnua acp o~ aSsarep aigspions `~asogmSis ~uanaid (£)
°paanpai
~gusog~ts so papiong aq use aSsaisp ~aauxaoarnua ~sq~ s~isnn aq~ ~puapI (Z)
`sauinr~os pasodoad~o s~oa~a p~aauiuonnua ~ueor~u, Sts
`isr~ua~od atp ~nogs a~iignd a~ pas siaxsuiaotsioap p~uaunuanoS auo~ (i)
:off
aye gotgm `NZ?~~ 30 «s~daouo~ isiaua~„ atp o~ ~usnsmd ~uaunuanoS .naq~ uto~ ~oadxa pinogs
oggnd aq~ 3o cogs silg3 nRs ;uamnoop atp `.~anannoq `ip~an,p •jatijL~I i Z£ ao s~asdun mopegs
~usograSts aq~ ~Ciasaia asout a~sa~snip saop ~uaumoop nnaa a~ `aida~xa .to,~ •~uauianoidan
~qS~s s si uogsisioaQ anr~s8ai~ pa~e8~ry~ pasinai aq~ `luaumoop IsaoRsuuo~cn as sd
•aopsisiaaQ anr~sSa~~ pa~sSpry~ aq~~o uoisian loud aq~ SarpisSai apeiu s~uaunuoo
ns aniasa~ pus a~s~odxoout s~zaunn0 ~iIFY1i iZ£ aqy •uogs,zeioaQ anReSaK pa~sSgiy~ s~~iii~
on1Z aSsd
Cl1ac~•ick Slnal~ev
February 25, 20r7~
1_'age Three
Staff attempts to parse the ".shading" issue from the. "vista" issue, but the two issues are
intertwined and should be considerE;d together to accord with CEQA principles. Orinda Assn. v
Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 C~~l.App.3d 1145, 1171-2.
Now that the Mitigated Negative Declaration includes some graphics on shading it is
clear that these windows directly facing the project on both sides will lose most or all of the
direct sunlight they now receive. N[aking matters worse, the windows will lose indirect, ambient
light because of the sheer size of the project wall and the close proximity to the windows.
The problem is not that these peaplewill-.lose a view of a mountain, or of a body of
water, or a valley, examples of the ~ristas in dispute in reported CEQA court opinions. Here, the
project will stamp out any view of any kind.from these windows. 'The only view these people
will have is the bare wall of the parkking structure just a few feet away.
At the very least, the Council should require adequate mitigation measures for this project
such as a reasonable setback from tlhe neighboring property line to allow some minimally
acceptable amount of light to remain.
3. The Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration Is Inadeauate In That It Fails To
Adeauatelv Discuss The Proiect's Traffic Impacts on Fourth Lane.
As was discussed in the 321 Miller Owners January $ comment letter, the tenants of 321
Miller are forced to turn right (north) on Fourth Lane in order to exit the apartment building.
The tenants will not be able to exit :if there is a delivery truck in the way.
Modifications to the auto exit plan from the structure (Mitigated Negative Declaration,
page S 1) and the new requirement for underground utilities in the alley (Mitigated Negative
Declaration, page 52) are improvements over previous .iterations of the plan.
However, the current Mitigf~ted Negative Declaration is still flawed in that it fails to
adequately discuss the impact of the loading /delivery area on the Fourth Lane alleyway. The
traffic study discusses cars coming into and out of the parking lot, but does not adequately
discuss the delivery trucks that will be coming into the ally, leaving the alley, and parking in the
alley itself while making deliveries,. This is all the more critical since the office space square
footage has been increased so dramatically to over 13,700 square feet.
Traffic impacts of delivery lxucks are appropriate items for analysis under CEQA. See:
National Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 268, 279
{ZAMM:2054:PWD:H0066285.DOC.1 }
t t'~OQ' S8Z9900H~QAAd ~4SOZ•7~II~IdZ}
'LI~S£~Z P~ 9Z~Z dm~s
atuq aAl is pamaln aq ~~ p~ ~uU:~aiu Z I iagtuaoaQ aql ~ apea> azann ~sig ,iq slua~oa Paco aqx 'QAQ ~
uo dms~s auig aq~ of azs iaJlal stq; ut s;aoaaia3az pm `~laaiu aq;3o 8mpzooaz QAQ a ~it~ aq; urwg pau~go ansq
~a~0 I Z£ aq.L 'Iariai ~3o aisp a~:Fo se 8urs8aq Z I zagcaaoaQ aq; zo3 aIge~8n8 samarm Sugaaiu oa aie azags t
•aueZ cpzno3 ut paznutunu s~oedun oH3ez~ pus paSsusuz
aq o~ pasodozd si ot~z~ ~Szangap nnoq 3o uoissnosip s apniaut pinogs uot~zuo3ut Bons `umuntniu
e ~y ~e~s ~iT~ ~fq paanpozd s~~ ausZ tpmo3 ui s~osdun og3sz~ aq~ ~nogs uor~~uuo3in a~8ctbaps
dun uor~ezeioaQ anr~e~aK pa~e~Rry~ s~3o ienozdcls pio~u~n pinogs pouno~ atQ,
•a~is ~oafozd a~ o~ Ixau aus~
q;.mo~ u~ auoz ~~utddo~s ou, ~ a~q osie pinogs azaq,L •aun~ auiss aq~ ~s alts uo aq you II?~ sxatu~
,~zangap onn~ ~eq~. os sauaniiap ztaq~3o satnpagas aq~ a~surpiooo o~ s~ueua~ azmbaz pue'sXonz~
,izaniiap 3o azis aq~ ~iuzq pinoq,s s~uauiazmbaz Bons °~seai man aqx ~~ •ausZ gazno3 m s}asdun
o~e~q aznuiuttu o~ s~zo33a ~saq a~,uz ~oa[ozd pasodozd aq; uz coeds a~g3o a~3o s~usua~ azn~n3 aq~
~~ ~uauzazmbaz pasodozd zo ~uauxazmbaz bus 3o azeme }ou aaB szaump zancy~ i Z£ a~I.I.
'9-SSL `8bL P£'dd~'ie'J ZZZ (0661) ~Calu.[or~ x s;uapn;s
I1T~ ansas a; uou~~ uazut,~ ',ipn~s o~s.R d~~~ s Sum ui saoi~oas psoz pue uo~oasza~ui
cgoq a;Bnisna o~ d~jg~ zapun axeudoiddB st ~c ~g ~nuer IIo ono pa~uiod szaunnp zaiiTLli
iZ£ a~ ~' 'sis,fieue zo3 papuozd si orb aueZ q;.mo3 ~utpzB~az s~sp ou se Suol ~ P~ `patpnls
aze suor~oasza~ui ~iiuo se ~uoi os uapp~ scngruaz a~ q;.mo3 0~ ~oedun or~gz.; sigi,
j •s;uauzanoidun Iueua~ aq;
30 ;zed se aasds aog3o ~oafozd a'q~ 3o s~usua~ azr~n3 isr;ua~od aq~ o~ gai aq iii Gaze ~utpeoi atg
zo3 u8tsap isn~oe aq~3o uo~sunzu~r}ap aq~ ~ p~'gse.~ zo3 zo sarzantiap zo3 pasn aq pinoo }t ~
°pautuua~ap uaaq you peq sacs 3tnpsoi aq~ zo3 asn p~oB acg ~s~ pa;mss ~S $u~id `LOOZ `ZI
zaquiaoaQ uo ~ugaaui pouno~ acp id •pazggn aq o~ st sazs 8utpeoi stq~ nnoti ~~exa pau~za~ap
you seq~S ~sq; si uTaigozd acJS •sasodmd zaq~o zo3 pasn 8uiaq you st ~i se 8uoi os auk
s ~~ xo~ 6sangap nsrus auo ~snf .zo3 aoBds aneq pinom ~oafozd aq~ ~8q; sa~B~s ~iont^~ `uouszeioaQ
an~eBaK pa~s8p.ry~ ate;;o i S a8ed;e ~igauq ~iiao passnostp st sazB ~uipsoi aq1,
•(og3sz~ ~zantiap xoxug3o s;oedun aq~ passnostp ,iia~Bnbaps pus ~iiazgudozddB ~uauodozd ~afozd)
6£ i i `ZI i I ~b'is~ 9 (£66i) n?u.rc~itn,~ fo ~iscaaiun a~~,~o s~ua8a~ •~ uouvi~oss~;uaruatio.rdu~l
s;r~8iag ta.ntn7 : ostn <r!as •(s~oedun azianunu o} pasn aq pinogs sazo~a ~saq }sq~ pus
passazppe aq pinogs sauangap xanz~ uior3 s~oscIun ar,~szl ~eq; pa~painnouxoe ~uauodozd ~aafozd)
m.o1 aa~~~.
8002 `SZ tiz~¢nsga,~~
~aii#'T~S ~aLineu~
C3x~.lricls Smalley
Febru~~~~y 25, 20Q
Page Five
4. Conclusion.
For the reasons discussed at>ove, the 321 Miller Owners urge the Council to withhold
approval of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to fully consider the impacts caused
by building a 60 foot wall just five :feet away from the windows of an existing residential
apartment building, and the traffic impacts of the project. Adequate mitigation is required for
significant impacts, and if this is impossible an EIR should be considered pursuant to 14 Cal.
Code Regs. § 15162.
An EIR provides detailed information about the likely effect a proposed project may have
on the environment, lists ways in which significant effects might be minimized and indicates
alternatives to the project. Public Resources Code § 21061.. An EIR is required whenever there
is a "fair azgument" that significant impacts may occur. Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation,
Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 (:a1.App.4th 1597, 1602.
There is "a low threshold requirement for preparation of an EIR" (No Oil, Inc. v. City of
Los Angeles (1974)13 Ca1.3d 68, 84) and a "preference for resolving doubts in favor of
environmental review" (Sierra C1u15 v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307,1316-
1317}. An EIR must be prepazed "~~vhenever it can be fairly azgued on the basis of substantial
evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact" (No Oil, Inc. supra at 75)
even if there is substantial evidence to the contrary (Arviv. Enterprises, Inc. v. South Palley Area
Planning Comm. (2002) lO1Cal.App.4th 1333,1346.
Very truly yours,
Finivrn~ I..AW FIRM LLP ~,
.~ ~
Peter W. Daniel
cc: Clients
{znr,~:zosa:rwD:xoo~sas,noc. i }
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE
South San Francisco, California
for
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, California 94083
by
Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc.
330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, California 95030
March 2007
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE
South San Francisco, California
Table of Contents
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 1
Recommendations ................................................................................................ 2
TECHNICAL REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Work ................................................................... 3
2.0 PHYSICAL AND GEOLOGIC SETTING ...................................................... 4
2.1 Terrain ....................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Geologic Setting ....................................................................................... 4
2.3 Seismic Setting ......................................................................................... 4
2.3.1 Deterministic Analysis ............................................................... 5
2.3.2 Probabilistic Analysis ................................................................. 5
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 6
3.1 Surface Conditions ................................................................................... 6
3.2 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................ 7
3.3 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................ 7
4.0 POTENTIAL GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS ................................................. 8
4.1 Seismic Hazards ....................................................................................... 8
4.2 Settlement Behavior ................................................................................. 8
4.3 Cut and Fill Slope Static Stability .......................................................... 9
4.4 Sulfate Attack on Concrete ..................................................................... 9
4.5 Surficial Erosion ....................................................................................... 10
Table or' Contents (cont.)
