Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
213 E Grand Ave SSF DEIR
Draft Environmental Impact Report CONTENTS Page Chapter 1:Introduction ....................................................................................................................1-1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report .................................................................................. l -1 EIR Review Process ......................................................................................................................... l -1 Content and Organization of the EIR ............................................................................................... l-2 Chapter 2: Executive Summary and Impact Overview .................................................................2-1 Proposed Project ...............................................................................................................................2-1 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 2-1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts That Cannot be Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant .................................................................................................................................. 2-1 Impacts Determined Not to be Significant ................................................................................2-2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ....................................................................... 2-3 Growth-Inducing Impacts .......................................................................................................... 2-3 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................... 2-4 Chapter 3: Project Description ........................................................................................................3-1 Project Location and Site Conditions ...............................................................................................3-1 Project Description ...........................................................................................................................3-1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................3-3 Intended Uses of This EIR ...............................................................................................................3-4 Chapter 4: Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................4-1 Introduction ................................... ................................................................................................... 4-1 Setting ........................................... ...................................................................................................4-1 Impact Analysis ............................. ...................................................................................................4-4 Scenic Vista ............................ ................................................................................................... 4-4 Scenic Highways .................... ...................................................................................................4-7 Visual Character ..................... ................................................................................................... 4-7 Light and Glare ....................... ................................................................................................... 4-9 Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts ................................................................................................. 4-10 Chapter 5: Air Quality ......................................................................................................................5-1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5 -1 Setting ..............................................................................................................................................5-1 Meteorology and Climatology ................................................................................................... 5-1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................... 5-2 Existing Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 5-4 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................5-5 Standards of Significance .......................................................................................................... 5-5 Conflict with Air Quality Plan ................................................................................................... 5-6 Air Quality Standards ................................................................................................................ 5-7 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Cumulatively Air Quality Impacts .......................................................................................... 5-18 Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................................................. 5-19 Odors ....................................................................................................................................... 5-20 Chapter 6: Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 6-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... .. 6-1 Setting ............................................................................................................................................ .. 6-1 Regional Seismicity ................................................................................................................ .. 6-1 Regional Geology .................................................................................................................... .. 6-2 Site Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ .. 6-3 Landsliding and Slope Stability .............................................................................................. .. 6-3 Primary Seismic Hazards -Surface Fault Rupture ................................................................. .. 6-4 Secondary Seismic Hazards .................................................................................................... .. 6-4 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................... .. 6-5 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................. .. 6-7 Standards of Significance ........................................................................................................ .. 6-7 Surface Fault Rupture ............................................................................................................. .. 6-9 Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking ......................................................................... .. 6-9 Seismically Induced Ground Failure, incl. Liquefaction & Ground Surface Settlement ........ 6-10 Landslides ............................................................................................................................... 6-11 Volcanic Hazards .................................................................................................................... 6-11 Unstable Soil Materials ........................................................................................................... 6-11 Expansive Soils ....................................................................................................................... 6-12 Soil Erosion ............................................................................................................................. 6-12 Septic Systems ........................................................................................................................ 6-13 Loss of Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................... 6-12 Unique Geological Features .................................................................................................... 6-13 Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts .................................................................................. 6-13 Chapter 7: Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 7-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... .. 7-1 Setting ............................................................................................................................................ .. 7-2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................... .. 7-2 Site History ............................................................................................................................. .. 7-4 Vicinity Hazardous Materials Sites ......................................................................................... .. 7-5 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................. .. 7-6 Standards of Significance ........................................................................................................ .. 7-6 Hazardous Materials Use, Transport ....................................................................................... .. 7-7 Accidental Hazardous Materials Release ................................................................................ .. 7-9 Hazardous Materials Sites ....................................................................................................... 7-11 Hazardous Materials Near Schools ......................................................................................... 7-13 Airport Land Use Plan ............................................................................................................ 7-14 Adopted Emergency Response Plan ....................................................................................... 7-15 Wildland Fires ......................................................................................................................... 7-15 Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts .......................................................... 7-15 Chapter 8: Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 8-1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8-1 Setting .............................................................................................................................................. 8-1 Climate and Topography ........................................................................................................... 8-1 Regional Hydrology .................................................................................................................. 8-2 Site Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 8-2 PAGE II 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CONTENTS Groundwater .............................................................................................................................. 8-2 Flooding ................................................................................................................................... ..8-3 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................... .. 8-3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................. .. 8-6 Standards of Significance ........................................................................................................ .. 8-6 Water Quality Standards or Water Discharge Requirements .................................................. .. 8-7 Groundwater Depletion/Recharge ........................................................................................... 8-12 Increased Erosion or Siltation to Receiving Waters ................................................................ 8-13 Changes in Stormwater Runoff ............................................................................................... 8-14 Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality ..................................................................... 8-14 Housing Within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area ..................................................................... 8-14 Significant Risk Involving Flooding ....................................................................................... 8-15 Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow ........................................................................... 8-15 Cumulative Hydrology Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 8-15 Chapter 9: Land Use .........................................................................................................................9-1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 9-1 Setting ..............................................................................................................................................9-1 History ....................................................................................................................................... 9-1 Existing Uses ............................................................................................................................. 9-2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................... 9-2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................9-3 Standards of Significance .......................................................................................................... 9-3 Dividing Established Community ..............................................................................................9-3 Conflict with Plans and Policies ................................................................................................9-3 Conflict with Conservation Plan ................................................................................................9-6 Chapter 10: Noise ............................................................................................................................ 10-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 10-1 Setting ............................................................................................................................................ 10-1 Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise .................................................................. 10-1 Existing Noise Environment .................................................................................................... 10-2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................... 10-2 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 10-5 Standards of Significance ........................................................................................................ 10-5 Permanent Noise Increases ...................................................................................................... 10-6 Noise, Groundborne Vibration ................................................................................................ 10-6 Airports .................................................................................................................................... 10-7 Cumulative Noise Impacts ....................................................................................................... 10-7 Chapter 11: Transportation and Circulation ...............................................................................11-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. .. ll-1 Setting .......................................................................................................................................... .. ll -1 Roadways ............................................................................................................................... .. ll -1 Intersection Operation ........................................................................................................... .. ll-5 Intersection Signalization Requirements ............................................................................... .. ll -6 Vehicle Queuing .................................................................................................................... .. ll -9 Freeway Operation ................................................................................................................ ll -10 Off Ramp Operation at Diverge From Freeway Mainline .................................................... ll -12 On-Ramp Operation .............................................................................................................. ll -13 Transit & Shuttle Service ....................................................................................................... ll -14 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................... ll -16 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE III DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Program ...................... 11-17 Future Base Case (Without Project) Conditions ................................................................... 11-18 Year 2015 Base Case Operating Conditions ......................................................................... 11-19 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 11-25 Significance Criteria .............................................................................................................. 11-25 Project Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 11-26 Project Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 11-27 On-Site Circulation and Access ............................................................................................ 11-28 Parking .................................................................................................................................. 11-30 Rail Safety ............................................................................................................................. 11-30 Project and Cumulative Intersection Operation .................................................................... 11-31 Project and Cumulative Vehicle Queuing ............................................................................. 11-37 Cumulative Freeway Mainline and On/Off-Ramp Operation ............................................... 11-41 Chapter 12: Utilities ........................................................................................................................12-1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................12-1 Setting ............................................................................................................................................12-1 Water Supply ...........................................................................................................................12-1 Wastewater ..............................................................................................................................12-2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................................12-4 Storm Drainage Facilities ........................................................................................................12-6 Solid Waste .............................................................................................................................12-6 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................................12-7 Standards of Significance ........................................................................................................12-7 Increase in Wastewater Flows .................................................................................................12-7 Effects on Groundwater, Water Quality, and Public Health ...................................................12-9 Utility Infrastructure Capacity ................................................................................................12-9 Landfill Capacity .....................................................................................................................12-9 Energy ................................................................................................................................... 12-10 Cumulative Utilities Impacts ................................................................................................. 12-11 Chapter 13: Alternatives ...............................................................................................................13-1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................13 -1 Project Objectives ..........................................................................................................................13-2 Alternatives Analysis .....................................................................................................................13-3 No Project Alternative .............................................................................................................13-4 Reduced Intensity Alternative .................................................................................................13-5 Reduced Parking & Modified Circulation Alternative ............................................................13-9 Environmentally Superior Alternative .........................................................................................13 -13 Chapter 14: References ..................................................................................................................14-1 Report Preparers ............................................................................................................................14-1 References .....................................................................................................................................14-1 Appendices Appendix A -Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comments Appendix B -Initial Study Appendix C -Air Quality Analysis Appendix D -Traffic Analysis Appendix E -Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan PAGE IV 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CONTENTS Figures 3-1: Site Location and Vicinity .................................................................................................... ..3-5 3-2: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................ ..3-7 3-3: Building Elevations (South/West) ........................................................................................ ..3-9 3-4: Building Elevations (North/East) ......................................................................................... 3-11 4-1: Site Photo 1 .......................................................................................................................... ..4-3 4-2: Site Photo 2 .......................................................................................................................... ..4-3 4-3: Site Photo 3 .......................................................................................................................... ..4-5 4-4: Site Photo 4 .......................................................................................................................... ..4-6 4-5: Perspective Drawing Looking North from East Grand Avenue ........................................... ..4-8 4-6: Perspective Drawing Looking East from East Grand Ave and Forbes Blvd ........................ ..4-8 12-1: Project Area Sanitary Sewer System .................................................................................... 12-4 Tables 2-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures .........................................................2-4 5-1: Summary of Criteria Air Pollution Monitoring Data ......................................................... .... 5-5 5-2: Predicted 8-Hour Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Levels (in PPM) ................................... ..5-11 5-3: Global Warming Potentials (100-Year Time Horizon) ...................................................... ..5-13 5-4: Recommended AB32 Greenhouse Gas Measures .............................................................. ..5-16 7-1: Select General Plan Policies Regarding Hazardous Materials ........................................... ....7-4 10-1: Definition of Acoustical Terms .......................................................................................... ..10-3 10-2: Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry ................................... ..10-4 11-1: Intersection Levels of Service Existing & Year 2015 AM Peak Hour ............................... .. l l-7 11-2: Intersection Levels of Service Existing & Year 2015 PM Peak Hour ............................... ..11-8 11-3: Intersection Signalization Requirements Existing & Year 2015 ........................................ ..11-9 11-4: Summary of Existing U. S. 101 Freeway Operation ........................................................... 11-11 11-5: Detailed U.S. 101 Freeway Existing Operating Conditions Dec. 2005 ............................. 11-11 11-6: Off-Ramp Capacity & Volumes at Diverge from Freeway Mainline ................................ 11-12 11-7: On-Ramp Capacity & Volumes Existing and Year 2015 ................................................... 11-13 11-8: Transit Service -South San Francisco ............................................................................... l 1-14 11-9: Alliance Shuttle Service -South San Francisco ................................................................ 11-15 11-10: Trip Generation -Approved & Planned Local Area Development By 2015 ..................... 11-18 11-ll: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues -Year 2015 ...................................................................... 11-22 11-12: Year 2015 U.S. Freeway Existing Operating Conditions ................................................... l 1-24 11-13: Project Trip Generation ...................................................................................................... l 1-26 11-14: East Grand Site Net New Trips .......................................................................................... 11-27 11-15: Year 2015 Project Traffic Distribution ............................................................................... l 1-27 11-16: Mitigated Intersection Level of Service Year 2015 ............................................................ 11-32 13-1: Trip Generation - No Project Alternative .......................................................................... ..13-4 13-2: Trip Generation -Reduced Intensity Alternative ............................................................... ..13-8 13-3: Comparison of Parking Provisions -Reduced Parking Alternative ................................... ..13-9 13-4: Summary Comparison of Impacts, Proposed Project and Alternatives .............................. 13-14 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE V This Page Intentionally Left Blank 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder (together "CEQA") require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared for any project which may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an informational document, the purposes of which, according to CEQA are "...to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project." The information contained in this EIR is intended to be objective and impartial, and to enable the reader to arrive at an independent judgment regarding the significance of the impacts resulting from the proposed project. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the 213 East Grand Avenue Project in the City of South San Francisco, California (the "Project"). The Project applicant is Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. and the Lead Agency is the City of South San Francisco. The applicant is seeking a Use Permit, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, Design Review and a Development Agreement to enable the demolition of four existing 1 & 2 story buildings and the construction in their place of one 9-story building with attached five-level parking garage and landscape improvements. Approval must be given by the City of South San Francisco before construction may begin. EIR REVIEW PROCESS This EIR is intended to enable City decision makers, public agencies and interested citizens to evaluate the broad environmental issues associated with the overall character and concept of the proposed Project. An EIR does not control the agency's ultimate discretion on the Project, however, as required under CEQA, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the EIR by making findings and if necessary, by making a statement of overriding considerations. In accordance with California law, the EIR on the Project must be certified before any action on the Project can be taken. However, EIR certification does not constitute Project approval. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 1-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Together, this Draft EIR (DEIR) and the Final EIR (FEIR) will constitute the EIR for the Project. During the review period for this Draft EIR, interested individuals, organizations and agencies may offer their comments on its evaluation of Project impacts and alternatives. The comments received during this public review period will be compiled and presented together with responses to these comments in the Final EIR. The South San Francisco City Council will review the EIR documents and will determine whether or not the EIR provides a full and adequate appraisal of the Project and its alternatives. In reviewing the Draft EIR, readers should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts associated with the Project. Readers are also encouraged to review and comment on ways in which significant impacts associated with this Project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts. Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments and, whenever possible, should submit data or references in support of their comments. The 45 day review period for the Draft EIR is from May 20, 2008 to July 3, 2008. Comments should be submitted in writing during this review period to: Mike Lappen, Economic Development Coordinator Department of Economic and Community Development City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Please contact Mike Lappen at 650-877-8535 or mike.lappen(a,ssf.net if you have any questions. After reviewing the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and following action to certify the EIR as adequate and complete, the South San Francisco City Council will be in a position to approve the Project as currently proposed, revised, or rejected. This determination will be based upon information presented on the entirety of the Project, its impacts and probable consequences, and the possible alternatives and mitigation measures available. CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued in February 2008 to solicit comments from public agencies and the public regarding the scope of the environmental evaluation for the Project (see Appendix A). The NOP and all written responses, as well as the Initial Study are presented in Appendix A. The responses were taken into consideration during Draft EIR preparation. Pursuant to CEQA, the Initial Study (Appendix B) prepared for the Project identified effects determined not to be significant and, in doing so, focused the EIR on the effects determined to be potentially significant. Proj ect-related impacts to the following CEQA topics were PAGE 1-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION determined not to be significant and no additional analysis is included in this Draft EIR: Agriculture Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. For analysis of these topics, please refer to the Initial Study included in Appendix B. As reflected in the content of this Draft EIR, the following CEQA topics were determined to have impacts that were potentially significant and, thus, required further analysis in this Draft EIR: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology, Land Use, Noise, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities and Service Systems. Following this brief introduction to the EIR, the document's ensuing chapters include the following: Chapter 2: Executive Summary and Impact Overview Chapter 3 : Proj ect Description Chapter 4: Aesthetics (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Vis") Chapter 5: Air Quality (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Air") Chapter 6: Geology and Soils (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Geo") Chapter 7: Hazardous Materials (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Haz") Chapter 8: Hydrology (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Hydro") Chapter 9: Land Use Chapter 10: Noise (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Noise") Chapter 11: Transportation and Circulation (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Traf ') Chapter 12: Utilities and Service Systems (Impacts/Mitigation Measures Labeled "Util") Chapter 13: Alternatives Chapter 14: References Appendices In Chapters 4 through 12, existing conditions are discussed in the Setting, followed by an evaluation of environmental impacts that may be associated with the Project and the mitigation measures or standard conditions of approval that would reduce or eliminate these impacts. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 1-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 1-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW PROPOSED PROJECT Located in South San Francisco's East of 101 area, the Project includes the demolition of four existing 1 & 2 story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet, and the subsequent construction of one 9-story office/research and development (R&D) building totaling 291,634 square feet. The Project would constitute a net building floor area increase of 167,634 square feet. Afive-level parking garage containing 625 spaces would be attached to the new building. An additional 203 surface parking spaces would also be provided. The Project excludes the abutting property at the southeast corner of East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road, under separate ownership. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Chapters 4 through 12 of this document provide a description of the existing setting, potential impacts of Project implementation, recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts that could occur as a result of Project, and the resulting level of significance of impacts after mitigation. Table 2-1 at the end of this chapter summarizes each impact and corresponding mitigation measures, as well as the level of significance after mitigation. Significant impacts require the implementation of mitigation measures, or alternatives, or a finding by the Lead Agency that the measures are infeasible for specific reasons. For some of the significant impacts, mitigation measures may not be effective in reducing the impacts to a less than significant level. These impacts are designated significant and unavoidable. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following Project related impact has been identified as significant and unavoidable: Impact Traf 17: Off Ramp Operation At Mainline Diverge. The following off ramp diverge location from the U.S.101 freeway mainline would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-6). 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase off ramp volumes by 2.4 percent (from 1,678 up to 1,718 vehicles) with Base Case volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour. This impact is more fully discussed in Chapter 11: Transportation and Circulation. IMPACTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The Initial Study for the Project determined the following impact topic areas were considered to have no impact or a less than significant impact with no mitigation required and, thus, this Draft EIR includes no additional analysis: • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Public Services Recreation. This Draft EIR analyzes the following impact topic areas and determines them to have no impact, a less than significant impact, or to be less than significant after mitigation: • Aesthetic s • Air Quality • Geology and Soils • Hazardous Materials • Hydrology • Land Use • Noise • Utilities and Service Systems. The only CEQA topic area not listed above is Transportation and Circulation, which included a significant and unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. PAGE 2-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could be caused by the Project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use which would commit future generations to specific uses; 2) irreversible changes from environmental actions; and 3) consumption ofnon-renewable resources. Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations The Project would not change the site's land use. It would, instead, retain and improve upon the industrial-related and office uses present today. Just as the current land use is proposed for retention and alteration, similar future decisions could be made to remove, alter or retain the Project. Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions Irreversible changes to the physical environment could stem from the accidental release of hazardous materials associated with development and/or on-going use of the site as a research facility. However, compliance with hazardous materials regulations and policies as outlined in Chapter 7 of this document, Hazardous Materials, is expected to maintain this potential impact at ales-than-significant level. Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. The Project would not result in the loss of agricultural lands or mining reserves. The Project would result in the consumption of some nonrenewable resources during construction and operation, such as electricity and construction materials. While this would require additional energy of several types for construction and on-going use, it would not require the construction of major new lines to deliver energy, and it is anticipated service providers can provide the capacity to serve this Proj ect with existing infrastructure. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The Project would not be expected to result in a direct increase in the local population, since it would not result in the construction of any new housing units. The Project would not require any major increases in the capacity of local infrastructure which might later be used to support new housing development, and would not result in the extension of infrastructure into areas which might ultimately support new housing. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the Project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. The Cumulative scenario used in this EIR was the same as that used for the Genentech Corporate Master Plan EIR1 with the addition of a recently proposed project at 328 Roebling Road which includes the construction of two 2-story office/R&D buildings each containing 52,768 square feet (105,536 square feet total) of office/laboratory space over a basement garage. More specific information regarding the cumulative scenario can be found at the beginning of Appendix D of this document. "Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the Project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. Cumulative impacts were analyzed within each topic area in Chapters 4 through 12 of this document and found to be less than significant with the exception of the Traffic and Circulation topic. The Project would contribute to reduced freeway Levels of Service, representing a significant and unavoidable adverse cumulative impact. This impact is more fully discussed as Impact Traf 17 in Chapter 11 of this document. 1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by EIP Associates and Korve Engineering, Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan Draft EIR, December 2006. PAGE 2-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Impact Traf-17: Off-Ramp Operation At Traf 17: Improvements for Off-Ramp Operation. Significant Mainline Diverge. The following off ramp (see Figure 16 in Appendix D) No improvements are diverge location from the U.S.101 freeway feasible to mitigate project-specific impacts. The mainline would receive a significant ijnpact spacing of southbound off ramp connections to due to the addition of Project traffic to year Airport Boulevard and to Oyster Point Boulevard 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-6). precludes the possibility of providing a second off • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Oyster ramp lane connection to southbound U.S.101 to serve Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound off ramp. Intersection AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase off ramp volumes by 2.4 percent (from 1,678 up to 1,718 vehicles) with Base Case volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour. Less than Significant Impacts After Mitigation Impact Air-1: Construction Dust and Air-1: Dust Suppression and Exhaust Reduction Less than Exhaust. Construction activity involves a high Procedures. The following basic, enhanced and Significant potential for the emission of air pollutants. additional measures are recommended for inclusion in Construction activities would generate exhaust construction contracts to control fugitive dust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive emissions during construction. Measures to reduce particulate matter emissions that would affect construction exhaust will additionally reduce local air quality. This would be a potentially particulate matter form the exhaust of diesel-powered significant impact. construction vehicles. Basic Measures ~ Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction site. • Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adj acent public streets. • Limit construction equipment idling time. • Properly tune construction equipment engines, and install particulate traps on diesel equipment. Enhanced Measures • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non- toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Additional Measures • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. Measures to Reduce Construction Exhaust The measures listed below should be implemented to reduce diesel particulate matter and NOx emissions from on-site construction equipment: • At least 50 percent of the heavy-duty, off road equipment used for construction shall be CARB- certifiedoff road engines or equivalent, or use alternative fuels (such as biodiesel or water emulsion fuel) that result in lower emissions. • Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters. • Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate emissions from off road diesel powered equipment. The Project shall ensure that emissions from all construction diesel powered equipment used on the Project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be prohibited from use on the site until repaired. • The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for PAGE 2-6 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance independently powered equipment (e.g., compressors). • Diesel equipment standing idle for more than two minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site. • Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. Impact Air-3: Cumulative Air Quality Air-3: Transportation Demand Management Less than Impacts. The proposed Project could Program. Implementation of an updated Significant contribute to regional air quality emissions but Transportation Demand Management Program is would not exceed BAAQNID emissions required, as described in Mitigation Measure Traf 1. thresholds for ROG, NOx and PM10. This This Plan would reduce the number of vehicle trips to would be considered a less than significant and from the Project site. The following components impact. should be considered for inclusion in the updated Plan to further reduce Project impacts to air quality: While the Project is not expected to have a significant impact on cumulative air quality, the ' Support shuttle service to BART and Caltrain. following mitigation measure has been There are currently shuttles that serve employers proposed to ensure that cumulative air quality in the area. impacts remain less than significant. • Provide bicycle amenities so that employees could bicycle to the Project. Such amenities could include safe onsite bicycle access and convenient storage (bike racks). Amenities for employees could include secure bicycle parking, lockers, and shower facilities • The Project should include sidewalks with shade trees that provide safe and convenient access to the Project and any shuttle or future bus stops that serve the Project. • Impact Traf 11 of the Transportation and Circulation Section discusses the on-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation incorporated into the Project. Mitigation Measure Traf 11 would require pedestrian connections to adjacent roadways and between proposed and existing buildings in the Britannia Pointe Grand II business park to ensure adequate pedestrian circulation. • For all buildings, provide outdoor electrical outlets and encourage the use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment. Also, provide electrical outlets for recharging electrical vehicles in commercial and industrial parking lots/structures. Provide 110 and 220 Volt outlets at all loading docks and prohibit trucks from using their auxiliary equipment powered by diesel 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-7 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance engines for more than 5 minutes. • Provide new trees that would shade buildings and walkways in summer to reduce the cooling loads on buildings. Impact Geo-2: Seismic Ground Shaking. Geo-2a: Compliance with California Building Less than There is a high probability that the proposed Code. Project development shall meet requirements of Significant development will be subjected to strong to the California Building Code Vols. l and 2, 2001 violent ground shaking from an earthquake Edition, including the California Building Standards, during its design life. Strong to violent seismic 2001 Edition, published by the International ground shaking is considered a potentially Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by significant impact. the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking. Geo-2b: Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Registered Structural Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code. Geo-2c: Obtain a building permit.. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Impact Geo-3: Liquefaction, Densification, Geo-3a: Compliance with recommendations of a Less than and Ground Surface Settlement. The Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance Significant Association of Bay Area Governments with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level identifies the Project area as an area of high Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the hazard for liquefaction. Liquefaction or site under the direction of a California Registered densification of soils underlying the site could Geotechnical Engineer and shall include analysis for PAGE 2-8 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance result in settlement and differential settlement liquefaction potential of the underlying sediments. of site improvements including buildings, Proper foundation engineering and construction shall pavements, and utilities and pose a threat to be performed in accordance with the human health. The potential for liquefaction of recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. site soils is considered a potentially significant The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and impact. approved by the City's Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer shall prepare Project structural design plans. Structures shall be designed to minimize the affects of anticipated seismic settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review the Structural Design Plans and provide approval for the Geotechnical elements of the plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the liquefaction potential of surface soils. Mitigations measures may include excavation and replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation loading, and ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or pressure grouting. Geo-3b: Obtain a building permit. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Impact Geo-4: Unstable Soils and Bay Mud. Geo-4: Investigate unstable fill soils and Bay Mud. Less than Undocumented fill soils are present on most of A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be significant the subject site. These soils have not been performed to determine the depth and extent of reworked to provide a stable foundation for potentially unstable fill soil and Bay Mud. Based on buildings, pavements and utilities. Fill soils of results of this study the Geotechnical Engineer shall unknown quality are present in the proposed determine appropriate measures to stabilize the building and parking areas. Fill soils may settle unstable soils present underlying the site. due to new building loads. Bay Mud and Consolidation testing of the Bay Mud soils shall be alluvial soil deposits are present on adjacent performed, as part of the Design Level Geotechnical sites and also constitute areas of potentially Investigation, and estimates of settlement for the site unstable soils. Bay Mud is likely present under shall be developed. portions of the Project site and may settle under Methods of unstable soil stabilization may include design loading conditions resulting in construction of driven pile foundations that support differential settlement of structures. The structures on materials located below fill soils and presence of unstable soil and Bay Mud is a Bay Mud, and other methods as recommended by the potent~'ally significant impact. Geotechnical Engineer. Buildings constructed on the adjacent properties have utilized driven pile foundations to support the structures. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Impact Geo-6: Soil Erosion. The Project Geo-6: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In Less than would involve mass grading at a location which accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Significant drains stormwater to the San Francisco Bay. Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Demolition of existing structures and Applicant shall file a Storm Water Pollution pavements could expose underlying Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the start of contaminated soil to the elements. Excavation construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best of soil for construction of new buildings and management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is pavement sections would also be performed required to obtain coverage under the General Permit and temporary stockpiles of loose soil will be for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with created. Soils exposed during site grading could Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, be subject to erosion during storm events. 99-08-DWQ). Grading would disturb site soils potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco Bay. This would be a potentially significant impact during and following site construction activities. Impact Haz-1: Routine transportation, use Haz-Ia: Plan Review for Adherence to Fire and Less than or disposal of hazardous materials. The Safety Codes. Building space must be designed to Significant proposed development is for construction of a handle the intended use, with sprinklers, alarms, vents, nine-story building for Class A laboratory and and secondary containment structures, where office use, a parking garage, central courtyard, applicable. These systems must pass plan review and associated landscaping and infrastructure. through the City of South San Francisco Planning, Class A refers to a research laboratory, not Building and Fire Departments. merely an instructional laboratory. Depending upon the nature of research planned at the Haz-lb: Construction Inspection and Final proposed facilities, for which detailed Inspection Prior to Occupancy. During construction, information has not yet been provided, there are the utilities including sprinkler systems shall pass likely to be both hazardous and potentially pressure and flush tests to make sure they perform as hazardous materials stored and used on the site designed. At the end of construction, occupancy shall that will eventually require disposal. There are not be allowed until a final inspection is made by the likely to be biological hazards, chemical Fire Department for conformance of all building hazards and risk of fire or explosion. There is systems with the Fire Code and National Fire also likely to be transportation of hazardous Protection Agency Requirements. The inspection shall materials to and from the site, probably include testing of sprinklers systems, alarm systems, traveling along Highway 101 and East Grand ventilation and airflow systems, and secondary Avenue. The risk of accidental upset and containment systems. The inspection shall include a environmental contamination from routine review of the emergency evacuation plans. These transport, storage, use and disposal of plans shall be modified as deemed necessary. hazardous and potentially hazardous materials Haz-Ic: Hazardous Materials Business Plan to the public and environment is a potentially program. Businesses occupying the development significant impact. must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of using these materials, material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact PAGE 2-10 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance information. Businesses qualify for the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Exemptions include businesses selling only pre- packagedconsumer goods; medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and who store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A laboratory facilities. Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must submit a business plan prior to the start of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change, including without limitation, changes to emergency contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous materials storage and/or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363- 4305 for more information. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall inspect the business at least once a year to make sure that the Business Plan is complete and accurate. Haz-ld: Hazardous Waste Generator Program. Applicable businesses shall register and comply with the hazardous waste generator program. The State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control authorized the SMCEHD to inspect and regulate non- permittedhazardous waste generators in San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. Regulations require businesses generating any amount of hazardous waste as defined by regulation to properly store, manage and dispose of such waste. Division staff also conducts surveillance and enforcement activities in conjunction with the County District Attorney's Office for businesses or individuals that significantly violate the above referenced law and regulations. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-11 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Haz-le: Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations. All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the impact of routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant through compliance with existing regulations, plans and programs as discussed specifically in mitigation measures Haz-la through Haz-1 e that act to ensure adequate safety levels are reached and maintained throughout the life of the Project. Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A Less than Materials Release. During demolition demolition plan with permit applications shall be Significant operations hazardous materials could be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building released from structures at the site or from the Department for approval prior to demolition. The underlying soils. Following construction, Demolition Plan for safe demolition of existing operations at the proposed facilities are structures shall include asbestos dust control and expected to represent a continuing threat to the incorporate recommendations from the site surveys environment through accidental release of for the presence of potentially hazardous building hazardous materials since the site is proposed materials, as well as additional surveys when required to include Class A laboratory facilities, where by the City. The Demolition Plan shall address both hazardous materials maybe stored, used, and on-site Worker Protection and off site resident disposed of. This represents a potentially protection from both chemical and physical hazards. significant impact. All contaminated building materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. Haz-2b: California Accidental Release Prevention PAGE 2-12 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Program (CaIARP). Future businesses at the development shall check the state and federal lists of regulated substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to use in consultation with the SMCEHD. Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a CaIARP registration form and submit it to Environmental Health. Following registration, they shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for: keeping employees and customers safe, handling regulated substances, training staff, maintaining equipment, checking that substances are stored safely, and responding to an accidental release. Impact Haz-3: Exposure to contaminated Haz-3a: San Mateo County Environmental Health Less than soil and groundwater. During demolition and Department Closure of Existing Facilities. Any Significant construction, workers could be exposed to businesses on the site that are currently registered in contaminated soil and groundwater. Following the hazardous materials business plan program shall site development, future maintenance work is submit a closure work plan in accordance with the San also likely to penetrate into the subsurface Mateo County Environmental Health Department where contamination remains. Soil and Business Closure Policy prior to vacating the groundwater disturbance presents an exposure property. The closure plan shall detail any necessary hazard to workers and trespassers. Disturbance sampling and remediation. Closure will not be granted of the subsurface also increases the potential until businesses have demonstrated there is no need for contamination to spread through surface for further remediation, and shall include water runoff, creation of seepage pathways, and documentation of the removal of any hazardous through wind blown dust. These impacts are chemicals. potentially significant. Haz-3b: Development and Implementation of Site Management Plans. A Site Management Plan shall be prepared and address the exposure risk to people and the environment resulting from future demolition, construction, occupancy, and maintenance activities on the property. The plans shall be in accordance with recommendations of the Environmental Consultant, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the San 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-13 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Mateo County Environmental Health Department Groundwater Protection Program and the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. In accordance with DTSC recommendations from review of the Draft Site Management Plan there should be two separate plans: (1) ongoing Operations and Maintenance Activities, and (2) a specific plan addressing the future proposed site development based on actual proposed grading, excavation and construction. The plans are required to be more specific than the draft plan. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the environment shall be provided in the plan. At a minimum, the plan shall include the following: 1) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASP) shall be prepared in accordance with OSHA regulations by all contractors at the Project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. The plan shall also designate provisions to limit worker entry and exposure and shall show locations and type of protective fencing to prevent public exposure to any hazards during demolition, site grading, and construction activities. 2) Standards for treatment of soil excavated from beneath the soil cap shall be established. Due to the extent and depth of foundation and utility excavations, a significant volume of contaminated soils are likely to be generated during construction, and to a lesser extent during future maintenance work. These soils must be characterized for reuse above the future cap, reburial, or disposal off site. Only soil with contaminant levels below the DTSC California Human Health Screening Levels and RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels for Commercial sites shall be allowed for reuse above the future cap. All other soil must be either re- capped or disposed of off site. To avoid the spread of contamination, on-site soils excavated from below the cap shall be segregated from any imported clean fill. Soils shall be placed on a plastic tarp, covered and bermed to reduce the risk from windblown dust or surface water runoff spreading contamination. Then soil must be tested PAGE 2-14 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance to determine the levels of remaining contamination and suitability for re-use. Contaminated soils unable to be re-buried under at least one-foot of clean soil must be off hauled and disposed of by a licensed hazardous materials contractor under the proper manifesting documents. A report shall document the volume, concentration and nature of contaminants in the off hauled material. 3) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination shall be developed. This shall include treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with local and Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. Groundwater encountered in trenches and other excavations shall not be discharged into the neighboring storm drain, but into a closed containment facility, unless proven to have concentrations of contaminants below established regulatory guidelines. Contaminated groundwater will be required to be stored in Baker tanks until tested. If testing determines that the water can be discharged into the sanitary sewer system, then the applicant must acquire a ground water discharge permit from the City of South San Francisco Sanitary Sewer District and meet local discharge limits before being allowed to discharge into the sanitary sewer. Water must be analyzed for the chemicals of concern at the site, which include metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and cyanide. 4) General sampling and testing plan for excavated soils shall determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility. Testing shall include the California Title 22 Hazardous Metals (CAM 17 metals), TPH as gasoline, TPH as diesel, and TPH as motor oil. Soils excavated in the area identified as containing cyanide shall also be tested for cyanide contamination. Testing results shall be compared to DTSC California Human Health Screening Levels and RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels to determine suitability to remain on-site as engineered fill or landscape fill. Any soils determined to exceed the CHHSLs and ESLs for Commercial sites shall be deemed as unsuitable for re-use as fill above the future cap. 5) Future subsurface work plan. The plan shall document procedures for future subsurface landscaping work, utility maintenance, etc., with proper DTSC notification, where applicable. The 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-15 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance plan shall include a general health and safety plan for each expected type of work, with appropriate personal protective equipment, where applicable. Impact Haz-4: Contaminated Dust. The Haz-4: Demolition and Construction Air Quality Less than Early Years Children's Center is located at 371 Control. Following closure of businesses, a Significant Allerton Avenue, approximately one-quarter demolition plan with permit applications shall be mile eastward and downwind of the northeast submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building corner of the property. During grading, Department for approval prior to demolition. The contaminated soils that are currently buried Demolition Plan shall address both on-site Worker would be disturbed. Disturbed soils could be Protection and off site resident protection from both mobilized by movement of heavy equipment chemical and physical hazards. Building materials and the wind, resulting in potential dispersal of shall be tested for chemicals of concern and unless contamination. Dispersed contaminants, of recycled shall be disposed to appropriate licensed which the most probable is lead, could be landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, any inhaled, ingested or adsorbed and present a hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping potential health hazard. Dispersal of and friable lead based paint or asbestos containing contaminated dust during demolition and building materials shall be removed in accordance grading would be a potentially significant with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. impact. Both the Demolition and Grading Plans submitted to the City for approval shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. This shall be in accordance with BAAQMD requirements and all other applicable standards. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plans. The Plan shall include details of site watering, covering of exposed stockpiles, and security fencing to prevent trespassers during demolition and construction. During demolition and construction, the site shall be inspected regularly to ensure compliance with the approved plan. Materials determined or even suspected of being hazardous waste shall be off hauled by a hazardous materials contractor to an appropriately licensed landfill facility in closed vehicles. Impact Haz-5: Future Emissions Near Haz-5: Future Building Compliance with Bay Less than Schools. Since the proposed development Area Air Quality Management District Significant includes research laboratory facilities, it is (BAAQMD) and Occupational Safety and Health likely that hazardous chemicals will be stored Administration (OSHA) Standards. Each and used on the property. In certain independent R&D facility operating on the property circumstances these chemicals could spill, mix, shall obtain necessary permits and comply with ignite, or volatilize and cause a hazardous monitoring and inspection requirements of the emission near the childcare center, which BAAQNID. Future operations shall comply with all would be a potentially significant impact. local, state and federal requirements for emissions. Each facility shall also meet OSHA and California OSHA standards for R&D facilities. This includes plan review by the City of South San Francisco to examine if the proposed development plans meet the same standards as for other similar facilities. PAGE 2-16 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Engineering controls, such as exhaust hoods, filtration systems, spill kits, fire extinguishers, and other controls, shall be incorporated into laboratory facilities to meet OSHA and California OSHA requirements. These standards are primarily designed to maintain worker safety, but also function to reduce the risk of accidental upset and limit potential hazardous emissions. Impact Hydro-1: No Treatment of Loading Hydro-1: Implement Water Quality BMPs for Less than /Trash Area Runoff. Development of the Stormwater Runoff from the Loading /Trash Significant proposed Project could contribute to the levels Area. The Project applicant shall implement storm of NPS pollutants and litter entering water quality BMPs for treatment of runoff from the downstream waters, including the San Loading /Trash Area. Possible BMPs include drop Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS pollutants inlet filtration devices such as the vault based media could have adverse effects on wildlife, filters, or others delineated in the City's National vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) also have the potential to infiltrate into Permit. Any storm water quality BMPs implemented groundwater and degrade the quality of at the site must be approved by the City's Public groundwater drinking sources. No water Works Department. quality BMPs have been proposed for the Loading I Trash Area. This area represents a source of suspended solids, petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals and other Source Point pollutants related to temporary waste storage. The majority of the Project designs could reduce non-point source pollution, but the lack of treatment of parking lot runoff represent a potentially significant impact. Impact Hydro-2: Site Soil and Groundwater Hydro-2: Evaluate Project Site for Feasibility of Less than Elevations May Be Unsuitable for Vegetated Vegetated Swales as Water Quality BMP. The use Significant Swales. Appropriate evaluation of site of swales at the Project site may be limited by several conditions is critical to the effectiveness of factors, including fill elevations, soil characteristics, vegetated swales. The site history of soil distance to groundwater, and proposed land uses. The contamination and high groundwater conditions feasibility of vegetated swale BMPs at the Project may render vegetated swales unsuitable. This shall be evaluated as follows: issue of feasibility maybe compounded by 1) Groundwater levels at the invert of the swales potential future chemical or hazardous material shall be reevaluated. The Project applicant shall storage on-site unless they are prevented from ascertain that the distance from the proposed entering the swales. trench inverts to groundwater is a sufficient The majority of the Project designs would distance to prevent groundwater to surface water reduce non-point source pollution, but the contamination. untested feasibility of vegetated bioswales . 2) Soil parameters, such as the amount of silt and represents a potentially significant impact. clay shall be examined. Soils below swales shall have a clay content sufficient to prevent groundwater to surface water contamination. Proposed land uses and grading shall be examined to 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-17 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance determine whether infiltration BMPs are suitable. Infiltration BMPs shall be considered not suitable for sites that use or store chemicals or hazardous materials unless hazardous and toxic materials are isolated such that they are not able to enter the swale and/or if the site elevations result in swales that could impact water quality. Installation of a clay or geotextile barrier beneath swale areas may be used to prevent infiltration to groundwater or contaminated soil depths. If site constraints preclude the use of vegetated swales at the Project site, other BMPs that prevent the interaction with groundwater and contaminated soils shall be used. Possible alternatives for storm water treatment include vault based media filters, storm drain inlet filters, strainer baskets, sediment/debris catch baskets, geotextile filter bags, composite filter medium, and mechanical swirl treatment units if used in a sequence or "train" with other devices. Use of several of these alternative methods of sediment and hydrocarbon filtration and removal devices in a treatment sequence will be required. Any storm water quality BMPs to be implemented at the site must be approved by the City's Public Works Department. Impact Hydro-3: Potential Contamination Hydro-3: Preparation and Implementation of Less than of Local Groundwater. The Project site is Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES requirements, Significant located within a groundwater basin as defined the applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water by the DWR. The potential for groundwater quality during and after construction. The Project contamination from infiltration BMPs must be SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the carefully considered, especially in areas where following mitigation measures for the construction the distance between groundwater and the period: Swale invert is small or where groundwater is 1) Grading and earthwork shall be prohibited during or could potentially be used for human the wet season (October 15 through April 15) and consumption or agricultural purposes. The such work shall be stopped before pending storm infiltration of industrial and parking lot events. pollutants into shallow groundwater could 2) Erosion controUsoil stabilization techniques such potentially impair the quality of local as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, groundwater sources. This represents a erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall potentially significant impact. be utilized in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments "Erosion & Sediment Control Measures" manual. Silt fences shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Hay bales shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. 3) BMPs shall be used for preventing the discharge or other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to PAGE 2-18 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance downstream waters. 4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 5) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site should be described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Proj ect site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. 7) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs should be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. 8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. 9) The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum, the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-19 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Impact Hydro-4: Erosion or siltation on- or Hydro-4: Compliance with NPDES Requirements. Less than off-site. Construction of the proposed Project The Project applicant shall comply with all Phase I Significant would involve demolition of existing structural NPDES General Construction Activities permit foundations and pavement areas that currently requirements established by the CWA and the Grading help to stabilize site soils. Although no cut/fill Permit requirements of the City of South San estimates were available for review, significant Francisco. Erosion control measures to be site grading is expected to occur. Construction implemented during construction shall be included in operations associated with the Project could the Project SWPPP. The Project SWPPP will present a threat of soil erosion from soil accompany the NOI filing and will outline erosion disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil control and storm water quality management measures areas to the erosional forces of runoff. to be implemented during and following construction. Additionally, new onsite stormdrains may The SWPPP will also provide the schedule for require excavation of the soil cap and monitoring performance. Refer to Mitigation Measure potentially, the soil below. This represents a Hydro 3-for more information regarding the Project potentially significant impact. SWPPP. Implementation of Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities permit requirements would reduce construction-related impacts associated with erosion and/or siltation to less than significant. Following Project development, soil and sediment in runoff would be treated by storm water quality BMPs. Refer to Mitigation Measure Hydro-3 for more information regarding water quality BMPs at the Project site. Impact Noise-2: Construction Related Noise-2: Noise Abatement. The Project applicant Less than Noise. Project construction could result in shall require by contract specification that Significant temporary short-term noise increases due to the construction best management practices be operation of heavy equipment. This would be a implemented by contractors to reduce construction potentially significant impact associated with noise levels to the 90-dBA at 25 feet noise limit Project development. Construction noise specified in the City Noise Ordinance including: sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 'Ensuring that construction equipment is properly feet for most types of construction equipment, muffled according to industry standards, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving • Implementing noise attenuation measures which and impact equipment. may include but are not limited to noise barriers or noise blankets. • Requiring heavily loaded trucks used during construction to be routed away from noise and vibration sensitive uses. Impact Traf-1: Project Trip Generation Traf-1: Transportation Demand Management Less than Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The Program. The Project sponsors shall implement a Significant Project would generate more than 100 net new Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program trips during the AM and PM peak hours (377 consistent with the City of South San Francisco two-way (inbound + outbound) trips during the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation AM peak hour and 365 two-way trips during Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. the PM peak hour (see Table 11-13)). The San These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing Mateo CitylCounty Association of for the occupied life of the development. Impact Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for reduced to aless-than-significant level. the implementation of the 2003 Draft PAGE 2-20 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact. Impact Traf-5: Internal Pedestrian Traf 5: Sidewalks and Crosswalks. Sidewalks and Less than Circulation. Internal walkways are shown on Crosswalks. Provide a sidewalk connecting the Significant the site plan connecting all buildings and Proj ect's main entrance with the sidewalk along East connecting the buildings to the sidewalk along Grand Avenue. Roebling Road. However, there are no walkway connections shown between the sidewalk along East Grand Avenue and the Proj ect's main entrance. The auto driveway would need to be used for pedestrian access. This would be a significant safety impact. Impact Traf-7: Grade Crossing Approaches Traf 7: Impacts to Grade Crossing Approach Less than Missing Signing and Pavement Striping. The Signing & Pavement Striping. The Project shall Significant State Public Utilities Commission (September provide a fair share contribution towards all needed 26, 2006 letter to City of South San Francisco) signs and pavement markings on the approaches to the has noted in a recent inspection that the East East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /Harbor intersection "at grade railroad crossing" to meet Way intersection grade crossing is not up to minimum State Public Utilities Commission minimum standards on one or more approaches requirements as detailed in the 2003 Manual of for required advanced warning signing and Uniform Traffic Control Services by the Federal pavement striping (i.e. R15-1 and W-10-1 signs Highway Commission. as well as RxR pavement striping). This results in an existing safety concern that would be aggravated by the addition of Project traffic. This would be a significant impact. Impact Traf-8: Intersection Level of Service. Traf 8: E. Grand Avenue /Gateway Boulevard. Less than The following intersection would receive a (see Table 11-16 and Figure 15 in Appendix D) The Significant significant impact due to the addition of following improvements would mitigate the project- Projecttraffic toyear 2015 Base Case volumes specific impacts. These improvements are included as (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2). part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project's traffic • E. Grand Avenue I Gateway Boulevard impact fee contribution to this program: Reconfigure the southbound Gateway Boulevard AM Peak Hour: The Project would approach from one right, two through and one increase volumes by 5.0 percent at a exclusive left turn lane to provide two exclusive location where acceptable LOS D Base left turn lanes, one through lane and one right Case signalization operation would be turn lane. degraded to unacceptable LOS E operation. Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS D-51.0 seconds control delay 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-21 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance PM Peak Hour: LOS C-32.2 seconds control delay Impact Traf-9: Intersection Level of Service. Traf-9: E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Less than The following intersection would receive a Harbor Way. (see Table 11-16 and Figure 15 in Significant significant impact due to the addition of Appendix D) The following improvements would Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes mitigate the project-specific impacts. These (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2). improvements are included as part of the East of 101 • E Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Transportation Improvement Program and will be . Harbor Way funded via the Project's traffic impact fee contribution to this program. AM Peak Hour: The Project would Widen East Grand Avenue east of Forbes increase volumes by 7.5 percent at a Boulevard /Harbor Way in order to provide three location with Base Case LOS D operation eastbound and three westbound through lanes being degraded to LOS F operation. through the intersection. The third eastbound PM Peak Hour: The Project would through lane should continue at least 500 feet east increase volumes by 8.5 percent at a of the intersection, while the third westbound location with unacceptable LOS F Base through lane should begin to the east of the Case signalized operation. Roebling Road intersection (in order to mitigate left turn queuing impacts). The 328 Roebling Road project should also provide a fair share contribution towards these improvements. Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS D-42.7 seconds control delay (which would be better than Base Case LOS D- 53.8 seconds control delay operation) PM Peak Hour: LOS E-63.5 seconds control delay (which would be better than Base Case LOS F- 98.3 seconds control delay operation) Impact Traf-10: Intersection Level of Traf-10: E. Grand Avenue l Roebling Road. (see Less than Service. The following intersection would Table 11-16 and Figure 15 in Appendix D) The Significant receive a significant impact due to the addition following improvements would mitigate the project- of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case specific impacts. These improvements are not volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2). currently included as part of the East of 101 • E. Grand Avenue /Roebling Road Transportation Improvement Program and will not be ' funded via the Project s traffic impact fee contribution PM Peak Hour: The Project would to this program. degrade acceptable Base Case LOS D 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation operation of the stop sign controlled with the signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Roebling Road approach to an Boulevard /Harbor Way. unacceptable LOS F. 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection (see Traf 9). 3. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue intersection approach from 75 feet up to 225 feet. This will leave room fora 200- to PAGE 2-22 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance 210-foot left turn lane on the westbound East Grand Avenue approach to Harbor Way, which would accommodate a year 2015 95th percentile queue of 125 feet during the PM peak hour. Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS A-8.3 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS C-22.6 seconds control delay Impact Traf-11: Intersection Level of Traf 11: Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Less than Service. The following intersection would Boulevard I Mitchell Avenue. (see Table 11-16 and Significant receive a significant impact due to the addition Figure 15 in Appendix D) The following of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case improvements would mitigate the project-specific volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2). impacts. These improvements are included as part of • Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program ' Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue and will be funded via the Project s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. PM Peak Hour: The Project would Widen the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach increase volumes by 3.4 percent at a to provide a second through lane. location with acceptable LOS D Base Case signalized operation being degraded Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized to unacceptable LOS E operation. Operation: PM Peak Hour: LOS D-37.8 seconds control delay Impact Traf-12: Intersection Signalization Traf 12: E. Grand Avenue I Roebling Road. (see Less than Needs. The analysis concluded that the East Table 11-16 and Figure 15 in Appendix D) Significant Grand Avenue /Roebling Road unsignalized Coincidently, mitigation measure Traf 10 would also intersection would receive a significant signal reduce impact Traf 12 to a less than significant level. warrant impact due to the addition of Project Again, the project proponent will be solely traffic to year 2015 Base Case PM peak hour responsible for implementation of the following volumes. Volumes would be increased by more improvements or fair share reimbursement (as than two percent (7.73%) at the one nearby determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by unsignalized intersection where Base Case another party prior to initiation of construction for this volumes would already be meeting peak hour project. The following improvements would mitigate signal warrant criteria levels (see Table 11-3). the project's intersection Signalization impact at East Grand Avenue /Roebling Road: 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the Signal at East Grand Avenue I Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way. 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection (see Traf 9). 3. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue intersection approach from 75 feet up to 175 feet. Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-23 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance AM Peak Hour: LOS A-8.3 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS C-22.6 seconds control delay Impact Traf-13: 95th Percentile Vehicle Traf-13: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Less than Queuing - Synchro software evaluation. Figure 15 in Appendix D) The following Significant The following approach to an intersection improvements would mitigate the project-specific providing direct access to the Project site would impact. These improvements are not included in the receive a significant queuing impact due to the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and addition of Proj ect traffic to year 2015 Base will not be funded via the Proj ect's traffic impact fee Case volumes (see Table 11-11). contribution to this program: • E. Grand Avenue /Roebling Road E. Grand Avenue /Roebling Road (unsignalized) 1. Signalize the intersection. AM Peak Hour: The Project would 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and increase volumes by 217 percent in the left continue to the Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue intersection (see Traf 9). approach to Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th 3. Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound East percentile queuing. The left turn lane Grand Avenue approach from 75 up to 225 feet. queue at an unsignalized intersection would be extended from 70 up to 225 feet Mitigation costs should be shared with the 328 in a location with only 75 feet of storage. Roebling Road project. See Traf 10 for resultant 95th percentile queues. PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 210 percent in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue at an unsignalized intersection would be extended from 75 up to 125 feet in a location with only 75 feet of storage. Impact Traf 14: 95th Percentile Vehicle Traf-14: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Less than Queuing. The following approach to an Figure 16 in Appendix D) The following Significant adjacent intersection leading away from an off improvements would mitigate the project-specific ramp would receive a significant queuing impact. These improvements are included in the East impact due to the addition of Project traffic to of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11- be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee 11). contribution to this program: • Airport BoulevardlGrand Avenue Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue AM Peak Hour: The Project would Widen the eastbound Grand Avenue approach increase volumes by 5.9 percent in the left from one exclusive left turn lane and a shared turn lane on the southbound Airport through/right turn lane to provide an exclusive left Boulevard approach to Grand Avenue at a turn lane, ashared through/left turn lane and a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th shared through/right turn lane. percentile queuing. The 95th percentile Resultant Southbound Queue: vehicle queue would be extended from 475 up to about 510 feet in a location with only AM Peak Hour: Southbound left = 255' 320 feet of storage. PAGE 2-24 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Southbound through = 85' PM Peak Hour: Southbound left =125' Southbound through =180' Impact Traf-15: Off Ramp Queuing To Traf 15: Improvements for Off-Ramp Queuing. Less than Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic (see Figure 16 in Appendix D) The following Significant Hours -SIM traffic evaluation. The following improvements would mitigate project-specific off ramp would receive a significant impact impacts. These improvements are included in the East with backups extending to the freeway mainline of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will sometime during one or both peak hours due to be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base contribution to this program: Case volumes. • U. 5.101 Southbound Off Ramp to E. Grand • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp Flyover to Avenue /Gateway Boulevard Intersection E. Grand Avenue /Gateway Boulevard Restripe the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard Intersection intersection approach from one left turn lane, two AM Peak Hour: The Project would exclusive through lanes and a shared through/right increase volumes by 2.4 percent on the off turn lane to provide one left turn lane, two ramp and by 1.8 percent at the Oyster exclusive through lanes and one right turn lane. Point I Gateway Boulevard intersection Resultant Off Ramp Queues: with year 2015 Base Case off ramp traffic occasionally backing up to the freeway AM Peak Hour: Through lanes =1115' mainline. (with 2,550 feet of storage per lane) Right turn lane = 360' (with 360 feet of storage) PM Peak Hour: Through lanes = 325' Right turn lane = 50' Impact Traf-16: Off-Ramp Queuing To Traf 16: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Less than Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Figure 16 in Appendix D) The following Significant Hours -SIM Traffic evaluation. The improvements would mitigate the project-specific following off ramp would receive a significant impact. These improvements are included in the East impact with backups extending to the freeway of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will mainline sometime during one or both peak be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee hours due to the addition of Project traffic to contribution to this program: year 2015 Base Case volumes. • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Airport • U. 5.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Airport Boulevard I Miller Avenue Intersection Boulevard /Miller Avenue Intersection Provide improvements to the Airport Boulevard I AM Peak Hour: The Project would Grand Avenue intersection as listed under Traf 14. increase volumes by 4.8 percent at a location with year 2015 Base Case off ramp traffic occasionally backing up to the freeway mainline. Impact Util-1: Increased Wastewater Flows. Util-1: Sanitary Sewer Fees. The City of South San Less than 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-25 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance According to City of South San Francisco Francisco is currently upgrading its sanitary sewer Significant design wastewater flow estimates, the Project facilities to handle increased flows from new would contribute 116,653 gpd of sewage and development. In order to recover the costs of these industrial wastewater to the City's sanitary upgrades, the City charges new development aflat- sewer system, which amounts to an increase of rate sewer connection fee and a monthly impact fee. approximately 42.5 percent as compared with The amount of the impact fee is based on the quantity the existing building square footage on the site. (flow) of wastewater generated. The occupants of the The Project does not include conservation or proposed Project development shall pay the sanitary recycling technologies that would lessen its sewer fees imposed by the City of South San wastewater flows to the municipal system. This Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of the sewer is a potentially significant impact. system upgrades necessary to manage the wastewater flows generated by the Project. Less than Significant Impacts with No Mitigation Required Impact Vis-1: Scenic Vista. Areas from No mitigation required Less than which views of San Bruno Mountains-a Significant prominent visual landmark in South San Francisco-may be adversely affected are not designated scenic vistas, nor are they places where people might be expected to gather in order to view the San Bruno Mountains, therefore, the Project would have a less than significant ijnpact on scenic vistas with no mitigation warranted. Impact Vis-2: Light and Glare. The many No mitigation required Less than windows and outdoor lights associated with Significant increased development intensity on the Project site could potentially be substantial sources of day and nighttime glare. However, the Project proposes use of materials and lighting that would reduce the amount of glare to a less than significant level. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Impact Air-2: Carbon Monoxide. Mobile No mitigation required Less than emissions generated by Project traffic would Significant increase carbon monoxide concentrations at intersections in the Project vicinity. However, these increases would be below significance thresholds of the Air Quality Management District so would be considered a less than significant impact. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Impact Air-4: Future Emissions Near No mitigation required. Less than PAGE 2-26 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Sensitive Receptors. The Project could include Issues of toxic air contaminants and hazardous Significant laboratory facilities or stationary equipment emissions with relation to sensitive receptors are (e.g., standby emergency generators) that emit discussed in Chapter 7 of this document. Specifically, air pollution. These sources could emit small mitigation measures Haz-4a and Haz-4b would be amounts of toxic air contaminants with the applicable and reduce this impact to a less than potential to affect sensitive receptors, such as significant level. the childcare facility at 371 Allerton Avenue. This impact, however, would be reduced to a less than significant level with standard BAAQMD permitting requirements and mitigation measures Haz-4a and Haz-4b identified in this EIR. Impact Air-5: Construction-Related Diesel No mitigation required Less than Odors. During construction, the various diesel- Significant powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the Project site's boundaries. As the potential for diesel odor impacts would not affect a substantial amount of people, this impact is less than significant and is further reduced by Measures to Reduce Construction Exhaust in mitigation measure Air- l . Therefore, no mitigation is required. Impact Air-6: Operational-Related No mitigation required Less than Objectionable Odors. While it is not known at Significant this time exactly what businesses will occupy the completed Project, these businesses will be required to conform to applicable air quality regulations ensuring that any odors resulting from operations will remain at a less than significant level. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Impact Geo-1: Surface Fault Rupture. No mitigation required Less than According to the latest available maps, the Significant Proj ect site is not contained within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. Published geologic maps of the area show the Hillside fault as lying 1,100 feet north of the site, but this fault is not considered active or potentially active, with an estimated age of most recent movement greater than 1.6 million years ago. The potential impact of surface fault rupture is considered less than significant. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-27 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Impact Geo-7: Cumulative Geology and Mitigated by measures Geo-2a, Geo-2b, Geo-2c, Geo- Less than Soils Impacts. Strong seismic ground shaking, 3a, Geo-3b, Geo-4, Geo-6a, Significant liquefaction and densification during seismic No additional mitigation required ground shaking, underlying unstable soils and bay mud, and soil erosion during Project construction and post construction are common impacts to projects located in the vicinity. The proposed Project would be one of numerous sites anticipated to undergo development/redevelopment in the vicinity and would contribute to a cumulative increase in sites facing these impacts. However, the Project-specific contribution would be reduced by identified Project-specific mitigation measures to a less than significant level with no additional mitigation required. Impact Haz-6: Airport Land Use Plan. The No mitigation required Less than Project would be located within the jurisdiction Signficant of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport. According to the East of 101 area plan, the most stringent height limits in South San Francisco are south of Forbes Boulevard and Lindenville, including the Project area. In this area Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, limits building heights to an elevation of 161 feet above mean sea level, approximately 12 tol4 stories. Since the tallest building portion would not exceed 161 feet in height, the Project would be in compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan. The impact of the Project on the Airport Land Use Plan is less than significant with no mitigation warranted. Impact Haz-7: Cumulative Hazardous Mitigated by measures Haz-la, Haz-b, Haz-lc, Haz- Less than Impacts. The proposed Project would be one of ld, Haz-le, Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-3a, Haz-3b, Haz-4, Significant numerous sites, some of which are also existing Haz-5, Haz-6. hazardous materials sites that are anticipated to No additional mitigation required undergo development/redevelopment in the vicinity. The Proj ect could contribute to a cumulative increase in the number of sites handling hazardous materials, both in the vicinity in general as well as near a school, and would result in a cumulative increase in transportation, use, disposal, and potential for exposure to andlor accidental release of hazardous materials during both construction and operations. However, the cumulative impact is expected to be slight and identified Project-specific mitigation measures would PAGE 2-28 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance reduce this impact to a less than significant level with no additional mitigation required. Impact Hydro-5: Inundation by seiche, No mitigation required Less than tsunami, or mudflow. The Project site is not Significant located in an area that would expose persons to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The site is nearly level and does not lie inclose proximity to a large lake or the ocean. Although seismically induced waves are a possibility in the Bay, the site elevations are above those considered to be at risk for tsunami wave run-up. Consequently, this impact would be less than significant with no mitigation required. Impact Hydro-6: Cumulative Impacts on Mitigated by measures Hydro-l, Hydro-2, Hydro-3, Less than Hydrology and Water Quality. The increased Hydro-4. Significant construction activity and new development No additional mitigation required. resulting from the Project, in conjunction with other foreseeable development in the city, would result in less than significant impacts on hydrology and water quality conditions with no additional mitigation measures necessary. Impact Noise-1: Permanent Noise Increases. No mitigation required Less than Project-generated traffic noise and other Significant operational noise sources such as HVAC equipment would not exceed noise standards and would not significantly increase ambient noise levels nor substantially impact noise- sensitivereceptors. This would be a less than sigrrificarrt impact with no mitigation warranted. Impact Noise-3: Cumulative Noise Mitigated by measures Noise-2 and Traf 1. Less than Increases. The proposed Project, together with No additional mitigation required. Significant anticipated future development in the area could result inlong-term traffic increases that could cumulatively increase noise levels. However, these increases are not anticipated to be noticeable in the context of existing ambient noise and the Project's impact on cumulative noise increases would be considered less than sigrrificarrt with no mitigation warranted. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-29 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Impact Traf-2: Sight lines at East Grand No mitigation required Less than Avenue Driveway. The Project's driveway Significant connection to East Grand Avenue would be located about 300 feet east of the Forbes Boulevard I Harbor Way intersection and about 220 feet west of the Roebling Road intersection. Sight lines at the Project's only driveway connection along East Grand Avenue, where right turns only would be allowed, would be at least 420 feet to the east (to see westbound traffic). Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 40 miles per hour (five miles greater than the posted speed limit) would be 305 feet. Therefore, since sight lines are acceptable at this location, this would be considered less than significant with no mitigation warranted. Impact Traf 3: Sight Lines at Roebling Road No mitigation required Less than Driveways. Roebling Road is straight and level Significant along its 600-foot length adjacent to the Project. Project driveways would be located along the west side of the street about 200 feet, 440 feet and 600 feet from East Grand Avenue. Speeds along Roebling Road are now 25 miles per hour or less and would be expected to remain at this level with the Project. Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour would be 155 feet. Therefore, since sight lines are acceptable at these driveways, this would be considered less than significant with no mitigation warranted. Impact Traf-4: Internal Vehicular No mitigation required Less than Circulation. The internal circulation plan as Significant shown on the 9/28/07 site plan by DGA Planning /Architecture /Interiors appears acceptable. Each Project driveway along Roebling Road would be channelized at least 40 feet internal to the site, with the East Grand Avenue driveway being channelized at least 50 feet internal to the parking lot. In addition, all surface lot parking aisles are shown to be 25 feet or greater in width, which meets City code criteria and good traffic engineering practice. Also, all garage parking aisles are shown to be at least 25 feet wide, which meets City code criteria. Therefore, this would be considered less than significant with no mitigation PAGE 2-30 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance warranted. Impact Traf-6: On-Site Parking. A total of No mitigation required Less than 826 spaces would be required based upon City Significant code criteria, while a total of 828 on-site parking spaces would be provided. Therefore, this would be considered less than significant with no mitigation warranted. Impact Traf-18: On-Ramp Operation. The No mitigation required. Less than analysis concluded that no on-ramp to the Significant U.S.101 freeway would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-7). Therefore, this would be considered less than sigrrificarrt with no mitigation warranted. Impact Traf-19: Freeway Mainline No mitigation required. Less than Operation. No U.S.101 mainline segments Significant would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-12). Although there would be one segment of the freeway during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation, the project would add less than a one percent increase in traffic to both locations. • U.S.101 Southbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interchange) AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 0.98 percent (from 10,042 to 10,140 vehicles per hour) at a location with unacceptable LOS F year 2015 Base Case operation. • U. 5.101 Northbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interchange) PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 0.875 percent (from 10,123 to 10,211 vehicles per hour) at a location with unacceptable LOS F year 2015 Base Case operation. Therefore, this would be considered less than sigrrificarrt impacts with no mitigation required. Impact Util-2: Increased in Demand for No mitigation required Less than Utilities. The Project would lead to an increase 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 2-31 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance in demand for utilities such as potable water Significant and sewer capacity. However, the new demand can be accommodated with existing facilities or planned upgrades. The Project would have a less than significant impact on utility services and infrastructure with no mitigation warranted. Impact Util-3: Solid Waste Disposal. The No mitigation required Less than Project would be served by a landfill with Significant sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs, and would not require or result in construction of landfill facilities or expansion of existing facilities nor would it impede the ability of the City to meet the applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Project would have a less than significant impact with no mitigation warranted. Impact Util-4: Increased Energy No mitigation required Less than Consumption. The Project would have an Significant incremental increase in the demand for gas and electrical power given the increase in development on the Proj ect site. However, the Project is expected to be served with existing capacity and would not require or result in construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing off site facilities and would not violate applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations relating to energy standards. The Project would have a less than significant impact relating to energy consumption with no mitigation warranted. Impact Util-5: Cumulative Demand for Mitigated by measure Util-la, Util-lb. Less than Utilities and Service Systems. The increased No additional mitigation required. Significant development resulting from the proposed Project, in conjunction with other foreseeable development in the area, would not result in cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems and would be considered less than significant with identified Project-level mitigation measures. PAGE 2-32 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS The Project site is part of the City of South San Francisco's "East of 101" Planning Area, the traditional and continued core of South San Francisco's industrial and technological businesses, including Research and Development (R&D) offices. The East of 101 area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land bound by San Francisco Bay on the east side, Highway 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The area has a mix of land uses, including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development facilities. The area is also separated from most of South San Francisco's residential uses by U.S. 101 though some houseboats are permitted at the nearby Oyster Point. The 6.7 acre Project site is located approximately 1/2 mile east of Highway lol, along East Grand Avenue between Forbes Boulevard and Roebling Road. Its location is shown in Figure 3-1 below. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROPOSED STRUCTUREIOPERATIONS The Project's primary component is a new 9-story building at the corner of East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard. This building's floor area totals 291,634 square feet. The intended building use is for one or more life science or technology company. However, this EIR assumes the building may also include a combination or exclusive occupancy of office use(s). Connected to the new 9-story building would be a five-level parking garage containing 625 spaces. An additional 203 surface parking spaces would also be provided. An employee parking lot would be located adjacent to Roebling Avenue and visitors would park within a small lot facing East Grand Avenue. The Project currently excludes the abutting property at the southeast corner of East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road, under separate ownership. Should the Project sponsor acquire 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 3-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT the abutting property, it would be added to the project site, and utilized for parking, circulation and a landscape buffer. This potential Project site addition is addressed further in the "Reduced Parking & Modified Circulation Alternative" in Chapter 13 (Alternatives). The Project site plan is shown in Figure 3-2 and building elevations are illustrated in Figures 3-3 and 3-4. Each is located below. Perspective views of the Proj ect can be found on the cover of this document and in Chapter 4 (Aesthetics). SITE ACCESS/CIRCULATION Vehicle access to the Project site would occur from East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road. The surface employee parking lot would be access from Roebling Road via two curb cuts. The parking garage would be accessed from a third curb cut at the terminus of Roebling Road. Service and delivery access would split off from the parking garage driveway and straddle the north and south site boundaries. A service yard and loading area are situated between the 9-story building and parking garage. Visitors arriving by car would access a small parking lot fronting East Grand Avenue through a single curb cut. Pedestrians could enter the Project site from either East Grand Avenue or Roebling Road. Though a sidewalk is provided from Roebling Road to the building entrance, none is provided from East Grand Avenue. The sidewalk from Roebling Road leads to a pedestrian promenade extending along the full length of the eastern building elevation. A railroad spur occurs off site and borders the west and north property line. No pedestrian access would traverse the railroad spur. The Project sponsor intended to pursue a signalized grade crossing from Forbes Boulevard for vehicular access to the site. This potential access change is addressed further in "Reduced Parking & Modified Circulation Alternative" in Chapter 13 (Alternatives). LAN DSCAPI NGILIG HTI NG Approximately 24% of the Project site would be landscaped with a variety of trees, shrubs, perennials, ornamental grasses, groundcover and vines. A minimum landscape strip of 6 feet in width is provided between parking lots and abutting public streets. Landscape strips and islands accommodating trees and groundcover are provided within each surface parking lot. Lighting would include pole-mounted street lighting and wall-mounted building lighting. Pole-mounted lighting is expected to have a maximum height of 30 feet and be largely confined to the surface parking lots. All lighting would be designed to direct light downward to reduce glare and overspill onto surrounding properties. GRADINGIUTILITIES The existing Project site topography slopes from a high point of approximately 30-feet at the north-east corner of the site near at the terminus of Roebling Road towards a low point of approximately 10-feet at the south-west corner of the site, near the intersection of East Grand PAGE 3-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Avenue and Forbes Boulevard. The Project would include grading of this sloped condition to create three gently sloping levels. The uppermost level would be located to the northeast to provide vehicular access from Roebling Road to the parking garage and service area. The mid-level will be across the center of the site and would include placement for the 9-story building and the surface parking. The lower level would be along East Grand Avenue and include a gently sloped landscape buffer between the right-of way and the visitors parking area in front of the building. All site grading would be done in a manner, which retains existing soil on site; in order to minimize both off haul of existing soil, and import of new soil. Project development would also be designed to work with the existing grades at the perimeter of the site. The Project would extend all necessary wet and dry utilities to existing main lines within either East Grand Avenue or Roebling Road. No off site utility extensions are proposed. CONSTRUCTION The Project includes the demolition of four existing 1 & 2 story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet. Demolition is anticipated to begin as early as the summer of 2008. Existing tilt- up concrete buildings, concrete slabs and asphalt paving will be ground and stockpiled on site for re-use as base-rock in construction of new development. Construction of new development is proposed to be in a single phase for the 9-story building, parking structure and site. Start of construction will be determined by the real-estate market, but is anticipated to begin shortly after receipt of project approvals. Location(s) of construction staging will be determined by the General Contractor, who is awarded the Contract for Construction. It is anticipated staging would occur in the surface parking areas along East Grand Avenue, Forbes Boulevard and/or Roebling Road. PROJECT OBJECTIVES Development of the site is intended to fulfill the following objectives: 1. Construction of a new building for high technology research and development including office uses, 2. Build a Project that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco, 3 . Generate net property tax and other fees from the development Project and enhance property values, 4. Build a Proj ect which is viable in the East of 1 O l area based upon market conditions and projected service requirements for the Area, 5. Develop a Project of high quality design as called for in the Design Element of the East 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT of 101 area Plan and which integrates with adjoining properties, 6. Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the General Plan designation of the site for Business and Technology Park facilities, and 7. Continuing to develop the East of 101 area into a nationally recognized research and development center that will attract other life science and high technology businesses. INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR As discussed in Chapter 1, the City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency responsible for preparation of this EIR (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15051). This EIR is intended to be used to provide CEQA clearance for all required discretionary actions for the Project. The EIR provides City of South San Francisco decision makers, reviewing agencies, and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in considering the required discretionary actions for approval of the Project. The following approvals would be require • Certification of Final EIR • Use Permit • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan • Design Review • Development Agreement • Administrative approval of subsequent demolition, grading and building permits. PAGE 3-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 3-1: Sife Locafion and Vicinify 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This Page Intentionally Left Blank PAGE 3-6 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT z 0 a U w U w_ 0 ~i w a Q z U ~ w w w w w w w w w M v~ M O B l~ d1 ~ N ~ M ~n Q1 ~ ~ M ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ l~ ~ 01 o N ~ ~ ~ ~D o \0 ~ ~ ~ a1 O 41 ~ -~ ~ N N N ~ Q\ ~ ~ N M N M M M M M M Q1 N ~"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. a A ~ ~ ~ .. 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 A ~ '~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~Q ~ ~ 0 ~ p 0 ~ ~ 0 0" W ~ p .~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ y.. O 0 0 0 ~ CC ~ A ~ ,~ ~ L~ ~; 0 0 O ~ O a it Z ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q C C ~ '~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ 0 O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 v~ O a ~ ~ ~ w w ~ ~ w z ra w N 00 II M ~ N ~ cd U ~ cd U ~ cd U ' ~ cd U ~ cd U ~ cd U ~ O O O Q1 O ~ N M ^~ V 1 M ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M N O ~ N U1 ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, U N U ~ ~, ~ b!1 ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~', ~ ~ ~' U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p . ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~~ 0 ~ ~ ~ '~ ,~ E~ 0 ~ 0 0 Q ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 U 00 N 00 0 H Z C .~ Q C N L ~0 n w U Q U w 0 w Z w Z Q U Q L bA C m U w 0 M i z w Q a z Q V Q w 4 AESTHETICS INTRODUCTION New development can substantially change the visual qualities and characteristics of an urban area. It may also have long term lasting effects on the evolution of the urban area, thereby stimulating growth and increasing its attractiveness for new or expanding businesses, residential development or other desired or planned land uses. On the other hand, new development can change the character of an area by disrupting the visual and aesthetic features that establish the identity and value of an urban area for its existing residents, merchants or other users. Loss of such identity and value may discourage new investment, continued residency or business activity or other activities that attract visitors to the area. A single new development can add to a district's appeal and complement adopted goals for development and change or entirely overwhelm a district's scale and visual landmarks. Over time, a new development may become a valued component of the district and its identity, or generate dissatisfaction by residents, visitors, employers and employees. The visual value of any given feature is highly subject to personal sensibilities and variations in subjective reaction to the features of an urban area. A negative visual impression on one person may be viewed as positive or beneficial by another. Objective or commonly agreed upon standards are difficult to establish, but an extensive body of literature is devoted to the subj ect of urban design and visual aesthetics. SETTING South San Francisco's urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well defined setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges.l The City is contained in almost abowl-like fashion by hills on three sides. The City's terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills west and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the city, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain (which is outside City limits) in the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the City's topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from 1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997, p.4-2, 4-l0, 4-15. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 4-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west. South San Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its eastern parts. Almost 20 percent of South San Francisco's land is occupied by industrial and warehousing uses. The Project site is located in the East of 101 planning area of South San Francisco. The East of 101 area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100 years ago. Since then, the area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing and meat packaging gave way to industrial park, warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The recent emergence of modern office buildings marks the third major wave of land use change in the area. The newly emerging research and development and office areas are unique in their uses of consistent and conscious street tree planting, while the rest of the City, including downtown, is almost bereft of street trees. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park structures and tilt-up warehousing buildings can all be found in the area. Blocks are generally very large in size and the area can exhibit a very stark industrial look. The Project site is located in proximity to newer office/R&D buildings located to the south and east. Site Description The following Project site photographs facilitate an understanding of the areas visual characteristics (Figures 4-1 to 4-4). As the photographs illustrate, the Project site currently has limited landscaping primarily confined to parking areas along street frontages. Amongst this residual landscaping, the Project site contains four concrete tilt-up buildings of no discernable architectural style. Built during the post-war era, each building has a low lying scale between one to two stories. This existing developed character visibly contrasts with nearby properties that have been recently redeveloped with buildings of marked architectural quality supplemented by ample landscaping. PAGE 4-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS Figure 4-1: View of Projecf Sife Looking Norfheasf from Easf Grand Avenue. Figure 4-2: View of Projecf Sife Looking Norfhwesf from Easf Grand Avenue. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 4-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IMPACT ANALYSIS Standards of Si nificance The following thresholds for measuring a Project's aesthetic impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Proj ect have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3. Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 4. Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? SCEN IC VISTA Impact Vis-1: Scenic Vista. Many prominent visual landmarks, such as the San Bruno Mountains, the San Francisco Bay, Sign Hills, and Wind Harp, are visible from properties in the East of 101 Area in South San Francisco. CEQA generally protects against significant adverse impacts to public views of such scenic vistas, taking into consideration the environmental context i.e., whether the view is from a recreation area or scenic expanse, as opposed from a developed urban area. Here, the Project will not significantly impact public views of a scenic vista from a recreation area or scenic expanse. Further, given the Project's urban setting, ales-than-significant impact would result on scenic vistas with no mitigation warranted. The San Bruno Mountains are a prominent visual landmark in South San Francisco, and can be seen from many locations throughout the city, including from the Project site. Existing buildings to the northwest between Gateway and Forbes Boulevards already partially block views of the San Bruno Mountains from the Project site. Figures 4-3 and 4-4 below show construction of the Project may block out all or a portion of the existing northerly views of the San Bruno Mountains from locations to the south. However, the private properties and East Grand Avenue right-of way locations from which views of the mountains may be blocked are not designated scenic overlooks and are not places where people gather in order to gain a view of the San Bruno Mountains. The Wind Harp at Point San Bruno Knoll is located approximately 0.70 miles easterly of the Project site. The Project would not obstruct views of the Wind Harp along East Grand Avenue. Therefore, blockage of existing views by the proposed Project would be considered less-than-sign~ciant. PAGE 4-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS 0 Q ~A 0 0 0 v C~ S W C~ 0 Z ~A 0 0 0 v ~0 C~ 0 c~ ~ • ~ ~ i ~ 0 0 Z ~ ~A Q '~ ~ 0 0 0 i ~V Q ~ W .~ 0 •• ~ M ~ C~ ~ ~ •~ .bp 0 ~ ~ 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 4-5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ~A 0 0 v G~ 0 m G~ .Q i 0 G~ .~ G~ ~0 ~ ~ 0 ~ Q Q ~ ~ ~ ~ i z V ~~ o~ ~W ~~ .` o o~ o a~ ~~ .~ V '~ a~ ~ 'o .: o; ~ ~ •~ o ~Q i ,~ 0 Z 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 4-6 CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS SCENIC HIGHWAYS The Project site is not located on a scenic highway, and therefore would have no impact related to scenic resource damage on a scenic highway. VISUAL CHARACTER As described in the Setting section above, the visual character of the East of 101 area consists of a mixture of older and newer office and industrial buildings, with differing amounts of associated landscaping. The Project would involve replacement of older office/R&D buildings with modern construction of a new highly designed building including notable landscaping and pedestrian improvements. This will result is a highly visible change to the Slte. The Project is situated on a corner lot along a major arterial (i.e., East Grand Avenue). The Proj ect's height will substantially increase over the current situation to a scale on par with the adjacent hotel to the west. Representative perspective drawings shown in Figures 4-5 and 4- 6depict the Project's intended visual outcome. Given the current condition of the site and its surrounding context, the proposed Project would have no adverse impact on the visual character of the site or the East of 101 area. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 4-7 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Figure 4-5: Perspecfive Drawing Looking Norfh From Easf Grand A venue. Figure 4-6: Perspecfive Drawing Looking Easf From Easf Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard Infersecfion. PAGE 4-8 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS LIGHT AND GLARE The Project incorporates building materials that were selected to match and complement buildings currently under construction (by the same developer) and located at 249 East Grand Avenue. Solid building surfaces consist of either Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete panels (GFRC), a Curtain Wall System, or combination thereof. The Project's north and south elevations are predominately Curtain Wall System and the East and West elevations include an approximate 50/50 split use of each primary material. GFRC is of one color; light beige. Light Shelves/Screen will accompany the Curtain Wall System. The glass will be of blue or green tint. The parking lot lighting will be designed to meet minimum light levels for site security. Light fixtures will be selected with full optical cut-off, fixtures close to the property line will have shields to eliminate light trespass. Impact Vis-2: Light and Glare. The many windows and outdoor lights associated with increased development intensity on the Project site could potentially be substantial sources of day and nighttime glare. However, the Project proposes use of materials and lighting comparable to existing nearby structures which do no emit substantial light or glare. Therefore, this potential impact is considered at ales-than-significant level with no mitigation is required. Sources of light and glare in the Project vicinity include interior and exterior building lights, service areas and surface parking lots, and city street lights. Light and glare associated with vehicular traffic along major thoroughfares in the area also create sources of glare. The existing level and sources of light and glare are typical of those in a developed urban setting. Residential uses and natural areas are particularly sensitive to light and glare impacts, particularly from nearby non-residential sources. However, the Project is located in a commercial and industrial area with no adjacent residential uses or natural areas. The Project would increase the active building area on the Project site and therefore would increase the amount of nighttime lighting and glare. However, it is not expected that the Project would substantially affect the overall ambient light levels in the Project vicinity, a fully developed urban context. The Project's finishes have been selected for consistency with existing nearby development. In summary, since the Project would consist of development and lighting treatments typical of the existing commercial/industrial urban settings and would incorporate standard and tailored lighting measures to address undue lighting on adjacent areas, it would not result in new sources of substantial adverse light or glare. The impact would be less-than-significant. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 4-9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CUMULATIVE AESTHETIC IMPACTS The East of 101 area in South San Francisco is the geographic context for cumulative assessment of visual quality and aesthetics. This area is a historically industrial area transitioning to high technology office/R&D uses as reflected in this and other foreseeable projects in the area. These projects largely involve replacement of older facilities and/or vacant sites and include landscaping and pedestrian improvements to current City standards. All future development that could occur in the Proj ect vicinity would be required to adhere to established restrictions, guidelines, standards, policies, and criteria that address building appearance, height, bulk, and configuration. Given the current condition of the East of 101 area and the highly designed developments in the foreseeable and anticipated future, there would be no cumulative adverse impact related to visual quality and aesthetics, but rather, a likely beneficial impact. PAGE 4-10 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT 5 AIR QUALITY INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the Project's potential impacts on the local and regional air quality. Development projects of this type in the Bay Area are most likely to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation through vehicle trip generation. SETTING METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants. The climate of the San Francisco Bay Area is classified as Mediterranean, and has mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers. The regional climate is controlled primarily by the Pacific high-pressure system over the eastern Pacific Ocean and by local topography. Local climate is strongly influenced by topography and proximity to the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay. Cool, onshore winds blowing from the Pacific have a moderating effect, especially west of the Diablo Mountain Range where the study area is located. These mountains act as a barrier to onshore winds, resulting in the channeling of airflow along canyons, valleys, and through straits in the Bay, as well as strong west-to-east temperature differences. The resulting overall air flow patterns are complex, exhibiting much local variation. Large-scale winds, which are the wind patterns influenced by general geographical and topographical features of the San Francisco Bay Area on a roughly 50-mile scale, are predominantly from the west from the Golden Gate toward the Delta. While air quality is largely a regional issue, the protection of air quality is vital to the overall health of the environment and the attractiveness of any locality. l South San Francisco enjoys generally good air quality due largely to the presence of the San Bruno Gap, a break in the 1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan,1999, p. 233. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 5-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Santa Cruz Mountains that allows onshore winds to flow easily into San Francisco Bay and quickly disperse air pollutants. Within South San Francisco, certain areas of the city are more likely to result in pollutant exposure for residents and workers. These areas include the Highway 101, Interstate 280, and El Camino Real corridors, which experience relatively high pollutant concentrations due to heavy traffic volumes, particularly during peak periods. In addition, wind blowing out of the south and southeast exposes the city to emissions from the San Francisco International Airport. REGULATORY SETTING South San Francisco is located within the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Air quality in the basin is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which operates a regional network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards for criteria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved. Federal Re ulations The Bay Area Air Basin is subject to major air quality planning programs required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (1977, last amended in 1990, 42 United States Code [USG] 7401 et seq. ). The CAA requires that regional planning and air pollution control agencies prepare a regional Air Quality Plan to outline the measures by which both stationary and mobile sources of pollutants can be controlled in order to achieve all standards within the deadlines specified in the Clean Air Act. For the Bay Area Air Basin, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) jointly prepared a Bay Area Air Quality Plan in 1982. State and Re,. Tonal Regulations In 1988, California passed the California Clean Air Act (CCAA, California Health and Safety Code § 39600 et seq. ). Under the CCAA, the Bay Area Air Basin is required to have a Clean Air Plan (CAP) to achieve and maintain ozone standards. The most recent draft revision to the CAP was completed in 2000. The 2000 CAP applies control measures to stationary sources, mobile sources, and transportation control measures (TCMs). Although the 2000 CAP is an ozone plan, it includes PMIO attainment planning as an informational item. In January 2006, BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy to update and build upon the 2000 CAP. Both the federal Air Quality Plan and the state CAP rely on the combined emission control programs of the EPA, California Air Resources Board (GARB), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). PAGE 5-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY Criteria Alr Pollutants Ambient air quality standards have been established by state and federal environmental agencies for specific air pollutants most pervasive in urban environments. These pollutants are referred to as criteria air pollutants because the standards established for them were developed to meet specific health and welfare criteria set forth in the enabling legislation. The criteria air pollutants emitted by the proposed Project include ozone (03) precursors (NOX and ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOZ), and suspended particulate matter (PMIO and PM2,5). Other criteria pollutants, such as lead (Pb) and sulfur dioxide (S02), would not be substantially emitted by the proposed Project or Project traffic, and air quality standards for them are being met throughout the Bay Area. Ozone (O3) While 03 serves a beneficial purpose in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) by reducing ultraviolet radiation potentially harmful to humans, when it reaches elevated concentrations in the lower atmosphere it can be harmful to the human respiratory system and to sensitive species of plants. 03 concentrations build to peak levels during periods of light winds, bright sunshine, and high temperatures. Short-term 03 exposure can reduce lung function in children, make persons susceptible to respiratory infection, and produce symptoms that cause people to seek medical treatment for respiratory distress. Long-term exposure can impair lung defense mechanisms and lead to emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Sensitivity to 03 varies among individuals, but about 20 percent of the population is sensitive to 03, with exercising children being particularly vulnerable. 03 is formed in the atmosphere by a complex series of photochemical reactions that involve "ozone precursors" that are two large families of pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and reactive organic gases (ROG). NOX and ROG are emitted from a variety of stationary and mobile sources. While NOz, an oxide of nitrogen, is another criteria pollutant itself, ROGs are not in that category, but are included in this discussion as 03 precursors. CaNbon Monoxide (CO) Exposure to high concentrations of CO reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and can cause dizziness and fatigue, impair central nervous system function, and induce angina in persons with serious heart disease. Primary sources of CO in ambient air are passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and residential wood burning. Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) The major health effect from exposure to high levels of NO2 is the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease. NOz is a combustion by-product, but it can also form in the atmosphere by chemical reaction. NOz is a reddish-brown colored gas often observed during the same conditions that produce high levels of 03 and can affect regional visibility. NOz is one compound in a group of compounds consisting of oxides of nitrogen (NOX). As described above, NOX is an 03 precursor compound. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 5-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Particulate MatteN (PM) Particulate matter consists of particles of various sizes which can be inhaled into the lungs and cause adverse health effects. Particulate matter is regulated by the fraction of course particulates 10 microns (a micron is one one-millionth of a meter) or less in diameter (PMIO) and by the fraction of fine particulates 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2,5). The health effects from long-term exposure to high concentrations of particulate matter are increased risk of chronic respiratory disease like asthma, and altered lung function in children. Short- term exposure to high levels of particulate matter has been shown to increase the number of people seeking medical treatment for respiratory distress, and to increase mortality among those with severe respiratory problems. Particulate matter also results in reduced visibility. Ambient particulate matter has many sources. It is emitted directly by combustion sources like motor vehicles, industrial facilities, and residential wood burning, and in the form of dust from ground-disturbing activities such as construction and farming. It also forms in the atmosphere from the chemical reaction of precursor gases. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards The CAA and CCAA promulgate, respectively, national and state ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (N02), particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PMIO), and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2,5).2 Ambient standards specify the concentration of pollutants to which the public may be exposed without adverse health effects. Individuals vary widely in their sensitivity to air pollutants, and standards are set to protect more pollution-sensitive populations (e. g. , children and the elderly). National and state standards are reviewed and updated periodically based on new health studies. California ambient standards tend to be at least as protective as national ambient standards and are often more stringent. For planning purposes, regions like the San Francisco Bay Area are given an air quality status designation by the federal and state regulatory agencies. Areas with monitored pollutant concentrations that are lower than ambient air quality standards are designated "attainment" on apollutant-by-pollutant basis. when monitored concentrations exceed ambient standards within an air basin, it is designated "nonattainment" for that pollutant. EXISTING AIR QUALITY In general, the Bay Area experiences low concentrations of most pollutants when compared to federal and state standards. The Bay Area is considered "attainment" for all of the national standards, with the exception of ozone. It is considered "nonattainment" for State standards for ozone and particulate matter. 2 Other pollutants (e.g., lead, sulfur dioxide) also have ambient standards, but they are not discussed in this document because emissions of these pollutants from the Project are expected to be negligible. PAGE 5-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY The BAAQMD monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Air Basin, although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the Project site are located in San Francisco and Redwood City. Table 5-1 summarizes exceedances of the state and federal standards at these two sites. The table shows that most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the Project area with the exception of the state standards for PMIO and ozone. TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTION MONITORING DATA Pollutant Standard Monitoring Da s Standard Exceeded Site ~ 2004 2005 2006 San Francisco 0 0 0 Ozone Federal 1-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 San Francisco 0 0 0 Ozone State 1-Hour Redwood City 1 0 0 San Francisco 0 0 0 Ozone Federal 8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 San Francisco 0 0 0 PM10 Federal 24-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 San Francisco 1 0 3 PM10 State 24-Hour Redwood City 1 2 2 Carbon State/Federal San Francisco 0 0 0 Monoxide 8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 Nitrogen San Francisco 0 0 0 State 1-Hour Dioxide Redwood Ci 0 0 0 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (httpalwww.baagmd.gov/pio/acLsummarieslindex.htm) IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The criteria are further defined as follows: - If the Project shows an estimated population greater than assumed in the Clean Air Plan (as defined in ABAG projections), then it would be inconsistent with air quality planning, and would be deemed to have a significant air quality impact. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 5-5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - If the Project shows a growth rate in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) higher than the population growth rate, it would be considered to be hindering progress toward achieving a substantial reduction in the rate of increase in passenger vehicle trips and miles traveled. Therefore, it would be considered inconsistent with regional air quality planning, and deemed to have a significant air quality impact. - The consistency of the Project with Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) must also be considered in evaluating air quality effects associated with implementation of the Project. If the Project does not demonstrate reasonable efforts to implement the TCMs identified in the Clean Air Plan, then it would be considered to be inconsistent with the CAP and deemed to have a significant air quality impact. 2. Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 3 . Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 5. Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? CONFLICT WITH AIR QUALITY PLAN The City's General Plan designations and future land use types and intensities would have been taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD's 2000 Clean Air Plan and the most recent Clean Air Plan update (Bay Area Ozone Strategy), released in early 2006. Because the Project is consistent with the site's General Plan designation, the Project would therefore be consistent with population projections used to develop the latest Clean Air Plan. Projects should reasonably implement applicable TCMs to be considered consistent with regional clean air planning efforts. Most of the TCMs listed in the latest Clean Air Plans are not directly applicable to the Project. Under the General Plan policies, projects such as this are required to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce project trips. This acknowledged on Page 3-2. The TDM program, along with General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures identified in Chapter 11 (Transportation and Circulation), would reasonably implement TCMs consistent with those contained in the latest approved Clean Air Plan. There would be no impact related to a conflict with the Air Quality Plan PAGE 5-6 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY AI R QUALITY STANDARDS Project-related air quality impacts fall into two categories: short-term impacts due to construction, and long-term impacts due to Project operation. During Project construction, the Project would affect local particulate concentrations primarily due to fugitive dust sources. Over the long-term, the Project would result in an increase in emissions primarily due to increased motor vehicle trips. (vnn ctr»rti nn Impact Air-1: Construction Dust and Exhaust. Construction activity involves a high potential for the emission of air pollutants. Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. This would be a potentially significant impact. Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality, causing a temporary increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust emission during periods of construction would increase particulate concentrations at neighboring properties. This impact is potentially significant, but normally mitigable. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines3 provide thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PMIO. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. Construction activities from on-site equipment and truck deliveries would emit toxic air contaminants and air pollutants that are not regulated by the BAAQMD. These emissions, although temporary, could affect nearby land uses including the Early Years Children's Center, a sensitive receptor. It is unlikely that significant health risks would occur due to: 1) the temporary nature of construction activity, 2) the separation distances between sensitive receptors and the Project, and 3) the relatively high occurrence of moderate to strong winds during the construction season. In order to be protective of the health of nearby sensitive receptors, as well as reduce emissions that could affect regional air quality, the Project should implement additional construction period mitigation measures. These would be measures beyond those normally recommended by the BAAQMD to ensure air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised 1999). 