Pale
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 10
5.1 Foundation Design Consideration ........................................................ 10
5.2 Foundation Design Criteria .................................................................... 10
5.2.1 Cast-in-Place Piers ...................................................................... 10
5.2.2 Shallow Foundations .................................................................. 11
5.3 Site Grading .............................................................................................. 12
5.3.1 Site Preparation ........................................................................... 12
5.3.2 Compacted Fill .....................................................:...................... 12
5.3.3 Cut Slope Design ......................................................................... 13
5.3.4 Utility Trench Baclcfill ................................................................ 13
5.3.5 Pavement/Garage Slab Subgrade Preparation ........................ 13
5.4 Slab-on-grade and Concrete Flatwork .................................................. 13
5.5 Retaining Wall Design ............................................................................. 14
5.5.1 Pier Supported Retaining Walls ................................................ 14
5.5.2 Footing Supported Retaining Walls ......................................... 15
5.5.3 Backdrain ..................................................................................... 15
5.6 Drainage .................................................................................................... 16
5.7 Seismic Design .......................................................................................... 16
5.8 Pavement Design ..................................................................................... 16
5.9 Erosion Control ........................................................................................ 17
5.10 Technical Review ..................................................................................... 18
5.11 Earthwork Construction Inspection and Testing ................................ 18
6.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS .................................................................. 18
7.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 20
7.1 Documents/Maps ..................................................................................... 20
APPENDICES
A Field Investigation .......................................................................................... A-1
B Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................... B-1
Table of Contents (cont.)
FIGURES Follows Page
1 Site Location Map ........................................................................................... 3
2 Engineering Geologic And Boring Location Map ..................................... 6
3 Engineering Geologic Cross Section A-A' ................................................... 6
APPENDIX FIGURES
A-1 Logs of Exploratory Borings .................................................................... A-lto A-8
B-1 Summary of Triaxial Shear Testing .............................................................. B-1
APPENDIX TABLE
B-1 Summary of Laboratory Test Results .......................................................... B-2
March 28, 2007
Mr. Sam Bautista E0017
Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Division
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, California 94083
SUBJECT: GeotechnicalInvestigation
RE: Miller Avenue Parking Structure
South San Francisco, California
Dear Mr. Bautista:
We are pleased to submit the following report describing the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed
new three-and-half story parking structure on Miller Avenue in South San Francisco,
California. Our investigation was performed in accordance with our proposal for
Geotechnical Services dated January 4, 2006.
In this report, we characterize the geotechnical conditions underlying the
proposed new parking structure, and provide conclusions and recommendations
regarding geotechrtical hazards, foundation types and design criteria, site grading,
support of slab-on-grade floors, retaining wall design criteria, trench backfill, pavement
design and erosion control. For clarity, we have provided an Executive Summary at the
front of the report which presents an overview of our pertinent conclusions and
recommendations. This summary is followed by our Technical Report.
We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service to you on this project. If
you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to call us.
Very truly yours,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ted Sayre
Supervising Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
David T. Schrier
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
DTS:TS:POS::st
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this Executive Summary, we provide a summary of the pertinent conclusions and
recommendations resulting from our Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed new
three-and-half story parking structure on the Miller Avenue in South San Francisco,
California. A more detailed discussion of our findings, conclusions and
recommendations is presented in the main body of this technical report.
Conclusions
• The site is feasible for construction of the proposed new three-and-half story
parking structure, from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the
recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and
construction of the project.
• The primary potential geotechnical hazards identified at the site include
seismically induced ground shaking, differential settlement of the building
foundation, and surficial erosion of graded areas. These potential hazards were
determined to present varying degrees of potential risk to the proposed building,
and should be considered in the design.
• The site should be subjected to very strong seismic shaking within the life of the
project. A peak ground acceleration of 0.6g should be anticipated.
• The proposed parking structure building site is generally underlain by alluvial
fan deposits, and at depth, by Franciscan Complex greenstone bedrock.
• We estimate that there is a low potential for liquefaction at the site.
• We anticipate that the very stiff, dense near-surface materials could settle up to 1
inch total under assumed shallow foundation loading, and an isolated 4-foot
medium dense sand layer encountered in Boring No. 5 could settle up to 1 inch
under dynamic (seismic) densification/shaking.
1
Recommendations
• The proposed parking structure building can either be supported on a
continuous shallow footing foundation system bearing on in-place near-surface
material, or on a cast-in-place drilled pier foundation extending at least 20 feet
into the underlying alluvium.
• Site grading for the structure should be within the capabilities of moderate
conventional constnzction equipment (i.e., excavators, dozers and drill rigs). The
sandy material encountered in the borings could require casing to prevent caving
and sloughing during pier drilling.
• All permanent cut and fill slopes should have a maximum inclination of 2-1/2
horizontal to 1 vertical (2.5:1). All fill prisms should be keyed and benched into
firm, in-place material.
• Civil drawings and specifications should be reviewed by our office to confirm
that the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design of the
project.
• Earthwork construction activities should be inspected and tested by a
representative of our office to confirm that the recommendations of this report
are incorporated into the construction of the project.
2
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
MILLER AVENUE PARKING STRUCTURE
South San Francisco, California
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed new
three-and-half story parking structure on Miller Avenue in South San Francisco,
California. The proposed parking structure site is located on the southern side of Miller
Avenue, between Maple Avenue and Linden Avenue (Figure 1). We performed our
investigation between January 25, 2007, and March 28, 2007, for the City of South San
Francisco in accordance with our proposal dated January 4, 2007.
We understand that at this point planned improvements consist of constructing a new,
3-1/2-story structure. It is likely that during the design process, the project team will
have modifications that may include additional structures.
While we have not been provided with maximum dead-plus-live wall loads for the
proposed new buildings, we anticipate that they will be relatively heavy, as is typical for
concrete framed structures. We understand that site grading may include excavating up
to 5 to 8 feet of soil to set the lower floor of the parking structure below grade.
1.1 Purpose and Scoye of Work
The purpose of our investigation was to develop geotechnical recommendations for
project design. Our objectives were to: (1) evaluate surface and subsurface conditions;
and (2) develop conclusions and recommendations regarding geotechnical hazards, site
grading, foundation and retaining wall type and design criteria, and recommendations
for pavement sections.
The specific scope of work performed for our investigation included the following tasks:
1) Review in-house geologic data and the topographic survey provided to us:
2) Subsurface exploration;
3) Laboratory testing of representative earth materials;
4) Geologic and geotechnical engineering analyses; and
3
5) Preparation of this report.
2.0 PHYSICAL AND GEOLOGIC SETTING
2.1 Terrain
The proposed Miller Avenue site parking structure is situated on the southern flanking
slope of Sign Hill, adjacent to the valley floor formed by Colma Creek. Current site
topography is characterized by gently inclined east sloping terrain. Topographic relief
across the site is roughly 9-1/2 feet with elevations varying from 52.8 feet at the
northwestern corner of the site to 42.2 feet at the southeastern corner. A small concrete
wall retains roughly 1/2-foot of material and separates the western two-thirds of the site
from the eastern third.
2.2 Geologic Setting
The Miller Avenue property is located on an alluvial fan situated between the Bay
margin and the flanks of Sign Hill. The site is situated approximately 2.5 miles northeast
of the San Andres fault which forms a boundary between the Pacific and North
American tectonic plates. According to geologic maps of the area, the site is underlain
by slope debris and ravine fills (Bonilla, 1971 and 1965). However, we encountered
roughly 35 to 45 feet of alluvial materials overlying Franciscan Complex Greenstone
bedrock. Alluvial materials have likely been transported downslope by the local creeks
and streams and deposited on the fans during periods of high flows.
2.3 Seismic Bettina
The site is situated in a very seismically active area. Historically, this area has been
subjected to very strong shaking from major earthquakes and the site will continue to
experience very strong ground shaking in the future. The significant active faults
located closest to the site are the San Andreas fault (2.5 miles/4 km toward the
southwest), the San Gregorio fault (7.9 miles/12.6 km toward the southwest), and the
Hayward fault (i2.7 miles/20.3 km toward the northeast) (Figure 2).
4
2.2.1 Deterministic Analysis -The site could be affected by seismic shaking
stemming from earthquakes on any one of several major active earthquake faults in the
region. The following table provides the results of our deterministic analysis and lists
the major earthquake sources, the distances from the sources to the site, the maximum
Moment Magnitudes and the peak horizontal ground accelerations that are anticipated
at the site.
Fault Moment Peak Horizontal
Source Distance (mi/km) Magnnitudel Acceleration (~)2
San Andreas
(1906 Segment) 2.5/4.0 7.9 0.50
San Gregorio 7.9/12.6 7.3 0.34
Hayward
(Total Length) 12.7/20.3 7.1 0.18
1Based on "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment For The State of California" by
CDMG, DMG Open-File Report 96-08.
2Based on attenuation relationships developed by Bozorgnia, Campbell &Niazi 1999,
(horizontal component -Pleistocene soil, corrected); as determined using the
computer program EQFAULT by Blake, 1989, and updated 2004.
2.2.2 Probabilistic Analysis - We also performed a probabilistic analysis
employing the computer program FRISKSP (By T.F. Blake, 1988 and updated 2004) and
incorporated moment magnitudes from the California Division of Mines and Geology
(CDMG) publication "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment For The State of
California" (DMG Open-File Report 96-08), and attenuation relationships by Bozorgnia,
Campbell &Niazi 2000 (horizontal component -Pleistocene soil, corrected). The results
of our probabilistic analysis indicate that an acceleration for a Design Basis Earthquake
(10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, or a 475-year return period, which is
generally used for residential and commercial buildings) is 0.60g.
5
Taking into account the above Moment Magnitude earthquakes, the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC) coefficients presented in Section 5.7, and the results of the
deterministic and probabilistic approaches, it is our opinion that the site could
experience a peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) between 0.508 (equal to the
deterministic acceleration calculated for an earthquake on the San Andreas fault for the
site) and 0.608 (equal to the probabilistic analysis for a Design Basis Earthquake). It
should also be noted that findings of strong motion research from the Loma Prieta
earthquake indicate that: 1) recorded ground motions generally exceeded predicted
ground motions based on many of the available attenuation curves; and Z) topographic
site effects resulted in local amplification of bedrock motion.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
The following statements summarize the site-specific conditions which, to varying
degrees, influence the geotechnical suitability for the proposed parking structure on
Miller Avenue.
3.1 Surface Conditions
The site has dimensions of approximately 140 feet by 150 feet, and is presently being
used for at grade public parking. The site is bordered to the north by Miller Avenue, to
the east by a 25-foot wide by 140-foot long single family residence lot (which we
understand may be demolished and the site included in the project), to the south by
Fourth Lane, and by amulti-family residential building to the west (Figure 3). The site
is covered with asphaltic concrete pavement with concrete curbs, and a landscaped
parking island. Vegetation in the parking island consists of several mature trees and
bushes.
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
We explored the subsurface conditions at the site by means of 5 exploratory borings. We
logged the cuttings and samples from the borings to assist us in determining the site
stratigraphy. Representative soil materials obtained from the borings were selected for
laboratory testing.
6
Exploratory borings were located in the vicinity of the proposed new structure. In the
borings, we generally encountered alluvial soil materials consisting of sandy silt, silty
sand, sandy clay, sand, clayey sand, and silty clay, overlying Franciscan Complex
Greenstone bedrock which extended to the depths explored. Generally, we classified
the material as either very stiff (cohesive materials) or dense (cohesionless materials)
with a few layers of medium dense (cohesionless materials); Boring CSA/SD-5 we
encountered medium dense material between a depth of roughly 14 and 18.5 feet.
Detailed logs of our exploratory borings, and the results of the laboratory tests
performed on representative samples are presented in Appendies A and B, respectively.
The results of our laboratory testing (Appendix B) indicate that the near-surface clayey
soil material at the site has a low expansion potential and has relatively moderate to
high shear strength.
The subsurface distribution of earth materials beneath the existing site and proposed
building is depicted on the Engineering Geologic Cross Section 1-1' (Figure 3).
3.3 Groundwater Conditions
During drilling, we encountered groundwater in Borings CSA/SD-1 at depths of 36.0
feet. It should be understood that groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally, and that
higher levels may occur at other times and/or locations.
4.0 POTENTIAL GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS
In the following section, we list identified potential geotechnical hazards at the proposed
site, along with the corresponding degrees of determined potential risk, and
recommendations for possible mitigation measures.
4.1 Seismic Hazards
Seismic ground shaking associated with a large earthquake on either the San Andreas,
San Gregorio or Hayward fault is considered to be a moderate fo high potential hazard
7
in the project area. Peak ground accelerations up to 0.60g should be anticipated at the
site (see report Section 2.2).
No active faults have been recognized on, or mapped through, the subject property.
Thus, the potential for surface faulting and ground rupture on the property is
considered to be low.
Seismically-induced ground failure mechanisms include: lateral spreading, landsliding,
liquefaction, lurching, and differential compaction. Due to the relatively very stiff and
dense subsurface materials combined with the significant depth to groundwater, the
potentials for lateral spreading, landsliding, liquefaction, and lurching is considered to
be low. However, the potential for differential densification of one or two medium
dense sandy layers underlying the site is considered to be moderate due to the medium
dense sands encountered u1 Boring CSA/SD-5.
We calculated that the conservative total or differential settlement of the ground surface
due to dynamic densification of the sandy material could be up to 1 inch (using a
conservative, simplified version of the procedure outlined by Tokimatsu and Seed,
1987). Due to the low potential for dynamic densification to occur combined with the
apparent isolated layer of medium dense sands, we conclude that specific mitigation for
dynamic densification is not required.
4.2 Settlement Behavior
Based on our analysis, there is a moderate potential that the alluvial soil materials
encountered in the borings will compress under the allowable bearing capacity static
building loads. Compression of the alluvium could result in relatively minor amounts
of differential foundation movement.
Although a shallow footing could provide satisfactory support; in the event that the
estimated settlements are too large, we have provided alternative recommendations for
supporting the new parking structure on cast-in-place drilled piers (deep foundations).
For our static settlement calculations, we assumed that a shallow foundation supported
structure would have adead-plus-long-term-live-load of approximately 2,750 pounds
per square foot (psf) (equal to the allowable bearing capacity). Based on this
8
assumption, we estimate that total static settlement for a shallow foundation supported
structure should be roughly 1 inch, and differential settlements should be less than 1/2
inch across the bottom of the building.
A cast-in-place deep pier foundation system should experience total and differential
settlements between piers of less than 1/2 inch due to static loading. Assuming that the
piers will extend at least to a depth of 26 feet (7-1/2 feet below the identified zone of
sandy soil susceptible to dynamic densification), a cast-in-place deep pier foundation
system should eliminate the potential for significant settlement due to dynamic
densification.
4.3 Cut and Fill Slope Stability
Likely site grading includes an excavation for the planned subsurface parking. Based on
the results of our field reconnaissance of the area, and the apparent shear strength of the
material encountered in the borings, there is moderate potential that temporarily un-
braced cut slopes could creep, slough and/or erode. We are not aware of any planned
fill slopes for the project. We assume that a retaining wall will support the outer edge of
the planned subsurface section of the parking structure. Suitable shoring should be
constructed to brace temporary cuts and reduce the potential for off-site distress to
adjacent structures and utilities. As an alternative, temporary cuts should be setback a
suitable distance from the property line.
4.4 Sulfate Attack on Concrete
The soils encountered in the borings appear to be have moderate to low cohesion, low
gypsum content, and consequently should have a low to moderate potential for concrete
sulfate attack. However, we recommend that corrosivity testing be completed on the
near surface site soils prior to completing the concrete mix design in order to confirm the
estimated low potential for corrosivity to metallic and concrete structures.
9
4.5 Surficial Erosion
Based on our experience, the alluvial material has a moderate to high susceptibility to
surficial erosion. To mitigate this potential, we have provided recommendations for
erosion control and surface drainage collection.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Foundation Design Considerations
The principal factors affecting foundation type selection include the following:
acceptable magnitudes of differential settlement from static loading; and the isolated
zone of medium dense sand encountered in Boring CSA/SD-5, associated potential for
dynamic densification and minor differential settlement. The advantages of deep
foundations include: 1) deep foundations extending below the zone of dynamic
densification will not be susceptible to minor differential settlement; and 2) under static
loading, deep foundations will tend to settle less than shallow foundations. If these
advantages of a deep foundation are not deemed significant enough to the City to justify
potential cost increases associated with the deep foundations, then the proposed parking
structure could be supported on shallow foundations. However, if these advantages are
deemed important by the City, then we recommend that the parking structure be
supported on a deep (pier and grade beam) foundation.
Recommendations for deep foundations, and shallow foundations are presented in the
following section of this report.
5.2 Foundation Tie and Design Criteria
5.2.1 Cast-in-Place Piers -The planned parking structure can be supported by
a reinforced concrete pier and grade beam foundation systems. The drilled, cast-in-
place piers should derive vertical support from skin friction in firm natural alluvial
material as determined in the field by the project geotechnical engineer at the time of
construction. Piers should be sized according to the following criteria:
10
Vertical Cavacity -minimum three (3) pier diameter spacing
Minimum pier diameter ,,,,,,,,,,,,,18 inches
Minimum pier penetration.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Elevation 32
(At least 7-1/2 feet below medium dense sand layer)
Allowable adhesion (skin friction), for reinforced concrete dead plus live loads:
0 to 2 feet into soil material,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0 psf
Below 2 feet in soil material,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,600 psf
Lateral Passive Resistance -piers [equivalent fluid pressure applied over an
effective width of two (2) pier diameters]
0 to 2 feet in soil material,,,,,,,,,,,,,„__,,,,,_,_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0 pcf
Below 2 feet in soil material,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, „450 pcf
The above adhesion value (skin friction) can be increased by 1/3 for seismic loading and
should be decreased by 1/2 for uplift. The upper portion of the piers should be formed
to create vertical surfaces, and "mushrooming" of pier tops and overpours around grade
beams should be prevented. Drilled pier holes should be machine cleaned of all loose
material prior to the placement of steel and concrete. Piers should be steel reinforced
with a cage including a minimum of 4, No. 5 bars vertical (with greater reinforcement as
required by the project Structural Engineer). Casing could be necessary to prevent the
cohesionless materials encountered in our borings from caving.
If water is present in the pier holes, prior to placing concrete, the water should be
pumped out until the pier holes are dry, or the concrete should be poured by tremie
methods to displace the water.
All piers should be connected at their tops by continuous grade beams. The grade
beams should be embedded at least 9 inches below pad grade.
5.2.2 Shallow Foundation - If a shallow foundation system is selected, the
footings should be at least 24 inches wide, and founded at least 24 inches below the
lowest adjacent final grade. The footings should be designed for an allowable bearing
capacity of 2,750 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead-plus-live loads, and 4,125 psf
11
under total loads, including wind or seismic forces. Resistance to lateral loads should be
computed using aconcrete/soil base friction coefficient of 0.35 and 400 pcf equivalent
fluid passive resistance beginning below an embedment depth of 1 foot.
5.2 Site Grading
Based on our field investigation, grading excavations should be within the capabilities of
moderate conventional excavation equipment (i.e., excavators, dozers and drill rigs) and
should not require significant dewatering to the anticipated depths of excavation,
provided that construction takes place during the dry season. The sandy material
encountered in the borings could require casing to prevent caving and sloughing during
pier drilling.
It should be noted that we encountered refusal in one of the small-diameter borings
(CSA/SD-4) at depth in greenstone bedrock, consequently heavy drilling equipment will
be necessary for piers extending into the bedrock.
5.3.1 Site Preparation -All loose material, vegetation, asphaltic concrete,
abandoned foundations, debris, and other deleterious material should be stripped and
removed from the areas to be developed. This material should be disposed of in a
suitable location off site or stored on site for later use in landscaping.
Excavation should proceed as necessary for planned grades. Soft and/or yielding
materials in the location of the planned structures should be over-excavated and
replaced with compacted fill. Areas to be filled should be scarified to at least an 8-inch
depth, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at
least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D-1557-00.
Following site preparation, it maybe necessary to place fill in order to achieve the
necessary subgrade elevation. The total amount of material removed during site
preparation could range between 4 and 12 inches or more, but the actual amount can
only be determined during construction.
5.3.2 Compacted Fill -The excavated on-site materials can be re-used as
compacted fill provided they are free of organic matter and material larger than 4 inches
in diameter. Imported fill should be free of organic, material; it should contain no
12
material larger than 4 inches and should have a plasticity index of less than 16. The fill
should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, moisture
conditioned to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent
relative compaction beneath structures and 18 inches below the aggregate base rock for
pavements, and 90 percent relative compaction elsewhere.
5.3.3 Cut Slope Design -Any new permanent cut slopes should not exceed an
inclination of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:1) in alluvium, without detailed geotechnical
studies to evaluate their stability.
During the dry season, temporary cut slopes of 1.75 horizontal to 1 vertical (1:1) in
alluvium, should be satisfactory for construction purposes, provided that they are
inspected and approved by our field representative at the time of construction.
5.3.4 Utility Trench Baclcfill -Utility trenches should be backfilled with soil
that meets the requirements for compacted fill, provided that bedding materials for
pipes are in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The backfill should
be compacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum dry density in non-structural areas
and a minimum of 95% of maximum dry density beneath structures and in the upper 18
inches of pavement subgrades. Equipment and methods should be used that are suitable
for work in confined areas without damaging the conduits or the walls.
Special care should be taken to ensure that utility trenches which extend under the
perimeter footing are backfilled with clayey (low permeability) soils for a distance of 3
feet in both directions.
5.3.5 Pavement/Garage Slab Subgrade Preparation -After general compaction
and compaction of the utility trench backfills, the pavement subgrade surface should be
checked for yielding areas by proof-rolling with a loaded water truck or equivalent.
Any yielding areas should be excavated and replaced with compacted fill. Then the
upper 18 inches should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content,
and the soil should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
13
5.4 Slabs-on-Grade and Concrete Flatwork
Slabs-on-grade and concrete flatwork subgrades should be prepared as recommended in
Site Grading, above. The concrete flatwork (sidewallcs and patios) should be supported
on at least 6 inches of non-expansive, moist, compacted fill. Slabs and flatwork should
be steel reinforced with at least No. 4 bars at 24-inch centers each way, and provided
with crack control joints at maximum 10 feet on centers. Slab-on-grade driveways
should be at least 6 inches thick.
5.5 Retaining Wall Design
The following section provides our recommendations for both the structure retaining
walls and the site retaining walls.
Retaining walls should be designed to resist an equivalent active fluid pressure of 40 pcf
for horizontal backfill (only type of backfill assumed). The active lateral fluid pressure
should be increased by 50% for walls that are restrained from rotation (building walls).
For seismic loading apply a dynamic resultant force acting at 0.6H from the bottom of
the wall and equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 15Hz pcf. The lateral loads on the
retaining wall can be resisted by passive pressures of 400 pcf equivalent fluid pressure
for wall foundations bearing at least 1 foot below adjacent ground surface (neglect the
upper foot for passive resistance) and a coefficient of friction equal to 0.35.
5.5.1 Pier Su~orted Retaining Walls -Pier foundations should be designed
according to the Foundation Design Criteria provided above. The retaining walls that
are free to rotate should be designed to resist an active lateral fluid pressure of 40
pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for horizontal backfill. The above active lateral fluid
pressures should be increased by 50% for walls that are restrained from rotation
(building walls). The lateral loads on the retaining wall can be resisted by passive
pressure against the side of the piers using the lateral passive resistance provided in
Cast-in-Place Piers foundation design criteria, above. For seismic loading apply a
dynamic resultant force acting at 0.6H from the bottom of the wall and equal to an
equivalent fluid pressure of 15Hz pcf (where H is the height of the wall).
14
If walls are pianned adjacent to ground Level parking or used to support the driveway
entrance, a traffic surcharge of 100 psf should be included and applied against the top 10
feet of the retaining wall.
5.5.2 Footing Supported Retaining Walls -Footings should be designed
according to the Foundation Design Criteria provided above. Site retaining walls free to
rotate should be designed to resist an active lateral fluid pressure of 40 pounds per cubic
foot (pcf). The above active lateral fluid pressures should be increased by 50% for walls
that are restrained from rotation (building walls). The resistance to lateral loads should
be computed using the lateral passive resistance provided in Shallow Foundation design
criteria, above. If additional lateral resistance is required, and as an alternative to
excavating a deep, continuous foundation key, shallow piers can be used to support the
wall, using the same passive resistance criteria acting over two pier diameters.
For seismic loading apply a dynamic resultant force acting at 0.6H from the bottom of
the wall and equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 15H2 pcf (where H is the height of
the wall).
If walls are planned adjacent to ground level parking or used to support the driveway
entrance, a traffic surcharge of 100 psf should be included and applied against the top 10
feet of the retaining wall.
Lower terraced walls should to be designed to resist the combined heights of all walls
that are bearing within an imaginary 1(H):1(V) line extended up from their base.
5.5.3 Backdrain - Backdrains should be constructed behind all retaining walls.
The backdrain should be a minimum 12-inch wide continuous blanket of either Caltrans
Class 2 Permeable Material or 3/4-inch x 1/2-inch clean crush drainrock enclosed in
Mirafi 140N (or approved equivalent) filter fabric, and extended to within 1 to 1-1/2 feet
of the ground surface where an impervious fill and/or asphaltic concrete cap should be
placed. A minimum 4-inch diameter PVC Schedule 40 perforated drain pipe should be
placed near the bottom of the drainrock (perforations down), surrounded by a minimum
of 4 inches of drainrock with at least 2 inches of drainrock underlying the pipe. All
backdrain pipes should be sloped to drain at a m;n;mum of 1/2 percent and collected in
4-inch diameter non-perforated Schedule 40 PVC pipes which are sloped a minimum of
15
9t
a~azauoa ar~ieudse ;o ssau~np sauaut g ;o umunuiut ~ ;o ~stsuoa ptnous uop~as
~uauzaned aq} ;eq~ puauzuzoaaz any `(asn aTargan aainzas pue ~utpeoj }u~tj ~jan~}ejaz
o~ ~u~puodsazzoa) ,c ;o (Iy) xapuj a~ezy paumsse ue pue 'pj ;o anjen-~ (suor~tpuoa jios
alts au} zo;) pauznsse ~ijanpenzasuoa ~ uo paseq 'pauzzo;zad azan~ s}sad anjen-~ ou aTn~q
isaQ }uauzaned g•g
•~ijanpaadsaz'(g•j;o nN e uo paseq) ~0'I P~
(Z"t ;o eN ~ uo paseq) ~S•p ;o eJ pue eJ s~uarap;aoJ anustaS :u~tsap zo; pasn aq pinous
san~n ~uptio~o; aq} pue '~jr-e; ~ugjoz}uoa atj~ se pauinsse aq pjnous ~jne; seazpu~
ueS aq} 'eiza}tza u~isap ~ruzsias ('gn) apoJ ~u~ppng uzzo;nzn L66I a~ o~ ~aadsaz q}tM
•sasodznd udtsap zo; pa~ediar~ue aq pTnous ~pg•p o~ ~05•p ;o uo~}ezajaaae punoz~ xead y
isaQ ~tutsias L•S
•uogaas }uauianed aq} o}ut za~en~ adeaspuej
;o uot}ezdnu a~ }sute~e zatzzeq a aprnozd o} ~oz aseq aq} n2ojaq ietza~eut aigeauzzad
naoi atp o}ut sauauz g ;o umuinrnu e pua}xa gzna aq} ~eq~ puaunuoaaz any 'seaze
~uaLUaned a~ o~ ;ua~e(pe zo ut ~u~deaspuej a}ejost o~ pasn aze sgzna a~azauoa aza~
•sazn}~ru~s aLj};o adojsunlop ~an1'peoz ssaaae paned atp zo uza~s~is a~eutezp
uzzo~s ~iJ au} out a~zeuastp pTnous utezp uzzo~s/tnseq ua~ea aui, •uiezp uzzo~s/u~seq
ua~ea a out a~zeuasip osje ~eu~ (p~, alnpauaS ~AcI) sadtd au~~u~p patznq out
park s~nodsunaop q}tna sza~}n~ ui pa}aa~oa aq pjnous ;;Danz ;ooz ~e 'saae;zns snotnzadun
(azn}~nz~s aq} uxoz; ~en~e) pautezp-bane o}uo ~unnezp ssaTun •uia~s~is uiezp uizo~s/utseq
~~ea a~etzdozdde ue o~ui pa~aazip ;;Danz ~in~ sazn.~aru~s uzoz; ono ~aa; pj ~seai
~e ;o aaue~stp e zo; %Z ;o uznuinznu a ~e uiezp o~ padojs aq pjnous sapez~ •eaze ~afozd
a~ ut pajjoz~uoa aq za~ene aae;zns }e~} ~ue~zoduzz st ~T 'sadojs ~ pue Ana pue 's~uauzaned
'suopepuno; 'jtos t~}tne s~aeza~ut ~t se za~ene ;o aauanJ;ut je~uaunz~ap au} 3o asneaag
a E~ unzQ g•g
•aae3zns aigeauizadun ue o}uo zo 'sazry~nz~s
utoz; ~ienee uopeaol ajge~ins a o~ a~ze~stp os~ pjn.ous sutezp~eq jjem ~urute~az
zoua~.xa au,I, •uza~s~s a~eutezp uxzo~s ~t~ zo a}ts aq} o}ut pa.~zeuastp pue ~uaazad z
underlain by a minimum of 6 inches thickness of virgin (non-recycled) aggregate base
rock compacted to a rrLn;mum of 95% of maximum dry density (ASTM D1557-00). The
pavement subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to
greater than optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction (ASTM D1557-00) to form an unyielding surface. At the City's request an R-
value could be performed to confirm the assumption.
Asphaltic concrete should be placed and compacted in accordance with the
requirements of Section 39 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications; aggregate base rock
should conform to the provisions of Section 26 (Caltrans) for 3/4-inch maximum Class 2
Aggregate Base.
5.9 Erosion Control
All graded slopes higher than eight (8) feet, and steeper than 20 percent (5:1) should be
covered with a securely staked erosion control blanket consisting of straw and coconut
fiber and treated with hydroseed prior to exposure to rain. All other grounds disturbed
by construction activities should be treated with hydroseed prior to exposure to rain.
An approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) should be implemented
in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications. If freshly graded slopes are
exposed to rain, this plan should include properly keyed and staked straw bale barriers
at the base of the slopes higher than eight feet and steeper than 20 percent.
5.10 Technical Review
Supplemental geotechnical design recommendations should be provided by our firm
based on specific design needs developed by the other project design professionals. This
report, and any supplemental recommendations, should be reviewed by the contractor
as part of the bid process. It is strongly recommended that no construction be started
nor grading undertaken until the final drawings, specifications, and calculations have
been reviewed and approved in writing by a representative of our firm.
17
8I
•piar; aq~ ui suopspuaunuo~az q,ns ono ~fzzsJ szo~aaz~uoogns pus zo}JSZ~uoa au} Hsu}
aznsua o~ 'anps~uasazdaz sn~;o zo 'zauMO a~;o ~rOgtsuodsaz aq} osls si ~t 'azouizaq~zn,~
•susid a~ out pa}~zodzoout puE zaaur~ua ~Ja[ozd atj} ;o uor~ua~s au} pa~sa azs u~azau
pauts~uoJ suor}spuauzuzooaz pus uor~suzzo}ln aq} ~sq} aznsua o~ 'anps~uasazdaz sn~ ;o
zo 'zaun~io a~;o ~tpgtsuodsaz aq} st ~i ~sq} ~utpus~szapun aq} u}tna panssi st }zodaz snjy
•s~soa sz~xa algtssod asap a~Epouzuzoaaa o} papuaunuoJaz
si pun; ~iJUa~ur~uoa autos •~Ja[ozd pa~Jnz~suoJ ~fjzadozd s uis~go o~ uopan.~}suoJ ~utznp
sazn~ipuadxa jsuor~ipps azmbaz ~isut suor~ipuoa q,ns •uops~psanui ass;znsgns pa~nzzij
~q zo saznsodxa ~ur~sixa uzoz; paunuza~ap ~iijn; aq ~ouus~ uJtutn uor~nz~suoa ~iztznp
paza}unoJUa ~ijuounuoo azs suopipuoa o~oloa~ pus itos pa~sdia~usun •suopszado
uopanz}suoa pus xzon~~zsa zo; saJrnzas uopaadsuc pus ~ugsa~ aptnozd oI pus 'uiazau
pauis~uoJ suopspuauzuzoaaz aq} o~ pzs~az q}in~ asus suogsanb Pius uagn~ pa~jnsuoa
aq o~ 'suopsar.~aads pus s~urnlszp jsu~ aq} n~atnaz o~ pauts~az ~u~aq u~z~} zno uodn
~ua~upuoJ azs ~zodaz srq} ut pa~uasazd siza~ua u~tsap zo/pus suopspuaunuoaaz ~fuy
•~zodaz a~;o ~ipoq a~ ui pauipno se;uaurdoianap alts pasodozd o~ uopsatjdds J~aads
zo; pus '~uaga aq} ;o asn antsn~xa aq} zo; pazsdazd }zodaz snp pus pauzzo;zad ssn~
uor~s~psanu~ auy •s~utpuq zo s}zodaz ua~TZn~ zo iszo ;o ~unjsnun; aq} ~iq zo 'saatnzas
zaipo zo ~ur~InsuoJ zo; issodozd atp ~iq 'xzonl zno tp~M uo~}Jauuoa ut papua~ut zo
apsuz st 'ssau}t;;o ~rOgs~usuazaui zo 'pagduzc zo passazdxa '~uszzsna oN •saJpaszd pus
sajdrauud ~uTZaaur~ua IsannlJa~oa~ pus ~i.~ojoa~ ~u~zaaur~ua pa~daaos ~ijjszaua~ q}tnti
aauspzoaas ut apsui suor~spuauzuzoaaz pus suonndo jsuotssa;ozd;o ~sisuoa saatnzas znp
SNOI.L~d.LIL~tIZ NOI.L`dOI.LSSIINI 0'9
•saarnzas ~ur~sa~ zo/pus uor~Jadsut ~uumbaz
sar~inpJS uo~}Jnz~suoa ;o aapou aJUSnps sznou gI, ;o umumznzz s Lj}TM pa;as~uoa
aq pinous aJr~o znp •uopJSduzoJ pus 'uopszsdazd apsz~gns '~uiddiz}s a~snbaps
uizt;uoa o; a~stzdozdds ss pa~sa~ pus pa~aadsin aq osjs plnous ~utpsz~ ~u~ •suopspuno;
a~azauoa ~uunod zo/pus '~ugjgxasq 'zsgaz ~utasjd o~ zoizd uiz~ zno ;o anr~s~uasazdaz
s ~iq pa~aadsut aq pinous ~ugpzp zaid puE suopspuno; ~uipniJUt suopsnsaxa tjy
upsay puE uopJa SuI u0i}JttI}SUO, ~IOMtI~.iEg ZI•g
7.0 REFERENCES
7.1 Documents/Mans
Blake, T. F., 1989, EQFAULT, FRISK, UBCSEIS, LIQUEFY2: A Computer Program for
the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized
California Faults; A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Prediction of Peak
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults; Computation of 1997
UBC Seismic Design Parameters; A computer program for the determination of
liquefiable soils. Windows Versions, Users Manual, July, 1989, updated 2004.
Bonilla, M.G., 1971, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco south quadrangle
and part of the Hunter's Point quadrangle, California: United States Geological
Survey (USGS) Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-311, 2 sheets, scale 1:24000.
Bonilla, M.G., 1965, Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle, California:
United States Geological Survey (USGS)1 sheet, scale 1:20000.
Bowles, J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design, Third Edition, 1982, McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell, K. W. and Niazi, M. 1999, Vertical Ground Motion:
Characteristics, Relationships with Horizontal Component, and Building Code
Implications, Proceedings of the SMIP99 Seminar of Strong Motion Data, Oakland,
California.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and
Mitigating Seismic Hazazds in California: Special Publication 117.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment For The State Of California: CDMG Open-File Report 96-08.
Lawson, A.C. (chairman), 1908, The California earthquake of April 1906-report of the
state earthquake investigation commission: Carnegie Institution of Washington
publication no. 87, vol. 1, part 1.
Schmertmann, J.H., Static Cone To Compute Static Settlement over Sand Bases, Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division , ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM3, 1976.
19
oz
'Z'L-Y~IQ J~T3AF~'N'sa.m}anz~S ~}z~g
pue 'suor~epuno3 'sanza~a~ I?oS jEnuey~ u~tsaQ 'Z86I '~~N a~ ;o ~uaux~z~daQ •S •n
'8L8-I98 'd `£ti 'n'~utzaau~ug j~anzuaa~oa~;o I~uzno j :~ut~us a~nb~zaa
o~ anp spues ut s~uauzap}as ;o uopenp?ng 'G86I ''S 'H 'paaS p'~ '>I 'ns~euitxoZ
'G86I 'uor~eatjgnd
~u~odnlatn y 'uor~tpg pmt, 'aapa~z~ uop,ru~suo~ puE uBisaQ ajt~ '' j'~ 'uosui~.uoZ
•enuo~j~J ut uoI}ae;anbtZ ~ur~~~p?InI pug ~utz~p?uy zo3 sau~apm~ Gii
uor~satjgn~ p?taadS ~y~Q ;o uor~e~uauiajduz; zo3 sa~znpaaozd papuaunuoaa~
'~nuo~e' uza~noS ;o ~L}iszannzn za~ua~ a~nb~z~g ~nuo~eJ uza~}noS
•d
i~Ei 'S 'oN ud~.~ouoy~ a~ry;}suI t~.z~asag ~utzaau~ug a~nb~z~g :saxenbipz~a
~urm.p uopae;anbr~ iios pug suo;}oui punos~ 'Z86I ''Y~I 'I 'ss?zpI pue •g •H `paaS
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
We explored subsurface conditions at the site of the planned parking structure in South
San Francisco, California on January 25 and 26, by means of five borings drilled to
depths of 26-1/2 to 51-1/2 feet using truck-mounted, hollow stem auger equipment. The
location of the borings is shown on Figure 3. The engineering geologist who logged the
borings visually classified the soils in accordance with ASTM D-2487. We obtained
relatively undisturbed samples of the materials encountered at selected depths. These
samples were obtained in brass liners that were 2.5 inches in outside diameter and 6
inches long; the liners were inside a 3-inch diameter modified split-barrel California
Sampler. The sampler was driven with a 140-pound hammer that was raised by an
automatic hammer and allowed to freely fall about 30 inches. We also performed
Standard Penetration Tests at selected depths. The depths of the sampling (and
penetration testing) are shown on the boring logs. The bold number at the conclusion of
the sampling interval represents the corrected blow count from a modified California
sampler to Standard Penetration Test value accomplished by multiplying the blow count
by 0.68.
Descriptive logs of the borings are presented in this appendix. These logs depict our
interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated, based on
representative samples collected at roughly afive-foot sampling intervals. It is not
warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other times and
locations. The contacts on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between earth
materials, and the transitions between these materials may be gradual.
A-1
L-8
'Ofiil Q Y~I,LSTd'anats OOZ 'oN atp snunu ~uaazad •g
p~ ~8I£i~ Q InLLS~d 'uopeunuza~ap s~nzt~j ~zagza~y •5
:O,cgZ Q y~,I,Sy ~u~}sa} t~uaz;s zeatls p?tx~u,I, •I,
:(~izp pue ~an~) itos atp;o ~.}tsuap r~}is-uI •£
~9IZZ Q W.LSrd pos aq};o ~ua~uoa azn}stout jezn~eN 'Z
~G8i~Z Q y~IZSy uogdtz~sap tios pa~~aQ •Z
:uop~~psanut snI};o zed se pauzzo;zad azan~ s;sad ~izo~~zoq~i ~u~o~o; aqy
•(j-g azn~t3 pua 'Z-g aigeZ) xtpuadde snp
ut put? s~oj ~utzoq a~} uo pa}uasazd aza uzaz~ozd .~ur~sa~ ~Ltol~zoq~j aq} ;o s}jnsaz ate
•a}is atp ~E sjetza~euz snotren a~ oI sza~aut~z~d u~tss~ o~ pasn azana s}Tnsaz Isar ~izol~zogaj
pue plat; atp pug suopdizasap dos at~,I, •sp?tza~aui aa~;znsgns;o sza~au~zed t~4uazls pug
sar~zadozd xaptzi a}enTEna o~ uopa.~psanut plat; au} ~u~znp pajdut~s sad itos jadrauud
atp ;o ~upsa~ pa~nzztT ;o pa~sisuoa alts atp zo; pautzo;zad sts~ip?u~ ~izo~~zogaj at;,I,
ONI•LSfl.L 1CZIO.L~IOfid'I
S XIQNddd~
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
PROPOSED
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE
January 30, 2008
Prepared for: City of South San Francisco
Prepared by: Mark D. Crane, P.E.
California Registered Traffic Engineer (#1381)
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
2621 E. Windrim Court
Elk Grove, CA 95758
(916) 647-3406
d110~I~J NOI.Lb'.L2IOdSNd2I.L 3Nb'2I~ '~'d `~Nd2I0 'Q }I?Ib'Y~I
~ a~zd a8eierJ ~uTxzed umolan~oQ oasiouei3 aeS g1noS 80/0£/[
•a~nzn~ mau auk o~ suot~aazip ~uipinozd ooslounz3
uns u~nos umo;umop ut s~aaz~s au1 uo pa~oiduza aq pinous suds pnaz-o~-,Csna `a~zn7
•uol~aasza~ui dun o~ sa~unuo inuoi~nzado ~unoldiu~is ~iun aanpozd
o~ pa~oadxa aq you pinom a~nzn~ pasodozd aul ~utssaaon nazn umo~umop au~ ui old~t?z;
~ul~sixa paanqu~sipaz sn iiam sn mau au.L •sznou atd~nz~ ~nad a~nuzuzoa yid pun au.ci~gouni
aul u~oq ~uunp aotnzas 3o sianai aign~daaan ~n ~ul~nzado mou azn ooslaunz3 uns u~nos
umo~umop ui anuand zaiity~ zo anuand punz~ zau~ta quoin suot~oasza~ut paz,~inun xis tid 'Z
•a~ezn~ mau auk o~ za~sunz~ pinom ~nu~ `alts
~oafozd auk uo ~.oi aan~ms au; ~uissaoon mou saioiuan znou Azad yid punoq~no/punoqui
OZ pun znou xnad ~npptuz punoq~no~punoqui 0£ ~ut~sixa au; o~ uot~ippn
uI azn saiotuan asauZ •znou old~nz~ ~nad a~nuzuzoa ~uiuana au~ ~utznp axis ~oafozd au~
uzoz~~o~ saioiuan punoq~no mau SOI pun punoqui mau SOi ~nogn u~tm `znou at~~nz~ ~nad
auil~uouni auk ~uiznp axis ~oafozd auk uzoz~~o~ saiotuan punoq~no mau S},i pun punoqui
mau Ski ~nogn a~~zaua~ o~ pa~oadxa aq pinom `irl~ssaoans3T `a~nzn~ pasodozd au.L
S~I~IIQl~II3 30 1~2IVL~IL~I11S 'III
•a~n~uoz~ anuand zaiityu zoos;szld s~~oaCozd au1 quoin asn intazauzuzoo
irn~az mau tau ~o ~aa~ aznnbs OOL`£ i o~ do annu osin pinom a~nze~ aul `saaeds ~urxznd mau au1 0~
uol~ippn ui •~aii~ aunt u~~ auk o~ papinozd aq pinom ssaaoe ou :anuand zaiiiY~I uzoz~ papinozd
aq ~Ciuo pinom a~nzn~ aul o~ ssaoon punoq~no pun punoquI •(i a.~n~t3 aas) ~aiiV a~"I u~t aul
o~ pua~xa pinom pun anuand aidnyu pun anuand uaputZ uaam~aq ~nmptuz ~nogn anuand zaiity~
~o apis u~nos auk uo pa~nooi aq pinom a~nzn~ au.L •umo~umop saonds ~uniznd 96i 3o asnazaul
tau n ~uipTnozd `,C}t~ auk ~iq paumo poi ~u~znd aon~zns aonds-09 ~uT~sTxa un ~o alts auk uo ~imq
aq pinom a~nzn~ au.L •siin~s ~ut~znd 9SZ o~ do utn~uoo pinom inu~ ~T~ au~ ~o uot~oas umo~umop
au~ ui a~nzn~ ~ut~znd ~Czo~s-t~inuz e pimq o~ ~utsodozd st ooslounz3 uns u~nos ~o ~i~ au.L
ia~ro~Ia Q~soaoxa •II
•uol~naoi swoon a~nzn~ auk;n anuand zaiity~ quoin spaau ~uauzanozduzt ~Cun
~o apnuz uaaq snu ~uauzssassn `~Ciinut3 •suoi~ipuoa a~nuzuzoa ~uluana pun ~izpptuz zoo suoi~aasza~ut
sls~iinun xis auk ~n pauiuzza~ap suoi;ipuoo ~ui~nzado ~un~insaz pun a~ezn~ aul ~o ~uiuado auk u~im
pa~oaCozd uaaq annu suza~~nd uot~ninozto umo~umop ut a~ueuo au.L •uoi~nooi uona ~n pauiuua~ap
uaaq uau~ annu suoi~ipuoo ~ut~nzado ~ui~sTxg •a~nzn~ pasodozd au~~o ~iutain auk ut anuand
punz~ quoin suot~aasza~ut zofnuz aazu~ ~n pun anuand zaii?ICI quoin suot~aasza~ui zoCnuz aazu~ ~n
pa~onpuoo uaaq annu s~unoo ald~nz~ potzad a~nunuoo ~utuana pun (auntluauni) ~nppiy~i •(anuand
aidny~i pun anuand uapui-~ uaam~aq) anuand zaiiiY~I quoin a~nzn~ ~uniznd ~zo~s-i~inuz aands-9SZ
pasodozd n ~o uoilnzado uioz~ ~ui~insaz oostounz,~ uns u~nos umo~umop ut s~onduzt uot~t?inozto
auluua;ap o~ oastounz3 uns u~nos ~o ~t~ auk ~o }sanbaz aul ~n paz>;dazd uaaq snu ~pn~s stun
uolianQO~IiuI •I
4. Incentives should be provided to encourage shoppers/restaurant patrons/business people
to park in the new garage.
Bright lighting and security should be top priority items to maintain continued use of the
new garage.
6. A short (50- to 75-foot-long) left turn lane should be provided on the westbound Miller
Avenue approach to the garage entrance. This will result in the loss of some on-street
parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the turn lane.
7. On-street parking should be prohibited on either side of the project's Miller Avenue
driveway in order to provide acceptable sight lines assuming prevailing vehicle speeds on
Miller Avenue remain at least 35 miles per hour.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
City Planning and Engineering staff selected six major intersections in the downtown area to
determine impacts from the revised circulation patterns due to the new garage. Locations were:
Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard (signal)
Grand Avenue/Linden Avenue (signal)
Grand Avenue/Maple Avenue (signal)
Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard-U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp (signal)
Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue (signal
Miller Avenue/Maple Avenue (all-way-stop)
A. VOLUMES
Weekday midday (noon to 2:00 PM) and evening commute (4:00 to 6:00 PM) traffic counts were
conducted by Crane Transportation Group at each of the six analysis intersections in January
2007 (with two exceptions). Evening commute counts at the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard
and Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersections were conducted in December 2005 for initial
use in the Genentech Master EIR. The overall peak traffic hours for the system of six
intersections were determined to be 12:15 to 1:15 PM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM. Volumes for these
time periods are presented in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. In addition to vehicular traffic,
pedestrian crossings were also tabulated at most intersections and are presented in Figures 4 and
5 for the 12:15 to 1:15 PM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM periods. Currently, Miller Avenue in the
vicinity of the proposed garage entrance has atwo-way volume of about 480 vehicles per hour
(vph) between 12:15 and 1:15 PM and atwo-way volume of 595 vehicles per hour between 5:00
and 6:00 PM.
]/30/08 South San Francisco Downtown Parking Garage Page 2
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
dfIO~I~J NOI.Lb'.L2IOdSNY2I.L ~Nb'2I~ '3'd '3Nd2I~ 'Q }RIt+Y~I
£ abed a~eterJ Suixied u,aoiun~oQ oasiauz.c3 ~~S ~n~S 8010£/l
'SLIOi~~aSZa~Lii
sis~j~u~ xts aq~ ~o gol;a ~~ ioz~uoa pu>; sau~j ga~ozdd>? ~o uoi~e~uasazd ai~nutagas ~ sapinozd
g a.><n~t,~ •sznoq ai~ez~ xl;ad a~nuruzoo ~uiuana pine ~iepptuz aip tpoq ~utznp (~ zo g Spy) aainzas
3o sjanai ajq>?~daoa~ ~e ~ut~ezado ~ii~uazzno az~ suoi~aasza~ut paz~fieu~ jig ~eq~ smoi~s T a~grzZ
uoc~~aad0 ~ut~stx~ •£
•s~iemanizp a~enizd uzoz~ s~uauzanouz uztu zoo spz>?pu~~s
ou s>?i~ ~~t~ aq•I, •s~uauzanouz uzn~ not;aasza~ut ~aaz~s Rio pazti~u~isun zoo uot~ezado aiq~~daaa>?
~sazood ai~~ g SpZ i~~im `suot~oasza~ut do;s-~Cem-jIe puz pazti~u~is zoo uot~~zado ajge~daaa>?
~sazood ai~~ aq o~ (Q SpZ) Q aatnzas ~o jana~ szapisuoo oasiouez3 ups q~nos ~o ~t~ ac~Z
spaopun;S algn~daaa~ u><nuciuiy~ •z
•sai~oiopot~~auz sis~fi~u~ paztizu~isun ~nogt;
ii~~ap za~~az~ saptnozd xipuadd~ aq,L •s~uauzanouz i~~nozi~~ pu>; uzn~ ienptntpui zo saga~ozddz
paiioz~uoa u~is doffs ai~~ ~iiuo zoo pa~nduzoa az>? suoi~~u~isap ~i>?jap pug SpZ sis~ieue Io.quoo
u~is doffs ~aaz~s apis ut `uot~aasza~ui azt~ua auk o~ urea.zad ,Siuo suoi~~u~tsap ~feiap Ioz~uoa pug SO'I
ai~~ azaum sis,Ci~ut? do;s ~>;m-ji>? zo pazii~u~is a~iiun `zanamoH •jnnuny~ ~t~z~dn~ ~'nnat~BiH g~Z
OOOZ z~a~i aid ui pautl~no ,i~ojopoq~auz ~ ~uisn saj~os ~ieiap ioz~uoo a~i?zan~ pug SO7 aq~ ~utsn
pa~~nj~na osi~ az~ (joz~uoa doffs ~i~m-om~) paiioz~uoa u~is doffs ~Ciuo s}aaz~s apts u~tm suoi~aasza~uI
•pa~i?inai~a osiz az~ sani~n ,i>?jap joz~uoa a~~zand •uot~aasza~ut azt~ua ai~~~o uoi~>?zado
dui;aa~az uoi~l;u~isap SO7 auo antaoaz suoi~aasza~ut doffs ~i~m-iii `~C~oiopoq~aui sti~~ zapun
•1nnuny~t rfjt~z7dn~ rfnnaz~~1H 82I.L OOOZ zeal aq~ ui pauii~no ~i~ojopoi~~auz ~ ~uisn pautuzza~ap
aze suot~aasza~ui doffs Aem-iie zoo s~ut~~z Sp-I •ai~as 3 u~nozt~~ d aainzas ~o jana-~ aq~
~uisn pap~z~ ~ji~aid~~ osj~ st uot~ezado uoi~oasza~ui paztl~u~isun •suog~~as.~aluj pa2z~vu~lsun
•xipuadd~ aq~ ut papinozd st dii~suot~~jaz ~Czjap ioz~uoa~sp"I auk ~utpzt;~az ji~~ap
za~~az0 •~aafozd .zt?jnai~zed ~ ~o s~o~duzi aip~o uot~~utuzl,xa paltt?~ap azouz ~ smojil; uot~eu~isap
~~jap Ioz;uoa ai~Z •uoi~aasza~ut uo>?a ~~ (pocpauz suoi~~zado [y~~H] lnnuvylr ~flt~ndn,' ~'nnar~~tH
[g~Z] pz~og gazeasag uoi~~~zodsuezZ OOOZ z>,a,~) uoi~~Inq~~ ~i~iap joz~uoo >? u~im pa~>?toossl?
osi~ sc aj~os aacnzas ~o janaZ auZ •sai~a~ozdd~ uoi~aasza~ut III zo ~soui uo ~i~jap pun uot~sa~uoa
~u~eagtu~is ~ut~~atput `3 ianaZ o~ umop `szanizp o~ ,Ceiap uinuztuiui pine mod pa~sa~uooun
~ui~~atput `d jana~ uzoz~ sa~u~z gatum (SpZ) aatnzas ~o janaZ paji~a uia~s~Cs ~uipez~
e s,ioiduza areas }szi~ aqZ •sa~eas ~uaza~ip om~ uodn pasBq papez~ si uot~~zado uoi~aasza~ut
pazij~u~ts •uia~s~Cs uot~~Inazia due zoo suoi~~ooj ~uijioz~uoa ~tazd~o a>:j~ s~C~mj~ ~souiiz
az~ `suot~aasza~ut uaam~aq s~uauz~as ~i~mp~oz iz~i~~ zau~~z `suot~aasza~ui •suop~asralul pa2~~nu~gs
~f~otopoq~aL~I •i
~~IA2I~S 30 'I~A~'I 1~i0I.L~~S2I~.LI~II 'S
V. CHANGE IN DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC VOLUMES DUE TO
PROPOSED GARAGE
The proposed downtown garage will slightly increase volumes as well as change traffic flow
patterns on downtown streets. Projections regarding expected changes in traffic flow have been
worked out in consultation with City Planning and Engineering staff and are presented below in
summary format.
A. ANALYSIS INPUT TO DETERMINE TRAFFIC FLOW IMPACTS DUE
TO THE NEW DOWNTOWN GARAGE
• Traffic due to the 13,700 square feet of retail commercial activity on the ground floor of the
garage will all be newly added to downtown streets.
• Percent parking occupancy of the new garage (excluding traffic from the new
retail/commercial uses) will be the same as that in the existing surface lot on the project site.
Based upon surveys by City staff of parking activity in the existing 60-space lot (see
Table 2), up to 85 percent of the spaces are occupied during lunchtime and up to 60 percent
are occupied at 5:00 PM.
• There will not be a 100 percent turnover of occupied spaces at the garage during any given
hour. A 65 to 70 percent turnover rate of occupied spaces has been utilized for analysis
purposes.
• Traffic activity associated with the existing 60-space lot on the project site is already
occurring and part of the traffic count program recently conducted. Thus, the proposed
garage will produce a net new circulation impact from an increase of 196 spaces on the
project site (256 spaces in the proposed garage minus 60 existing spaces).
• There will be a charge for parking in the garage, as there is today for parking in the surface
lot on the project site. The exact charge is being developed by City staff.
• Ten percent of the new parking demand at the garage (in addition to the new demand from
the 13,700 square feet of retail/commercial activity) will be due to drivers newly attracted to
the downtown area due to greater ease of finding parking. The remaining 90 percent of the
new parking demand at the garage will come from drivers already on the downtown roadway
system that are now parking on-street or in other City parking lots. The new lot, when used,
will eliminate some congestion by reducing the amount of driving around the block looking
for parking along or as close as possible to Grand Avenue.
• The vast majority of demand to park in the new garage will come from existing drivers
parking along Grand Avenue and Miller Avenue as well as Maple and Linden avenues north
of Grand Avenue.
• Signing will be provided in the downtown area directing drivers to the new garage.
1/30/08 South San Francisco Downtown Parking Garage Page 4
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
df102IJ NOI.Lb'.L?IOdSI~Id2I.L 3N`diI~ • 'd'd `dNb'2I~ 'Q ~RIdY~(
s aSed a$eierJ 8ucxied un~olun+oQ oostoutii3 uss ~noS 80/0£/[
dno.r~ uot~n~aodsuna,~ aun.r~ :ao.rnos
-~ ~ a~nznp maN ~uinnaZ
ZZ i ZZ i ZL i ZL t ~ ~uTZa~ug sdizZ in~oZ
a nz~p maN o~ uuza~sunzZ
OZ OZ 0£ 0£ sdczs ~oZ aon3-mS ~ui~sixg
axis ~aa.ozd
ZOI ZOI Zt~i Zbi uzoz3/oZ sdizs maN i~~o.L
sash
SZ SZ SZ SZ intazaucuzo~/ir~~ag maN
znoH gong zany
LL LL Li i Li I ~utuznZ wands maN ~aN
s.f1O 1~iI .Lf1O 1~II AZIAI,L~d
SdI2I1.2If1OH ?I~gd SdI2I1.2IfIOH }I~'gd
~.Lf1L~iI~iO~ Ol~iIl~igAg A~'QQH~I
1~IOI.L~2Igl~I~O dRI.L 'I~'.LO.L gO~~O 30 A2IdI~tI~If1S
dnoa~ um~n7aodsun,r,~ autia~ :ao.rnos
(tln;a2i maN ~uipniaxg)
moH clang zany ~utuznl,
LL = 8 i i x %S9 L i i= LT i x %OL wands patdnaap maN ~aN
jre~az
mau ~ucpnioxa) paidnaap
8 i i = 96 i x %09 L9 i = 96 i x %Sg wands maN ~aN uznucixny~
2IfIOH }I~gd 2ifIOH ?I~dd
g.LfII~iI^IO~ O1~II1~idAg A~'QQII~i
gO~2idO I~tIH,LIM S~~~dS OI~II?I2I~d MdAi ,Ldl~i 30 gS(I OZ 1L'II~tO dIIQ
l~iOI.L~2Igl~igO dRIZ ~O~dO 3O 1~2I~'I~1II~1If1S
96I = a~nznp ~u~znd o~ anQ saands maN laN
09 = axis a~nznp uo wands X07 aan~zns ~ui~sixg
9SZ = saands in~oZ a~nznp pasodozd
uols~I~u~o arxi ~o~o ot~uxx~a .~o ~x~Inilans '~
'£OOZ `szaaut~ug
uoc~n~zodsunzZ~o a~n~t~sui aq} ~q `uot~ipg u~L `uot;n.~aua~ dtr,L `n~np a~nz du~~o aamos pznpu~;s
s~uocssa~ozd ~uuaaui~ua atd~~z~ aq; uzoz~ ua~n~ uaaq annu sa~nz dizZ •mou xnad a~nuzuzoo Wd au;
~ucznp pa~aadxa sdca~ punoq~no pun ui ~o zaquxnu znituzis n u~im znoq acd~nz~ xnad auzt~gaunt aq~
~utznp sdiz~ punoq~no SZ pug punoqut SZ ~nogn a~nzaua~ o~ ~iaxci aq pjnom a~nzn~ aqi ~o zoog
~szc~ auk uo ~i~tnt~an intazauzuzoo/~t~~az~o ~aa~ aznnbs OOL`£i pasodozd acl~ l~ul smogs £ aige,I,
gO~dO Mgl~i ~H,L III SgSf1 'I~I~2IgY~IL~iO~/'II~Z~2I
30 Zgg3 ~2idflaS OOL`£I OZ dflQ I~IOI.L~'2Igi~igO ~I33~2I,L 'S
D. RESULTANT TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH NEW DOWNTOWN
GARAGE
Figures 7 and 8 present the projected incremental change in traffic at the six analysis
intersections due to the proposed downtown garage during the midday and PM commute peak
traffic hours. Negative numbers for some movements reflect some drivers being diverted
directly to the new garage and away from the pattern of circling the garage block attempting to
find a parking stall along Grand Avenue and then, secondarily, along Maple Avenue, Linden
Avenue and Miller Avenue. Projections also reflect vehicles leaving the garage by the one exit
(to Miller Avenue) and getting back on the local circulation system at one concentrated location
rather than from a wide variety of on-street parking spaces and other City owned public parking
lots. It should be noted that the incremental change in traffic shown does not include the
vehicles currently entering and leaving the surface lot on the site of the garage. Traffic flow
patterns for these vehicles would be expected to change slightly due to the removal of access
to/from the existing parking lot to the 4th Lane Alley. Provision of the new garage would lower
volumes now using 4th Lane Alley.
E. CHANGES TO INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH THE
PROPOSED GARAGE IN OPERATION
Table 1 shows that with the proposed garage in operation there should be only one change in
level of service and only insignificant changes in vehicle delay (of three seconds or less)
compared to existing conditions at all analyzed intersections. Operation would remain an
acceptable LOS B, C or D at all intersections. Delay would tend to decrease slightly at the
Grand Avenue intersections and increase slightly at the Miller Avenue intersections.
F. NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE PROJECT ACCESS
INTERSECTION WITH MILLER AVENUE
1. Need for Left Turn Lane on Westbound Miller Avenue Approach to
the Garage Entrance
During the midday peak hour there would be about 90 vehicles making a left turn from Miller
Avenue into the new garage (or about 30 percent of the westbound traffic flow), while during the
PM commute peak hour there would be about 65 vehicles making a left turn into the new garage
(or about 15 percent of the westbound traffic flow).
Left turn lane warrant criteria' for two-lane streets and roads have been developed for situations
where vehicle speeds are greater than those along Miller Avenue (for speeds of 40 miles per hour
or greater, not the 25 to 30 mile per hour speeds along Miller Avenue). If these higher speed
criteria are used, the combination of through and turn volumes at the garage entrance would just
meet the left turn lane warrant criteria during both the midday and PM commute peak traffic
hours. Based upon the likelihood that if the garage is successful, there could be, on average,
more than one vehicle per minute making a left turn into the garage during the midday peak hour
and about one vehicle every minute making a left turn into the garage during the PM peak hour,
~ Intersection Channelization Design Guide, TRB Report 279, November 1985.
1/30/08 South San Francisco Downtown Parking Garage Page 6
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
a short left turn deceleration lane would be highly desirable in order to reduce the potential for
rear-end accidents (see Recommendations in Section VI).
The exact location of the garage driveway connection to Miller Avenue has not yet been
selected. However, if on-street parking along the south side of Miller Avenue is allowed too
close to the driveway, on-street vehicles could limit sight lines for drivers leaving the garage to
less than acceptable lengths.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
Large, easy-to-read signs should be employed on the streets in downtown South San
Francisco providing directions to the new garage.
Incentives should be provided to encourage shoppers/restaurant patrons/business people
to park in the new garage.
3. Bright lighting and security should be top priority items to maintain continued use of the
new garage.
4. A short (50- to 75-foot-long) left turn lane should be provided on the westbound Miller
Avenue approach to the garage entrance. This will result in the loss of some on-street
parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the turn lane.
On-street parking should be prohibited on either side of the project's Miller Avenue
driveway in order to provide acceptable sight lines assuming prevailing vehicle speeds on
Miller Avenue remain at least 35 miles per hour.
This Report is intended for presentation and use in its entirety, together with all of its supporting exhibits, schedules, and
appendices. Crane Transportation Group will have no liability for any use of the Report other than in its entirety, such as
providing an excerpt to a third party or quoting a portion of the Report. If you provide a portion of the Report to a third party,
you agree to hold CTG harmless against any liability to such third parties based upon their use of or reliance upon a less than
complete version of the Report.
1/30/08 South San Francisco Downtown Parking Garage Page 7
MARK D. CRANE, P.E. CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
s
4 ~d
r~°z
ro
d
d~
~~
~~
~;
~L
a
a
O
z
O
H
Q
f-
O
a
z
a
w
z
a
U
S
~N Q rd
r ~~Z
JO
Z
r M ~ ~
~~~ ~~
N -~
M
~ ~
r
N r
00 Cfl r C`7
(+") r r F- In
r
~~~ ~~
~~ ~T~
r
~ _~ ~ ~ O
~ ~ r
~'
~
~ N r
~ N
r M F~ O
ti
N ~ pnl8
~ ~
N ~
M QO -~ N
~ r l!')
~
r ~ ~ r
~ N ~ ~ 0~0
~~ ~ ~~
~' ~ ~ T ~
~ -~ r ~ N
r pp N O
~ N r
ny
n y uapul-/
Q ~
~ Q
a
~'
~ ~
"' ~
c~
M
0
r
~
M r CD F- ~
y ~ ~
~ ~~~
CO -~ N M N
r
f7
~ ~
r N N ~' U
~~~ ~N
~-~ ~T~
ti -~ ~ ~ No
~ ~ N r
ny a/dew
N
d
\~
L
/~
N 0ldr
L ~ ~ !i
3 CIA = 1t'!
~ ~ O
4. W = N
~ v
d.
c~_
G
d
0
Z
O
H
Q
F-
O
a
Z
Q
W
Z
a
U
S
r
NY ~~2
~o
Z
O N ll~ 00
M ~_ N
~~~ ~~
r
.a. _~
M
~ ~, o
0
O ~
~ N M 'd'
~ ~ ~- M
0
-a
pnl8
~ ~
0
~ -
'~
N ~
CO
~ °
~
r ~ v
~ N
~~
~ ~ ~ F- N
N
~~~ ~M
~-~ ~T~
N -~ ~ ~ ~
N
CO
~~
M
d'
CO N ~ F- N
~~~ ~M
M ~, ~ ~
~ -~ ~ ~ ~
r ~
n y uapui~
O ~ I ~
Q
i ~
J
~O
~ ~
~ ~
~
~I
I~ti
~ ~
N ~ ~
E-- O
Mr
ago -~
~ -~ N ~ c~i
r
r
M
rn ~
CEO N N F- ~
~~,~ ,`N
~~ ~T~
O -'~ ~ ~ ~
r ~
O~ ~ N
n y a~deW
N
d
3
~ = V
3 H d ~
~~i~~0
1iW=~
v
2
(Q
a
a
a
0
C7
z
0
H
a
0
a
z
Q
Q'
W
z
Q
U
3
0
3
o°
0
y
c
m
LL
lG0
N
L
O
N
~4 a
~~Z
r
~~
N
C ~
f6 ~
.
.
`
~
N ~
~
~
~
N .
a ~
O
Z v
rn
pnl8 ~o ~i y
n b ssa~df~
M
ti
N
CO ~
~ n y uapu~~
~
o ~
~
N
> ~
J ~
w m
~ ~ C7 `~
d
c~
- Y
~ ~ a
3
0
O c
~ ~ o
N ~' O
n y a~daW
N ti
~ M
~
N
~
0
H
3
`~
r.
~`
r
~ .~~~
3 N C N
'ti W ` N
3
O
Y
t0
d
d.
A
t~
'a
'a
a
O
Z
O
F-
Q
F-
O
a
Z
Q
H
W
Z
Q
U
~~ 4 a
N
~
~
Z
.~
a>
c ~
m ~
'm
m m
v N
nc
o ~
~
Z
0
p~18 ~.IOdJI y
b ssaadif~
~
N
Go pip
~ ~ nyuapu/~
o
N ~
~
> >
Q
J ~ ~
~ (~ m
F
d
m
(~
('/~
M ..F
V
~ Y
`m
r a
c
3
N °
~ M o
r r- ^
M nya/deW 3
l~ C
~
~
r
~ LL
N
N
L
O
N
d
3
O
C
~~
~ _ ~ O
L. r+ .a t0
~ X C O
Y. W L ~
3
O
Y
t4
d
a
a
O
Z
F-
Q
F-
a
N
Z
Q
1--
W
Z
Na
I.L
U
s
N 4 ~d
~~°z
~o
~~
~~ ~ ~-
~~ ~~ ~
-~ ~,
--~ pnl8 .Tao ai y
~~
~--~
n b ssa~df~
~~ ~ ~ ~
ny uapui~
~ ~~ ~ ~
>Z
o ~
~ ~
a
~ ~
Q J ~ ~ ~ ~
~ rte.. ~ Q ~ V-
~t ~ II II II ~
a in
o ~ ~
~ ~
d
m
io
Y
a
a 3
n y a~dew 3
C
N
LL
C
l0
L
O
y
~.
0
~~
~, ~ ~
.r+
O
~~~~
Y. W ~
C
J
C
O
V
d
N
a`
d
~+
C
a
O
(9
Z
0
H
a
H
d
Z
a
F-
W
Z
Q
U
s zQ
d ~ ~ ~
N ~ d~Z ° c
~ ~~
o ~
2 ~
_~~
O ~ lM`
y
~- r
~ M
M ~
lf7
OO~
~o
U O
t6 O
o. c
N ;.-,
O .~
Cfl ~
~ O
N ""'
X~,,
°' ~3
m
L ~
O ~ ~
.•= ~
~ ~ N r
~~
U 00 CO ~-
O M ~
~
O (a t
-
~ ~
.N U ~ y
~~
O
~ ~
~
U ~ 3 ~
N
~
j C ~
~ O _~
i
Q
~ "-' r
O U +~-' ~ ~
~ O O
C O` ~
d
+ ~
r-
O O C
te ti
C r
... ~
O C r-. * ~
~ O ~ ~
~
O O
E c - ~
~ •+ 3
O .,..
O O
N
U
O
O N O
y
N ~. f0 r.
I- o.. vi co
M ~
I
O Ch
r ~
0 O -~
~ O
~~
r
O
(D ~
F- _~ C7
N
~~~
II ~ O
~ ~ i
0o O
O
h
* O
O
~~ ~
c'7
O O
~-~®
~' ~
~ 0
N ~ N
~ O ~
N
C'7 O
O
~ ~
~~ H
~
~
_
~ O p
N M
~-- MO q.r =
d o
~ ,` ` ~
`- N ~
n ~ ~ ~ r
~
l8 /.lO Jl f/
~ ~ ~ p ~
= LCD
N
-
O ~Y ~
~
M
~
~ W r N
r r r _ ~ ^
~ ~ ~ r
~ ~ ~N d ..
ch W R
b ssaadf~ ~
C
G
O
O ~ ~ CO Ln
~ ~ ~
~ N LN F- pppO
~~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ nyuapu/~ ~'
Y
~.
~ ~
N o0 -~ T' O) N n"
r pp
O CD N ~ ~ O
O
M OO~ 0 0~ ~ ~
i r (0 ~ a
C~ N
O
LA Q
> ~L O ~ ~
Q ~ ~ U ~
~ O- O ~ 0
U' N O O ~ H
O C ~ in Q
n ~= m ~ ~
O O •X U ~o R~
N ~ ~ C7 lf) a LL1 C rn G.
CD O O Q
.- N N E- lI7 (h ~ c ~
Y
t_ ~ N c'7 a ~
y 3 W
ch n y a~deW 3 Q
0~-~ ~T~
~ In _~ O ~ N
O -~ M O O
~~ ~ ~ 0 LL
o
t
0
m Q
N4~o
r~Z ~~ MO
~o ~
~0 ~
O N M ~ _ ~ ~ O d~
N ~ N M ~ _
~0 r~_ ~ ~O
'~ ~ ~ ti
~ ' ~ ~ y M
~ ~
O ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ l~nl8 X10 J/b'
~ O O -'--~
N CO
O '~
a. ~ ~ ~ M O
~~
o .'~
o, ~ nb'ssaadif~
'x ~
~ .~
~~
... ~
is
.3 ~U
~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ N M OO ~ 'd'
f6 ~
~ to rn ~ ~ O F- N O ~- to O d' O ~
r M O
~~~ ~~~ HMO ~,~~ ~M
~ ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ nyuapu-~
»~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ m
~~o a~N _~ ~~ ~ O~-~ cflOV a
U ~ N O r r ~
C Q N r 0 ~ r0 0 N~~ ~~ Ch ~
""NC O
C w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"" O C N C
~ °c P y ~ ~* ~ ~ a o
p ° +' ~ et m ~ rn ~ v
~ o ~ ~ N ~
~ ~ ~ ~ X U m
~ ca o. rn ~ d w ~ ~
a ~ O ~ ~ ,~ ~ O SOD ,~ ~, ~
* ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~
00 o co rn O °D ~ m O ~
N M CO E- O M A N N ~~ N c,
r Y
M O ~~ `~ ~ N N 3
O~ ~ ~ ~~ M~ ~ ~ ~~ nya~deW o
0
O ° -~ N o ~ 00 -~ n
i 1~ N A M ~~ ~' ~ O c
~ O ~ N `~
M ~ N O ~ O~ ~ OO c
~ ~ m
L
3
O
N
d
i+ 3
O
~ L ~ 0
V ~ ~ ~
~ 0 0
~ .~ .~ v
N ~
W ~
d.
a
O
OC
C7
Z
O
F-
Q
F
0
a
Z
H
W
Z
Q
V
1/30/08 SSF Downtown Parking Garage
Table 1
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
MIDDAY EVENING COMMUTE
PEAK HOUR (12:15-1:15 PM PEAK HOUR (5:00-6:00 PM)
EXISTING + EXISTING +
INTERSECTION EXISTING CBD GARAGE EXISTING CBD GARAGE
Grand Ave./Airport Blvd. D-35.3 ~~ D-35.3 C-34.6 C-34.5
(Signal)
Grand Ave./Linden Ave. B-15.9 B-15.4 B-15.1 B-14.9
(Signal)
Grand Ave./Maple Ave. B-10.8 B-10.6 B-11.8 B-11.8
(Signal)
Miller Ave./Airport C-28.0 C-28.5 C-24.5 C-24.8
Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp
(Si nal)
Miller Ave./Linden Ave. C-31.3 C-32.6 C-32.3 C-33.5
(Signal)
Miller Ave./Maple Ave. B-10.2 B-10.6 B-13.8 C-15.6
(All Way Stop)
~~~ Signalized level ofservice-vehicle control delay in seconds.
~2~ All way stop level ofservice-vehicle control delay in seconds.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
1 /30/08 SSF Downtown Parking Garage
Table 2
EXISTING PARKING DEMAND
60-SPACE SURFACE LOT TO BE
REPLACED BY PARKING GARAGE
(WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2006)
TIME SPACES
UTILIZED PERCENT
UTILIZED
11:00 AM 35 58%
11:30 AM 35 58%
12:00 Noon 48 80%
12:30 PM 51 85%
1:00 PM 47 78%
1:30 PM 38 63%
2:00 PM 41 68%
2:30 PM 38 63%
3:00 PM 34 57%
3:30 PM 32 53%
4:00 PM 31 52%
4:30 PM 34 57%
5:00 PM 33 55%
5:30 PM 32 53%
6:00 PM 31 52%
6:30 PM 30 50%
7:00 PM 31 52%
Source: City of South San Francisco Public Works Department
1/30/08 SSF Downtown Parking Garage
Table 3
TRIP GENERATION
USES ON GROUND FLOOR OF PROPOSED
DOWNTOWN PARHING GARAGE
MIDDAY PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
IN OUT IN OUT
USE SIZE RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL
Specialty Retail 13,700
SQ.FT. 1.8 25 1.8 25 1.8 25 1.8 25
Trip rate source: Trip Generation, San Diego Association of Governments, 2002.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
l /30/08 SSF Downtown Parking Garage
1/30/08 SSF Downtown Parking Garage
Appendix
LEVEL OF SERVICE
CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR
ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds)
A 0-10
g >10-15
C >15-25
D >25-35
E >35-50
F > 50
Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection,
stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board
(/30/08 SSF Downtown Parking Garage
Appendix
LEVEL OF SERVICE
CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds)
A _ 10
B >10-20
C >20-35
D >35-55
E >55-80
F > 80
Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection,
stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board
1/30/08 SSF Downtown Parking Garage