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 5-7 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mitigation Measure Air-1: Dust Suppression and Exhaust Reduction Procedures. The following basic, enhanced and additional measures are recommended for inclusion in construction contracts to control fugitive dust emissions during construction. Measures to reduce construction exhaust will additionally reduce particulate matter from the exhaust of diesel-powered construction ve is es. Basic Measures • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction site. • Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • Limit construction equipment idling time. • Properly tune construction equipment engines, and install particulate traps on diesel equipment. Enhanced Measures • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. PAGE 5-8 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Additional Measures • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. Measures to Reduce Construction Exhaust The measures listed below should be implemented to reduce diesel particulate matter and NOx emissions from on-site construction equipment: • At least 50 percent of the heavy-duty, off road equipment used for construction shall be GARB-certified off road engines or equivalent, or use alternative fuels (such as biodiesel or water emulsion fuel) that result in lower emissions. • Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters. • Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate emissions from off road diesel powered equipment. The Project shall ensure that emissions from all construction diesel powered equipment used on the Project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be prohibited from use on the site until repaired. • The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g., compressors). • Diesel equipment standing idle for more than two minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site. • Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. With the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, impacts related to construction dust and exhaust would be reduced to a less-than- signi~cant level. Issues of toxic air contaminants related to construction activities are further addressed in Chapter 7 of this document, specifically with mitigation measures Haz-3b and Haz-4a. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 5-9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 eratl0n Development projects of this type in the Bay Area are most likely to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation through vehicle trip generation. New vehicle trips add to ozone precursor concentrations and to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets that provide access to the site. Carbon Monoxide Impact Air-2: Carbon Monoxide. Mobile emissions generated by Project traffic would increase carbon monoxide concentrations at intersections in the Project Vlclnlty. However, these increases would be below significance thresholds of the Air Quality Management District so would be considered aless- than-significant impact. Therefore, no mitigation is required. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's BAAQ~VID CEQA Guidelines recommends estimation of carbon monoxide concentrations for projects where project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E, or F or would cause Level of Service to decline to D, E, or F; or where Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more (if the increase is at least 100 vehicles per hour). Emissions and ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide have decreased greatly in recent years. These improvements are due largely to the introduction of cleaner burning motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels. No exceedances of the State or National CO standard have been recorded at any of the Bay Area's monitoring stations since 1991. The Bay Area has attained the State and National CO standard. However, despite this progress, localized CO concentrations still warrant concern in the Bay Area and should be addressed. The region must safeguard against localized high concentrations of CO that may not be recorded at monitoring sites. Because elevated CO concentrations are generally fairly localized, heavy traffic volumes and congestion can lead to high levels of CO, or "hotspots", while concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below State and National standards. Future carbon monoxide levels were predicted near these intersections with the project in place using project traffic projections for local streets provided by Crane Transportation Group, and U. S . 101 freeway traffic projections provided by Crane Transportation Group for the proposed Home Depot project. Emission factors were calculated using the EMFAC2007 model, developed by the California Air Resources Board, with default assumptions for San Mateo County during winter that include a temperature of 40 deg. F, and slow traffic speeds of 5 miles per hour on the local streets and 25 miles per hour on Highway 101. The contribution from Highway 101 traffic was included in this assessment since both intersections evaluated are within close proximity to the freeway. PAGE 5-10 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY The contribution of project-generated traffic to carbon monoxide levels were added to background levels to predict the resulting concentrations. The closest representative air quality monitoring station to the project is in Redwood City. This highest measured carbon monoxide level over any 8-hour averaging period over the last 3 years was 2.3 parts per million (ppm). The screening method is designed to be a conservative method of determining whether or not a project may cause exceedances of the carbon monoxide air quality standard. If the screening method predicts significant levels, than amore-refined analysis may be conducted that would more accurately predict carbon monoxide levels, which would likely be lower. Screening analysis calculations are shown in the Attachment. TABLE 5-2 PREDICTED H-HOUR WORST CASE CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS (IN PPM) Contribution 2006 2015 Base Case 2015 Base Case Intersection from Existing Conditions Conditions . without Project with Project Intersection 1.8 1.4 1.4 Oyster Point Boulevard Freeway (US 101) 0.7 0.3 0.3 and Dubuque Avenue w/adjacent freeway Background 2.3 2.0 2.0 Total 4.8 3.7 3.7 Intersection 1.1 0.8 0.8 Oyster Point Boulevard- SisterCities Boulevard Freeway (US 101) 0.7 0.4 0.4 and Airport Boulevard Background 2.3 2.0 2.0 w/adjacent freeway Total 4.1 3.2 3.2 Significance Thresholds (CAAQS): 9.0 ppm for 8-hour exposure Source: Rlingworth and Bodkin, Inc. As shown in Table 5-2, the screening analysis indicates that existing 8-hour Carbon Monoxide Levels are currently below National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Predicted 8-hour carbon monoxide levels with the project in place under existing (2008) and future project conditions (in 2015) are predicted to remain below ambient air quality standards. Screening analysis calculations are shown in Appendix C. As a result, the impact on local air quality resulting from the project is considered to be less-than- signi~cant. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 5-11 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change Global Climate Change is a long-term substantial change in the average weather on earth, as often measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation and temperature. The science of global climate change is evolving and remains subject to extensive debate and uncertainties, however, recent reports from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that global climate change is likely due, at least partially, to emissions of "greenhouse gasses" (GHGs) from human activity.4 Greenhouse gasses are most frequently produced by the burning of fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation, and include carbon dioxide (C02), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and water vapor (H20). They allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere, but trap a portion of the outward-bound infrared radiation, thereby warming the air. The process is similar to the effect greenhouses have in raising the internal temperature, hence the name greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to a reference gas. Because it contributes to over 80% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide is the reference gas for climate change. To account for the warming potential of greenhouse gases, greenhouse gas emissions are often quantified and reported as C02 equivalents (OOZE). The carbon dioxide equivalent is a good way to assess emissions because it gives weight to the GWP of the gas. Large emission sources are reported in million metric tons of OOZE (MMTCOZE). A summary of the atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected gases is summarized in the following table. As shown in the table, GWP ranges from 1 to 23,900. 4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I: The Physical Basis of Climate Change, httpa/ipcc-wgl.ucar.edulw 1/w 1-report.html, website accessed July 2, 2007. PAGE 5-12 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY TaB~E 5-3 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS (1 OO-YEAR TIME HORIZON) Atmospheric Lifetime Global Warming Potential Gas (years) (100 year time horizon) Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1 Methane 12 ~ 3 21 Nitrous Oxide 120 310 HFC-23 264 11700 HFC-134a 14.6 1300 HFC-152a 1.5 140 PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50000 6500 PFC: Hexafluoromethane (C2F6) 10000 9200 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3200 23900 Source: U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (2007) According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team Report,5 the following climate change effects, which are based on the IPCC trends, can be expected in California over the course of the next century: • A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70 percent to 90 percent, threatening the state' s water supply; • Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 percent to 35 percent increase in the number of days ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas; • Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased temperatures; and • Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. Additionally, health effects from global climate change may arise from temperature increases, climate-sensitive diseases, extreme events, and air quality. There may be direct temperature effects through increases in average temperature leading to more extreme heat waves and less extreme cold spells. Those living in warmer climates are likely to experience more stress and heat-related problems. Heat related problems include heat rash and heat 5 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March 2006. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 5-13 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT stroke. In addition, climate sensitive diseases may increase, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other disease carrying insects. Those diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Extreme events such as flooding and hurricanes can displace people and agriculture, which would have negative consequences. Global warming may also contribute to air quality problems from increased frequency of smog and particulate air pollution. Like the science of global climate change, the law surrounding its impacts is still evolving. Currently, neither CEQA nor the implementing Guidelines require analysis of a project's GHG emissions or impacts on global climate change. This is likely to change, however, following the adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 97, discussed in more detail below. Though not required under CEQA, the following analysis evaluates the proposed project's GHG impacts. State Standards Currently the Federal Government does not regulate emissions of greenhouse gases, however, the State of California has been proactive in studying the impacts of climate change. In 2005, in recognition of California's vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-O5, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of greenhouse gas would be progressively reduced, as follows: • By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. In 2006, the State Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), which requires the California Air Resources Board (GARB) to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost- effective statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing an approximate 25 percent reduction in emissions). In June 2007 GARB directed staff to pursue 37 early actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). The broad spectrum of strategies to be developed - including a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, regulations for refrigerants with high global warming potentials, guidance and protocols for local governments to facilitate greenhouse gas reductions, and green ports -reflects that the serious threat of climate change requires action as soon as possible6. 6 California Air Resources Board, September 2007, Draft List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. PAGE 5-14 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY In addition to approving the 37 greenhouse gas reduction strategies, GARB directed staff to further evaluate early action recommendations made at the June 2007 meeting, and to report back to GARB within six months. Since the June 2007 GARB hearing, GARB staff has evaluated all 48 recommendations submitted by several stakeholder and several internally- generated staff ideas and published the Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration in October 2007. Based on its additional analysis, GARB staff is recommending the expansion of the early action list to a total of 44 measures. Nine of the strategies meet the AB 32 definition of discrete early action measures. Discrete early action measures are measures that will be in place and enforceable by January 1, 2010. The discrete early action items include: (1) a Low Carbon Fuel standards for ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, electricity, compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas and biogas; (2) restrictions on High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants; (3) Landfill Methane Capture, (4) Smartway Truck Efficiency; (5) Port Electrification; (6) Reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry; (7) Reduction of propellants in consumer products; (8) Tire inflation; and (9) Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) reductions from non-electricity sector. The entire list of early action strategies is shown in Table 5-4. In total, the 44 recommended early actions have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 42 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (MMTCOZE) emissions by 2020, representing about 25% of the estimated reductions needed by 2020. s The 44 measures are in the sectors of fuels, transportation, forestry, agriculture, education, energy efficiency, commercial, solid waste, cement, oil and gas, electricity, and fire suppression. The 2020 target reductions are currently estimated to be 174 MMTCOZE9. GARB has approved a 1990 emissions inventory and 2020 limit of 427 MMTCOZE.Io In addition to identifying early actions to reduce greenhouse gases, GARB has also developed mandatory greenhouse gas reporting regulations pursuant to requirements of AB 32. The regulations will require reporting for facilities that make up the bulk of the stationary source emissions in California. The regulations identify major facilities as those that generate more than 25,000 MMTCO2E/yr. Cement plants, oil refineries, electric generating facilities/providers, co-generation facilities, and hydrogen plants and other stationary combustion sources that emit more than 25,000 MMTCO2E/yr, make up 94 percent of the point source COZ emissions in Californian. California Air Resources Board, October 2007, Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. s Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 State of California Air Resources Board Res. No.07-55 (Dec. 6, 2007); Available for download at httpalwww.arb.ca.govlcclinventory/19901eveUarb_res07-55_1990_ghg_level.pdf. 11 California Air Resources Board, December 6, 2007, Mandatory Reporting of California greenhouse gas Emissions, Presentation in El Monte, California. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 5-15 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE 5-4 RECOMMENDED AB32 GREENHOUSE GAS MEASURES ID# Sector Strategy Name ID# Sector Strategy Name Above Ground Storage SF6 reductions from the non- 1 Fuels Tanks 23 Commercial electric sector Diesel - Offroad equipment 2 Transportation (non-agricultural) 24 Transportation Tire inflation program Forestry protocol 3 Forestry endorsement 25 Transportation Cool automobile paints Cement (A): Blended 4 Transportation Diesel -Port trucks 26 Cement cements Cement (B): Energy Diesel -Vessel main engine efficiency of California 5 Transportation fuel specifications 27 Cement cement facilities Ban on HFC release from Diesel -Commercial harbor Motor Vehicle AC service I 6 Transportation craft 28 Transportation dismantling Diesel -Off road equipment 7 Transportation Green ports 29 Transportation (agricultural) Manure management Add AC leak tightness test 8 Agriculture (methane digester protocol) 30 Transportation and repair to Smog Check Local Gov. Greenhouse Gas Research on GHG reductions (GHG) reduction guidance / from nitrogen land 9 Education protocols 31 Agriculture applications Business GHG reduction Specifications for commercial 10 Education guidance /protocols 32 Commercial refrigeration Energy Reduction in venting I leaks 11 Efficiency Cool communities program 33 Oil and Gas from oil and gas systems Reduce high Global Requirement of low-GWP Warming Potential (GWP) GHGs for new Motor Vehicle 12 Commercial GHGs in products 34 Transportation ACs Reduction of PFCs from Hybridization of medium and 13 Commercial semiconductor industry 35 Transportation heavy-duty diesel vehicles Reduction of SF6 in 14 Transportation SmartWay truck efficiency 36 Electricity electricity generation High GWP refrigerant Low Carbon Fuel Standard tracking, reporting and 15 Transportation (LCFS) 37 Commercial recovery program Reduction ofHFC-134a from DIY Motor Vehicle AC Foam recovery /destruction 16 Transportation servicing 38 Commercial program Improved landfill gas Alternative suppressants in 17 Waste capture 39 Fire Suppression fire protection systems Gasoline dispenser hose Strengthen light-duty vehicle 18 Fuels replacement 40 Transportation standards Portable outboard marine Truck stop electrification 19 Fuels tanks 41 Transportation with incentives for truckers Standards for off cycle Diesel -Vessel speed 20 Transportation driving conditions 42 Transportation reductions Diesel -Privately owned on- Transportation refrigeration - 21 Transportation road trucks 43 Transportation electric standby Electrification of stationary 22 Transportation Anti-idling enforcement 44 Agriculture agricultural engines Source: California Air Resources Board, October 2007, Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. PAGE 5-16 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY Significance Criteria At this time there are no statewide guidelines for greenhouse gas emission impacts, but this will be addressed through the provisions of Senate Bill 97 ("SB 97"), which was enacted in 2007. SB 97 requires the State Office of Planning and Research "OPR" to develop CEQA guidelines for the effects and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the guidelines will not be available for some time as OPR has until July 1, 2009 to draft the new greenhouse gas guidelines, and the State Resources Agency will thereafter have until January 1, 2010 to certify and adopt the regulations. Although, there is currently no adopted threshold to evaluate potential impacts, for this analysis, a project would be considered to have a significant impact if the project would conflicts with or obstructs implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32 and other state regulations. Three types of analyses are used to determining whether the project could be in conflict with the State measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The analyses are as follows with aproject-specific discussion trailing each in italics: 1. Whether the project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of CARB's 44 early action strategies. The PNOject would not, by natuNe of its expected land use and associated activities, result in greenhouse gases falling undeN the sectoNS and action items listed in Table S-4 above. Therefore, no conflict would Nesult. 2. Whether the project's volume of emissions trigger the need to report greenhouse gas emissions to the state (i.e., emissions of at least 25,000 metric tons of C02E/yr)12. As noted above the 25,000 metric ton limit identifies the large stationary point sources in California that make up 94 percent of the stationary emissions. If a project's total emissions are below this limit, its total emissions are equivalent in volume to the smaller projects in California that as a group only make up six percent of all stationary emissions. The Project's estimated yearly emissions of C02 are 176.63 tons13. This figure is well below the reduction state goal and reporting limit for major facilities. Not surprisingly, the Project does not constitute a "major facility" that is a large stationary point source of emissions. 3. Elements of the project, mitigation measures, and City policies and requirements that contribute to the efficiency of the project and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most projects will include project components and/or mitigation measures, that may not be intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but will 12 The State of California has not provided guidance as to quantitative significance thresholds for assessing the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change and global warming concerns. Nothing in the CEQA Guidelines directly addresses this issue. 13 See Appendix C, URBEMIS 2007 emission calculations. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 5-17 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT nonetheless have this effect. Similarly, many City policies and requirements, such as traffic demand management programs, may also operate to improve the efficiency and reduce emissions associated with the project. An analysis of a project's impact on climate change should consider such elements, measures, and requirements. As discussed in the Air Quality and Traffic chapters of this document, the Project includes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The TDM Plan, required by City Ordinance for the life of the Project, is required by achieve a 35% alteNnative mode-use by tenant employees. This would seNVe to Neduce emissions related to employee vehicle use commuting to and fNOm woNk. Additionally, the enhanced measures to Neduce construction exhaust (Mitigated MeasuNe AiN-1) would also Neduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from, for example, the use of alternative fuels, electrical service for poweNed equipment, reduced diesel engine idling times frames. CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS The Project would generate new emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The BAAQMD has developed criteria to determine if a development Project could result in potentially significant regional emissions. The District has recommended that 2,000 daily vehicle trips be used as a threshold for quantifying Project regional impacts. The Project size along with the trip generation rate forecasted by CTG was input to the URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.2) model. The modeling assumed that the Project would be fully constructed and occupied in 2015. Default assumptions for the San Francisco Bay Area were used. The URBEMIS 2007 calculations (Appendix C) were performed in order to determine whether the Project would exceed air emissions thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Carbon Monoxide (CO). Emissions thresholds are 80 pounds per day for ROG, NOX and PMIO. The Project's total (worst case scenario not subtracting for existing uses to be replaced or mitigation measures) emissions are estimated at 20.53 pounds per day (lbs/day) for ROG, 33.81 lbs/day for NOX, and 29.47 lbs./day for PMIO. These emissions are below the significance thresholds established by the BAAQMD, thus this impact would be less-than-significant. Impact Air-3: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. The proposed Project would contribute to regional air quality emissions but would not exceed BAAQMD emissions thresholds for ROG, NOX and PMIO. This would be considered a less-than-significant impact. PAGE 5-18 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY While the Project is not expected to have a significant impact on cumulative air quality, the following mitigation measure has been proposed to ensure that cumulative air quality impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure Air-3: Transportation Demand Management Program. Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Program is required, as described in Mitigation Measure Traf 1 of the Transportation and Circulation chapter. This Program would reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from the Project site. The following components should be considered for inclusion in the Program to further reduce Project impacts to air quality: • Support shuttle service to BART and Caltrain. There are currently shuttles that serve employers in the area. • Provide bicycle amenities so that employees could bicycle to the Project. Such amenities could include safe onsite bicycle access and convenient storage (bike racks). Amenities for employees could include secure bicycle parking, lockers, and shower facilities. • The Project should include sidewalks with shade trees that provide safe and convenient access to the Project and any shuttle or future bus stops that serve the Project. • For all buildings, provide outdoor electrical outlets and encourage the use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment. Also, provide electrical outlets for recharging electrical vehicles in commercial and industrial parking lots/structures. Provide 110 and 220 Volt outlets at all loading docks and prohibit trucks from using their auxiliary equipment powered by diesel engines for more than 5 minutes. • Provide new trees that would shade buildings and walkways in summer to reduce the cooling loads on buildings. Implementation of this mitigation measure helps further minimize an already less-than-significant impact. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. Three sensitive receptors are located nearby the Project site. These include: (1) The Early Years Children's Center (a child care center) located approximately 0.50 miles east of the Project site at 371 Allerton Avenue; 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 5-19 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (2) the Gateway Child Care Center located approximately 0.80 miles northwest from the Project site at 559 Gateway Boulevard; and (3) the Genentech Childcare Center located approximately 0.7 miles east of the Proj ect site at 444 Allerton Avenue. The proposed Project could expose nearby sensitive receptors to on-site emissions during operation of the Project. Any Project occupant who would potentially release toxic air contaminant emissions would be subject to rules, regulations and procedures of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. As part of its program to control toxic air contaminant emissions, the District has established procedures for estimating the risk associated with exposure. The methods used are conservative, meaning that the real risks from the source maybe lower than the calculations, but it is unlikely they will be higher. In the first step of a two-step process, the District estimates how much of a contaminant would be found in the air at a specific location. The estimate depends upon the type of source, its rate of production and its location. The second step involves determining if the estimated amount of contaminant is hazardous to those exposed to it. This determination includes an evaluation of both carcinogenicity (tendency to cause cancer) and non-cancer health effects. Chemical toxicity is based on animal study results and in some instances, on the results of human exposure. Impact Air-4: Future Emissions Near Sensitive Receptors. The Project could include laboratory facilities or stationary equipment (e.g., standby emergency generators) that emit air pollution. These sources could emit small amounts of toxic air contaminants with the potential to affect nearby sensitive receptors. This impact, however, would be reduced to a less- than-significant level with standard BAAQMD permitting requirements and mitigation measures Haz-4a and Haz-4b identified in this EIR. The BAAQMD requires permits for stationary combustion equipment and large laboratory facilities. Small laboratories are exempt since their emissions would not likely pose an adverse impact to the public. Stationary equipment or laboratories that are subject to permitting requirements must show that impacts to the public would be negligible (e.g., cancer risks would be less than 10 in one million). As a result, these facilities would pose a less than significant impact with respect to criteria pollutants. Issues of toxic air contaminants and hazardous emissions with relation to sensitive receptors are discussed in Chapter 7 of this document. Specifically, mitigation measures Haz-4, Haz-5 and Haz-6 would be applicable and reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level. ODORS Impact Air-5: Construction-Related Diesel Odors. During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable PAGE 5-20 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 5: AIR QUALITY much beyond the Project site's boundaries. As the potential for diesel odor impacts would not affect a substantial amount of people, this impact is less-than-significant and is further reduced by Measures to Reduce Construction Exhaust in mitigation measure Air- l . Therefore, no mitigation is required. Many construction vehicles run on diesel gasoline, the exhaust of which has a distinct smell generally considered an objectionable odor. However, these odors would be temporary as they are only associated with construction and would not be expected to reach much past the boundary of the Project site. Measures to reduce construction exhaust, as presented in mitigation measure Air-1 in this EIR, are targeted at reduction of diesel particulates associated with construction, but would also act to further reduce diesel odor emissions. Impact Air-6: Operational-Related Objectionable Odors. while it is not known at this time exactly what businesses will occupy the completed Project, these businesses will be required to conform to applicable air quality regulations, including, but not limited to, those identified on Page 5-2. In order to ensure that any odors resulting from operations will remain at a less-than-significant level. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Because at this time it is not known exactly what type of business activity (beyond what has been identified as high technology research and development) would take place at the Project site if the proposed Project is implemented, it is not possible to determine if the Project would have any impact. However, the Project would be expected to conform to applicable air quality regulations in order to ensure that it produces ales-than-significant amount of offensive odors, including the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 7 -Odorous Substances. This regulation includes specifics ensuring that odors discharged on site cannot remain odorous after dilution with odor-free air and comes into effect in the event complaints are filed (meeting the requirements of Regulation 7). 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 5-21 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This Page Intentionally Left Blank PAGE 5-22 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT 6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS INTRODUCTION This section presents Geology and Soils setting and background information, regulatory setting, impacts analysis, and proposes mitigation measures for the Project. The setting section presented below was drawn from several sources of data including: (1) Review of USGS Open File Reports (OFR) of the area, including a map of the geology (USGS OFR 98- 354, 1998), Quaternary Geologic Map, including liquefaction susceptibility (USGS OFR 97- 715, 1997), and Landslide Map (USGS OFR 97-745 C); (2) Review of Geotechnical Study Sugen Phase II Building, Britannia Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, January 1999; Geotechnical Study, Exelis II, Britannia Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, May 2000; Geotechnical Study Sugen and Metaxen Buildings, Britannia Pointe Grand Business Park, Geomatrix, August 1997; and Geotechnical Study Sugen Phase III Building Britannia Pointe Grand, Geomatrix, May 23, 2002, (3) Review of Official California Geological Survey (CGS) maps including the South San Francisco Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Earthquake Fault Zone Map (1982), and the Fault Activity Map of California (1994); (5) Review of government websites, including the Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) website (www.abag.gov) for a summary of hazards ranging from liquefaction to seismic landsliding; (6) Review of the City of South San Francisco General Plan Update (1999); (7) Review of the East of 1 O l area plan for South San Francisco, as well as other applicable ordinances and regulations; and (8) Preliminary Geotechnical Study, 213 East Grand Development, South San Francisco, California, April 2008. SETTING REGIONAL SEISMICITY The Project site lies in the tectonically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of Northern California, on the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. The geologic and geomorphic structure of the northwest trending ridges and valleys in the region, including the Santa Cruz Mountains and San Francisco Bay, are controlled by active tectonism along the boundary between the North American and Pacific Tectonic Plates, which is the San Andreas Fault System. Regional faults have predominantly right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal) movement, with lesser dip-slip (vertical) components of displacement. Horizontal and vertical movement is distributed on the various fault strands within a fault zone. Throughout 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 6-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT geologic time the fault strands experiencing active deformation change in response to regional shifts in stress and strain from plate motions. Within 15 miles of the Project site there are three major active faults that display large right-lateral strike-slip offsets, the San Andreas fault, the San Gregorio fault, and the Hayward fault. The nearest known active fault is the San Andreas Fault trace, located approximately 3 miles (5 km) southwest of the site. Other nearby active faults include the Hayward fault 15 miles (24 km) northeast, the San Gregorio Fault (Seal Cove fault) located approximately 8.6 miles to the southwest, the Calaveras Fault located 25 miles northeast and the Concord/Green Valley fault located 3 0 miles northeast. Other faults are nearer than the San Andreas but not considered active since they show no evidence of Holocene rupture or movement during the past 11,000 years. This includes the San Bruno and Serra faults mapped approximately 1.4 and 2.6 miles (2.2 km and 4.2 km) west of the site. The nearest mapped fault of any type is the Hillside fault mapped about 0.35 miles (0.55 miles) northeast. While this is near the subject property the fault shows no evidence of rupture during at least the past 2 million years. Seismicity of the Project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic period, including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and most recently, the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.l According to ABAG, violent ground shaking (Modified Mercalli Intensity, MMI Level IX) is possible in response to a large earthquake along the nearby San Andreas fault. A major rupture of the Hayward fault is expected to produce strong ground shaking, MMI VII. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The Project site is located at the edge of the San Francisco Bay, a submerged valley in the Central Coast Ranges of California. This area is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System. In the San Francisco Bay area, Tertiary strata commonly rest in angular unconformity on rocks of the Franciscan complex, which is composed of weakly to strongly metamorphosed greywacke (sandstone), argillite, limestone, basalt, serpentinite, and chert. The rocks of the Franciscan Complex are ancient Jurassic oceanic crust and deep marine (pelagic) deposits accreted onto the edge of the North American Continent and metamorphosed as a result of accretion and partial subduction. These deposits have been overlain by Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous sedimentary deposits. Deposits of these rocks may be found outcropping along San Bruno Mountain in the Project vicinity. Little metamorphosed, high-pressure, low- temperature metamorphic minerals are common in the Franciscan complex, but there are also 1 California Division of Mines and Geology, 2002. Fault Evaluation Reports Prepared Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, CGS CD 2002-O1 PAGE 6-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS high grade metamorphic blocks in sheared but relatively un-metamorphosed argillite matrix which reflect the complicated history of the Franciscan. These rocks have been offset by movement along the San Andreas Fault System, which traverses the Santa Cruz Mountains prior to heading offshore in Southern Daly City, on the other side of the Peninsula. Several northwest trending and structurally controlled valleys dissect the San Francisco Peninsula, including the valley of Colma Creek, which contains the Project site. During the Quaternary Period of rising and falling sea level in response to patterns of global glaciation, these valleys were incised and then backfilled with sediment to form the suite of alluvial deposits that can be found today, including the Pleistocene Colma Formation. Along the bay margin, deposits of Holocene Bay Mud, marsh deposits, and other fine grained sediment accumulated by currents along the shore. SITE GEOLOGY AN D SOI LS According to Project's preliminary geotechnical investigation2, the Project site is underlain by various thickness of fill materials overlying medium dense sands, clayey sands, and silty sands. These sandy materials are interbedded with occasional layers of stiff to very stiff sandy clays, overlaying Franciscan bedrock. One boring at the Project site encountered a relatively thin layer of Bay deposits. Several geotechnical studies of the surrounding parcels have also been completed in association with recent construction activities. In four geotechnical studies of adjacent properties, subsurface conditions were found to consist of fill materials overlying soft Bay Mud deposits, which are underlain by medium dense to very dense granular alluvial soils (Colma Formation). The thickness of fill and Bay Mud varied considerably on the adjacent properties. Fill soils ranged from five to twelve feet deep; Bay Mud varied from three feet to 30-feet in thickness under the fill soils. Bedrock was not encountered in boreholes, with the exception of two boreholes in which weathered sandstone was encountered at depths of 68.5 feet and 73 feet below ground surface. These boreholes were located 100 to 150 feet west of the Project site. Subsurface conditions at the Project site are generally similar to those encountered during the geotechnical studies of the surrounding parcels. The thickness of the surficial fill materials, Bay Mud, alluvial sediments, and depth to bedrock could vary considerably. LAN DSLI DI NG AN D SLOPE STA61 LITY Slope steepness is generally the dominant factor governing slope stability, depending upon soil and bedrock conditions. Steep slopes greater than 50 percent are especially prone to landslides in areas of weak soil and/or bedrock. The Project would redevelop a nearly level 2 Preliminary Geotechnical Study, 213 East Grand Development, South San Francisco, California, April 2008. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 6-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT parcel with no nearby or adjacent steep slopes. There is no apparent risk from slope instability or landsliding. According to information on the ABAG website, the Project area is not at risk from slope instability. PRIMARY SEISMIC HAZARDS -SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE A number of active and potentially active faults are present in the region. According to criteria of the State of California Geological Survey, active faults have experienced surface rupture within the last 11,000 years (Holocene Period). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 initiated a program of mapping active and potentially active faults (faults with displacement within Quaternary time -the last 1.6 million years). According to the program, active faults must be zoned and development projects within the Earthquake Fault Zones investigated to establish the location and age of any faulting across the development site. Active and potentially active faults along the San Francisco Peninsula have undergone extensive investigation in the past. ABAG has summarized results from many of these studies to quantify the potential impact to certain areas, while the California Geological Survey has established Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) boundaries. According to these maps, the proposed development is not located within an EFZ. The nearest EFZ is for the San Andreas Fault, located slightly more than 3 miles southwest of the site. Since no faults are mapped across the Project site on any published maps, the geotechnical consultant inferred ground rupture at the site as a result of an earthquake unlikely and the risk of ground rupture within the Proj ect boundaries is considered very low. SECON DARY SEISMIC HAZARDS Ground Shaking The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region. The Project site and region will likely be subjected to strong to violent seismically induced ground shaking within the design life of the development. The site is located in an area of active regional seismicity near active seismic sources. According to a recent study completed by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), which assesses the probability of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is a 62 percent probability that an earthquake of Richter Magnitude 6.7 or greater will strike within the life of the Project improvements.3 The intensity of ground shaking will vary with the distance and magnitude of the earthquake causing the ground shaking. The maximum intensity ground shaking expected to occur at the site would be a modified Mercalli intensity level of IX (violent) in response to an earthquake 3 Working Group On California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 2003, Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2002-2031, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-214. PAGE 6-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS of equivalent magnitude to the 1906 earthquake (7.9) on the San Andreas fault. An earthquake of magnitude 6.8 on the Hayward fault would be expected to produce strong ground shaking equivalent to modified Mercalli intensity level VII (strong).4 Peak ground accelerations for the site with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50-year period are estimated to be approximately 55 percent of the acceleration due to gravity (g).5 Actual ground motions resulting from ground acceleration may be amplified or dampened depending on the underlying geologic materials. Deep soft soils tend to amplify waves whereas shallow soils overlying hard bedrock tends to dampen shaking intensity. With moderately deep soils at the Proj ect site, some amplification of seismic waves could occur. Seismically Induced Liquefaction Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of saturated, cohesionless soil during seismically induced ground shaking, into a viscous liquid with poor supporting characteristics for buildings and other structures. According to maps produced by ABAG, the liquefaction hazard level for the site is high for a maximum magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas fault and moderate for a maximum magnitude earthquake on the Hayward fault.6 Seismically Induced Densification Dynamic densification or ground subsidence can occur when dry cohesionless soils collapse as a result of seismic shaking. This may be particularly true of unconsolidated sandy fill, or ground overlying hollow areas due to caves, mines, or areas with excessive groundwater removal. The site has undergone fill with various materials. The fill soils may include areas of loose dry sandy soils that could be susceptible to dynamic densification. Based on a liquefaction hazard of high for the site, dynamic densification hazard should also be considered high. Seismically Induced Landslides Seismically induced slope failure is another secondary seismic hazard. During earthquake induced ground shaking, unstable slopes can fail, causing landslides and debris flows. However, due to the nearly level topography of the site, seismically induced landslides are not considered a hazard. 4 Association of Bay Area Governments, www.abag.ca.gov , 2007. 5 California Geologic Survey, httpa/www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html . 6 ABAG website, www.abag.ca.gov 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 6-5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REGULATORY SETTING City of South San Francisco Hazard Mitigation Plan The City of South San Francisco has adopted the Association of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) for the city by resolution 65-2006, on August 16, 2006. The HMP has been designed to identify the areas where people or structures may have higher vulnerability to earthquakes, flood, wildland fires, and other natural hazards. The plan identifies policies and actions that may be implemented by the City to reduce the potential for loss of life and property damage in these areas based on an analysis of the frequency of earthquakes, floods, wildland fires and landslides in terms of frequency, intensity, location, history, and damage effects. The Plan serves as a guide for decision-makers as they commit resources to reduce the effects of natural hazards. City of South San Francisco General Plan Update EIR The General Plan Update Health and Safety Element includes a section on Geological and Seismic Hazards. This section identifies geotechnical and geologic impacts to the general City of South San Francisco area. The most recent General Plan update was completed in October 1999. East of 101 Area Plan The 1999 General Plan update also includes a summary of the East of 101 area plan, providing specific policies for the area located east of U.S. Highway 101. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 15 includes information on the Construction Codes and Amendments adopted by the City of South San Francisco. This includes the California Building Code, among other codes used in construction in the City of South San Francisco. The California Building Code Vol. l and 2, 2001 Edition, including the California Building Standards, 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions set forth in Title 15 was adopted by reference as the building code of the city of South San Francisco in 2004 (Ord. 13 3 0 § 2 (part), 2004). Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 required the mapping and zoning of active faults within the State of California. Under the act, development within zones of active fault displacement is restricted for structures intended for human occupancy. Any development site located within an Earthquake Fault Zone Boundary as delineated on State maps must be studied to determine if an active fault crosses the subject parcel. Setbacks from active faults are required under the Act. There is an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault PAGE 6-6 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Zone Map for the South San Francisco Quadrangle (1982), in which the Project site is located. California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California Public Resources Code Sections 2690-2699.6) addresses seismic hazards other than surface rupture, such as liquefaction and seismically induced landslides. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils. The State of California does not currently have a Seismic Hazard Map for the southern part of the South San Francisco Quadrangle. However, the Seismic Hazard Map Home Page indicates that mapping for the southern part of the South San Francisco Quadrangle is currently under preparation. This map maybe completed in the near future. Uniform Buildin C.~ ode (1997) and California Buildin C.~ ode (2001) The Uniform Building Code was developed by the International Conference of Building Officials to provide a set of consistent standards for building of structures. The California Building Code (CBC) was developed to incorporate modifications required by California law and statute and has been adopted by most jurisdictions in California, including the City of South San Francisco, to oversee construction. The CBC defines four Seismic Zones in California, which are ranked according to their seismic hazard potential. Zone 1 has the least seismic potential and Zone 4 has the highest seismic potential. The Bay Area is located in Seismic Zone 4 and thus development is required to comply with all design standards applicable to Seismic Zone 4. The earthquake protection law (California Heath and Safety Code section 19100 et seq.) requires that structures be designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by wind and earthquakes. Specific minimum standards for seismic safety and structural design to meet earthquake protection requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the CBC. IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to CEQA Guidelines, exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards is considered a significant adverse impact. The potential geologic, soils, and seismic effects of the proposed Project can be considered from two points of view: (1) construction impacts; and, (2) geologic hazards to people or structures. The basic criterion applied to the analysis of construction impacts is whether construction of the Project will create unstable geologic ' http://www.conservation.ca.gov/c ~s/shz~/Pages/Index.aspx, January 16, 2008. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 6-7 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT conditions that would last beyond the short-term construction period. The analysis of geological hazards is based on the degree to which the site geology could produce hazards to people or structures from earthquakes, ground shaking, ground movement, fault rupture, or other geologic hazards, features or events. According to CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in: 1. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; 2. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking; 3. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and seismic-induced landslides; 4. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides; 5. Development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable (or that would become unstable as a result of the Project) and which could potentially result in on- or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse; 6. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving volcanic hazards; 7. Development located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life and property; 8. The loss of topsoil or development in an area of erodible soils. 9. Development in areas where soils are incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater; 10. The loss of Mineral Resources important to the State of California or the local economy; 11. The alteration or destruction of a unique geological feature. PAGE 6-8 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE Impact Geo-1: Surface Fault Rupture. According to the latest available maps, the Project site is not contained within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. Published geologic maps of the area show the Hillside fault as lying 1,100 feet north of the site, but this fault is not considered active or potentially active, with an estimated age of most recent movement greater than 1.6 million years ago. The potential impact of surface fault rupture is considered less-than-significant. Therefore, no mitigation is required. EXPOSURE TO STRONG SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING Impact Geo-2: Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a high probability that the proposed development will be subj ected to strong to violent ground shaking from an earthquake during its design life. Strong to violent seismic ground shaking is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Geo-2a: Compliance with California Building Code. Project development shall meet requirements of the California Building Code, including the California Building Standards, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking. Mitigation Measure Geo-2b: Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Registered Structural Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 6-9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mitigation Measure Geo-2c: Obtain a building permit. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 area plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Conformity with these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of strong seismic ground shaking to alevel ofless-than-significant. SEISMICALLY INDUCED GROUND FAILURE, INCLUDING LIQUEFACTION AND GROUND SURFACE SETTLEMENT Impact Geo-3. Liquefaction, Densification, and Ground Surface Settlement. The Association of Bay Area Governments identifies the Project area as an area of high hazard for liquefaction. Liquefaction or densification of soils underlying the site could result in settlement and differential settlement of site improvements including buildings, pavements, and utilities and pose a threat to human health. The potential for liquefaction of site soils is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Geo-3a: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance with Structural Design Plans. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer and shall include analysis for liquefaction potential of the underlying sediments. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer shall prepare Project structural design plans. Structures shall be designed to minimize the affects of anticipated seismic settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review the Structural Design Plans and provide approval for the Geotechnical elements of the plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to reduce the liquefaction potential of surface soils. Mitigations measures may include excavation and replacement as engineered fill, reduced foundation loading, and ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or pressure grouting. PAGE 6-10 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure Geo-3b: Obtain a building permit. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 area plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of seismic ground shaking to ales-than-significant level. LANDSLIDES The Project site is a nearly level area with no nearby hills that could fail by landsliding. There is no impact related to landslides. VOLCANIC HAZARDS The Project site is not located in an active volcano or volcanic hazard area. There is no impact related to volcanic hazards. UNSTABLE SOIL MATERIALS Impact Geo-4: Unstable Soils and Bay Mud. Undocumented fill soils are present on the subject site. These soils have not been reworked to provide a stable foundation for buildings, pavements and utilities. Fill soils of unknown quality are present in the proposed building and parking areas. Fill soils may settle due to new building loads. Bay Mud and alluvial soil deposits are present on adjacent sites and also constitute areas of potentially unstable soils. Bay Mud is likely present under portions of the Project site and may settle under design loading conditions resulting in differential settlement of structures. The presence of unstable soil and Bay Mud is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Geo-4: Investigate unstable fill soils and Bay Mud. A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation shall be performed to more thoroughly determine the depth and extent of potentially unstable fill soil and Bay Mud. Based on results of this study the Geotechnical Engineer shall determine appropriate measures to stabilize the unstable soils present underlying the site. Consolidation testing of the Bay Mud soils shall be 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 6-11 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT performed, as part of the Design Level Geotechnical Investigation, and estimates of settlement for the site shall be developed. Methods of unstable soil stabilization may include construction of driven pile foundations that support structures on materials located below fill soils and Bay Mud, and other methods as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Buildings constructed on the adjacent properties have utilized driven pile foundations to support the structures. Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the impact of unstable or potentially unstable soils and Bay Mud to less-than-significant. EXPANSIVE SOILS Impact Geo-5: Expansive Soils. The preliminary geotechnical investigation accomplished for the Project did not discover expansive soils. Therefore, the Project is considered to have no impact under this issue with no mitigation required. S01 L EROSION Impact Geo-6: Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading at a location which drains stormwater to the San Francisco Bay. Demolition of existing structures and pavements could expose underlying contaminated soil to the elements. Excavation of soil for construction of new buildings and pavement sections would also be performed and temporary stockpiles of loose soil will be created. Soils exposed during site grading would be subject to erosion during storm events. Grading would disturb site soils potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco Bay. This would be a potentially significant impact during and following site construction activities. Mitigation Measure Geo-6: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SVVRCB), the Applicant shall file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99- 08-DVVQ). Implementation of this mitigation measures would reduce the impact of soil erosion to a level ofless-than-significant. PAGE 6-12 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEPTIC SYSTEMS A sewer system is present in the area and septic systems are not required at the site. The Proj ect would have no impact related to septic systems. LOSS OF MI N ERAL RESOURCES No mineral resources important to the State of California would be impacted by the Project. The Project would have no impact related to loss of mineral resources. UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL FEATURES No unique geologic features will be impacted by the proposed Project. The Project would have no impact related to unique geological features. CUMULATIVE GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACTS Impact Geo-7: Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts. Strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction and densification during seismic ground shaking, underlying unstable soils and bay mud, and soil erosion during Project construction and post construction are common impacts to projects located in the vicinity. The proposed Project would be one of numerous sites anticipated to undergo development/redevelopment in the vlclnlty and would contribute to a cumulative increase in sites facing these impacts. However, the Project-specific contribution would be reduced by identified Project- specific mitigation measures to ales-than-significant level with no additional mitigation required. The following contributing elements to Impact Geo-7 above are discussed in more detail below: (a) Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking; (b) Liquefaction, Densification, and Ground Surface Settlement; (c) Unstable Soils and Bay Mud; and (d) Soil Erosion. Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Exposure to strong seismic ground shaking is a common impact to all projects located in the San Francisco Bay region. Development of the Project would increase the number of people exposed to seismic ground shaking in the City of South San Francisco. In the case of a major strong seismic ground-shaking event, emergency response calls could increase due to the Project development. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures Geo- 2a, Geo-2b and Geo-2c will reduce the potential cumulative impacts of strong seismic ground shaking to ales-than-significant level. Liquefaction, Densification, and Ground Surface Settlement Liquefaction and dynamic densification of soils underlying the site is a common impact with much of the surrounding area. Liquefaction and densification during seismic ground shaking 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 6-13 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT could lead to ground surface settlement of the Project site as well as the surrounding area. The identified mitigation measures Geo-3a and Geo-3b will reduce the impact to the Project site to less than significant, but impacts to the surrounding area will depend on site specific factors. The cumulative impact of liquefaction, densification, and ground surface settlement is considered less-than-significant. Unstable Soils and Bad The presence of unstable soils and bay mud underlying the site is a common impact with much of the surrounding area. Marsh soils and bay mud have resulted in ground surface settlement of the Project site as well as the surrounding area. The identified mitigation measure Geo-4 will reduce the impact to the Project site to less than significant, but impacts to the surrounding area will depend on site-specific factors. The Cumulative impact of unstable soils and bay mud is considered less-than-significant. Cnil Frncinn Soil erosion during Project construction and post construction is a common impact of all re- development or development projects involving exposure of soils to the environment. The identified mitigation measure Geo-6 will reduce the potential cumulative impact to less-than- sign scant. PAGE 6-14 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT 7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTRODUCTION A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either 1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and safety, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous waste (a subset of hazardous materials) refers to hazardous material that is abandoned, discarded or recycled. The following section describes the history of hazardous materials use at the site, and the potential threat to future site users and the surrounding environment resulting from the proposed development. Development plans require demolition of four existing buildings to make space for one new nine-story office/R&D building with attached five-level parking garage. Research and Development uses, though not determined at this time, may include the use and handling of potentially hazardous materials; including possible biological hazards. The information presented below was drawn from several sources of data including: (1) Environmental Site Assessment, Phase I, ENVIRON, July 12, 2005; (2) Site Investigation, Phase II, ENVIRON, July 29, 2005; (3) Ground Water Monitoring Report, ENVIRON, March 12, 2007; (4) Subsurface Investigation /Well Installation, ENVIRON, January 31, 2007; (5) Review of the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) Database (www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov) (January 4, 2008); (7) Review of the State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker Database (geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov); (8) Review of the City of South San Francisco General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan Element; as well as all other applicable ordinances and regulations; (9) Review of Site Boundary Plan (May 2005) and Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (September 28, 2007) by SNCE Civil Consulting Engineer; (10) Review of the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department website; and (11) Telephone conversations with San Mateo County and City of South San Francisco officials. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 7-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SETTING REGULATORY SETTING Jurisdictional Authority At the federal level, the chief regulator is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX for Northern California. At the State level, the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) is chiefly responsible for regulation, handling, use, and disposal of toxic materials. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is involved in regulation and permitting wherever there is potential discharge of hazardous materials into waterways and underground aquifers, including regulation of storm water runoff through the general permit required for construction proj ects exceeding one acre. The local branch of the Water Board is the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). Regulation of toxic and hazardous substances is locally administered through the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD), which acts as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). A CUPA is certified by the California Environmental Protection Agency to handle certain hazardous materials and hazards programs. The CUPA program was established under the amendments to the California Health and Safety Code made by SB 1082 in 1994, which allows for local agencies, such as counties, cities, or joint powers authorities, to assume responsibility for programs such as the Hazardous Materials Business Plan/Emergency Response Plan, Hazardous Waste/Tiered Permitting, Underground Storage Tanks, Aboveground Storage Tanks (SPCC only), California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP) and the Uniform Fire Code Hazardous Materials Management Plan. Regulations, Plans and Pro r.~ ams The Hazardous Materials Business Plan is used to keep track of the use of hazardous materials by businesses in accordance with both state and federal laws. The California Accidental Release Prevention (CaIARP) Program is a merging of the federal and state programs for the prevention of accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable substances. The goal is to eliminate the need for two separate and distinct chemical risk management programs. CaIARP is the Federal Risk Management Plan Program with additional state requirements, including a list of regulated substances and thresholds and requires preparation of a Risk Management Plan for businesses using regulated substances. The Hazardous Waste Generator Program was started in 1984 when the State of California DTSC authorized the Health Department to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous waste generators in San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. PAGE 7-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The groundwater protection program is funded wholly or in part, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), under Cooperative Agreement L-009450-1-0 to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by Contract 8-014-550 to the County of San Mateo. In conjunction with these laws the underground storage tank program was created to regulate the chief source of underground contamination, leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTS) or fuel tanks (LUFTs). Many regulatory agencies maintain a database of sites. Currently, both the DTSC (www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov) and State Water Resources Control Board (geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov) maintain online searchable databases of hazardous materials sites. Other databases with information on hazardous materials sites include the Federal Superfund list started through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Conservation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the USEPA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), HAZNET, the leaking underground storage tank information system (LUST), and the Cortese list. Air pollution is regulated through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). These programs and regulations are intended to restrict environmental contamination, including hazards to wildlife, provide protection for natural resources, and limit public exposure to harmful chemicals. Specific programs intended to protect workers from exposure to hazardous materials and from accidental upset are covered under the Occupational Health and Safety Administration at both the Federal Level (OSHA) and the state level (CAL- OSHA). Title 40 of the Federal Code of Regulations covers worker training and safety regulations pertinent to hazardous materials. OSHA regulations for hazardous waste operations training in California are found in Title 29 of the California Code, Section 1910.120(e). The law requires General Site Workers receive a minimum of 40 hours of instruction off the site, and a minimum of three days of actual field experience, while Occasional Site Workers receive a minimum 24 hours of instruction off the site, and a minimum of one day actual field experience. Transportation of hazardous materials on the highways is regulated primarily through the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) and the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS). This includes a system of placards, labels, and shipping papers required to identify the hazards of shipping each class of hazardous materials. Existing federal and state laws address risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials. These laws include regulations outlined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act administered by the DOT. Caltrans is mandated to implement the regulations established by the DOT, which is published as the Federal Code of Regulations, Title 49, commonly referred to as 49 CFR. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) enforces these regulations. Regulations of hazardous materials and wastes include the manufacture of packaging and transport containers; packing and repacking; labeling; marking or placarding; handling; spill reporting; routing of transports; training of transport personnel; and registration of highly hazardous material transport. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 7-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT General Plan Policies The City of South San Francisco General Plan contains several policies that relate to hazardous materials and waste, mainly contained in General Plan Section 8.3, shown in Table 7-1. Table 7-1 Select General Plan Policies Regarding Hazardous Materials Policy Goal 8.3-G-1 Reduce solid and hazardous waste, and recycle to slow the filling of landfills in accord with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. 8.3-G-2 Enforce revised zoning ordinance prohibition of intensive industrial production of hazardous waste and the permanent storage of hazardous materials. Limit light industrial uses that produce hazardous waste, such as auto repair and auto painting businesses. 8.3-I-3 Establish a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database of sites included on the Cortese List. The GIS should assist in the development approval process. 8.3-I-4 Establish an ordinance specifying routes for transporting hazardous materials. Routes should not pass through residential areas or other sensitive areas and allow specific times for transport to reduce the impact and accident risk during peak travel periods. Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan SITE HISTORY Prior to the 1950s, the Project site was developed with two buildings along its western side and its southwest corner; including a small shed along the northwest boundary believed to be owned by Bethlehem Steel. Between 1956 and 1964, the current 213 and 217 East Grand Avenue buildings and the 317 Roebling building were constructed. The building at 337 Roebling was constructed in 1972.1 Prior to 1956, a large portion of the Project site was occupied by stock feeding pens owned by the United Packing Company. Later 20th Century tenants at Project site included: (1) JD Cochin, a manufacturer of hydraulic lifts and air compressors from the 1950s through the 1980s; (2) Taylor Products, a metal grate manufacturer from the 1980s through 1991; (3) Applied Electronics, Raytheon Marro Products, and Webster Manufacturing Company from approximately 1956 through the early 1970s; (4) American Camper in the 1970s; (5) and numerous biotechnical research firms, including Codon Bioscience, Berlex Biosciences, Shaman Pharmaceuticals, Tularik, Inc., and Amgen, Inc. from 1986 through April 2005. 1 Each of the addresses mentioned in this paragraph and thereafter pertain to the Project site. PAGE 7-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS It is expected due to the nature of work conducted by businesses at the property that chemicals have been historically used and stored in small quantities. For example, waste oil is presently generated at 337 Roebling Road. Due to the age of buildings at the Property (originally built between 1956 and 1972), it is possible asbestos-containing materials (AGMs) are present and that lead-based paint was originally used. An underground storage tank was removed from the property in 1986 with site closure granted by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). Nonetheless, other more recent soil gas, soil and ground water sampling indicate confined areas of contamination. Elevated concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), including Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and Trichloroethene (TCE), were found in soil gas and shallow groundwater and center in the vicinity of the former glass washing and chemical storage areas, in the northwestern portion of the 213 E. Grand Avenue building. However, soil sampling results show VOC impacts limited to a separate area the northwest and north of the 317 Roebling Road building. Also, concerning soil sample results, data suggests that metal (i.e., chromium and cobalt) concentrations are limited to a localized area beneath the 213 E. Grand Avenue building and occur just above SFRWQCB Exposure Screening Levels (ESLs). VICINITY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES There are numerous hazardous materials sites throughout the East of 101 area of South San Francisco, reflecting the long industrial history of the area. Due to the density of sites, only those bordering the property are discussed here since contamination from these sites would have the greatest potential impact during development of the subject property. Most sites are reported in the various environmental databases as they are registered hazardous waste generators and members of the hazardous materials business plan program for San Mateo County. These include Sugen, Inc. across Roebling Road to the northeast, Metaxen Inc., across Roebling Road to the southwest, Exelixis, Inc. across East Grand Avenue to the south. These sites are reported for miscellaneous laboratory waste products. The Embassy Suites hotel is located across Forbes Boulevard to the west but has no known or likely use of hazardous material. Across East Grand Avenue to the east of the Project site, the former Georgia Pacific facility (249 E. Grand Avenue) stored and processed paper and cardboard. Asbestos containing building materials were present in this structure, but were removed during recent structural demolition. Additionally, soil and groundwater sampling and testing from boreholes on that property found no evidence of contamination from hydrocarbons, metals, or related compounds above either the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) or the California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs), established by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. While the bordering sites are listed as containing hazardous materials, there is no evidence of active leaks or contamination from these sites affecting soil or groundwater that could penetrate onto or underneath the subj ect property. Area sites listed as potential sources of soil 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 7-5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT and groundwater contamination in the area are more distant and limited to older developments, especially businesses with former leaking underground fuel tanks, or former scrap metal processing plant sites. Outside the subject property the nearest site in the DTSC database is the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) South San Francisco Maintenance Yard at 166 Harbor Way, located approximately 1,000 feet west of the site. The site was formerly occupied by various industrial facilities that included a sheet steel mill and galvanizing plant, an insulating material manufacturer, and scrap car compacting. The site is listed for arsenic, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated nuclear aromatic compounds, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel. Records show a voluntary cleanup agreement was completed on February 23, 2001, and further action was not required unless the site was to be redeveloped. Other sites with known soil and groundwater contamination issues are more than one-quarter mile distant from the site and the chance of contamination spreading from one of these sites is remote. Any off site contamination would likely be secondary to the contamination present on the subject site. IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Proj ect create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2. Would the Proj ect create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3. Would the Project produce hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4. Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5. Would the Proj ect be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport? Would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area? 6. For a Proj ect within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area? PAGE 7-6 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 7. Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8. Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE, TRANSPORT Impact Haz-1: Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed development is for construction of a nine-story building for Class A laboratory and office use, a parking garage, central courtyard, and associated landscaping and infrastructure. Class A refers to a research laboratory, not merely an instructional laboratory. Depending upon the nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, for which detailed information has not yet been provided, there are likely to be both hazardous and potentially hazardous materials stored and used on the site that will eventually require disposal. There are likely to be biological hazards, chemical hazards and risk of fire or explosion. There is also likely to be transportation of hazardous materials to and from the site, probably traveling along Highway 101 and East Grand Avenue. The risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Haz-la: Plan Review for Adherence to Fire and Safety Codes. Building space must be designed to handle the intended use, with sprinklers, alarms, vents, and secondary containment structures, where applicable. These systems must pass plan review through the City of South San Francisco Planning, Building and Fire Departments. Mitigation Measure Haz-lb: Construction Inspection and Final Inspection Prior to Occupancy. During construction, the utilities including sprinkler systems shall pass pressure and flush tests to make sure they perform as designed. At the end of construction, occupancy shall not be allowed until a final inspection is made by the Fire Department for conformance of all building systems with the Fire Code and National Fire Protection Agency Requirements. The inspection shall include testing of sprinklers systems, alarm systems, ventilation and airflow systems, and secondary containment systems. The inspection shall include a review of the emergency evacuation plans. These plans shall be modified as deemed necessary. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 7-7 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mitigation Measure Haz-lc: Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. Businesses occupying the development must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of using these materials, material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses qualify for the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods; medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and who store or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These exemptions are not expected to apply to Class A laboratory facilities. Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must submit a business plan prior to the start of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change, including without limitation, changes to emergency contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous materials storage and/or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall inspect the business at least once a year to make sure that the Business Plan is complete and accurate. Mitigation Measure Haz-ld: Hazardous Waste Generator Program. Qualifying businesses shall register and comply with the hazardous waste generator program. The State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control authorized the SMCEHD to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous waste generators in San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, PAGE 7-8 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Division 4.5. Regulations require businesses generating any amount of hazardous waste as defined by regulation to properly store, manage and dispose of such waste. Division staff also conducts surveillance and enforcement activities in conjunction with the County District Attorney's Office for businesses or individuals that significantly violate the above referenced law and regulations. Mitigation Measure Haz-le: Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations. All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the impact of routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant through compliance with existing regulations, plans and programs as discussed specifically in mitigation measures Haz-1 a through Haz-1 e that act to ensure adequate safety levels are reached and maintained throughout the life of the Project. ACCIDENTAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. During demolition operations hazardous materials could be released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Following construction, operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of hazardous materials since the site is proposed to include Class A laboratory facilities, where hazardous materials may be stored, used, and disposed of. This represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Haz-2a: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A demolition plan with permit applications shall be submitted to the city of South San Francisco Building Department for approval prior to demolition. The Demolition Plan for safe demolition of existing structures shall include asbestos dust control and incorporate recommendations from the site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials, as well as additional surveys when required by the City. The demolition plan shall address both on-site Worker Protection and off site resident protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 7-9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 1 1, Rule 2. Mitigation Measure Haz-2b: California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP). Future businesses at the development shall check the state and federal lists of regulated substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to use in consultation with the SMCEHD. Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a CaIARP registration form and submit it to Environmental Health. Following registration, they shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ)2 of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for keeping employees and customers safe, the handling regulated substances, staff training, equipment maintenance, checking that substances are stored safely, and responding to an accidental release. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less-than-significant. 2 California Code of Regulations; Title 19. Public Safety; Division 2.Office of Emergency Services; Chapter 4.5 California Accidental Release Prevention (CaIARP) Program, § 2770.5. PAGE 7-10 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES The site has awell-documented history of industrial activity including the use and storage of hazardous materials. While an underground storage tank was removed in 1986, subsequent analytical testing found elevated levels of TCE, PCE and two metals remain in soil. The site has remained relatively undisturbed and, consequently, the exposure risk has remained minimal. However, the proposed development requires major grading and disturbance of the cap to construct structural foundations, and to construct the utility corridors. Impact Haz-3: Exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater. During demolition and construction, workers could be exposed to contaminated soil and groundwater. Following site development, future maintenance work is also likely to penetrate into the subsurface where contamination remains. Soil and groundwater disturbance presents an exposure hazard to workers and trespassers. Disturbance of the subsurface also increases the potential for contamination to spread through surface water runoff, creation of seepage pathways, and through wind blown dust. These impacts are potentially significant. Mitigation Measure Haz-3a: San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Closure of Existing Facilities. Any businesses on the site that are currently registered in the hazardous materials business plan program shall submit a closure work plan in accordance with the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Business Closure Policy prior to vacating the property. The closure plan shall detail any necessary sampling and remediation. Closure will not be granted until businesses have demonstrated there is no need for further remediation, and shall include documentation of the removal of any hazardous chemicals. Mitigation Measure Haz-3b: Development and Implementation of Site Management Plans. A Site Management Plan shall be prepared and address the exposure risk to people and the environment resulting from future demolition, construction, occupancy, and maintenance activities on the property. The plans shall be in accordance with recommendations of the Environmental Consultant, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Groundwater Protection Program and the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. In accordance with DTSC recommendations from review of the Draft Site Management Plan there should be two separate plans: (1) ongoing Operations and Maintenance Activities, and (2) a specific plan addressing the future proposed site 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 7-11 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT development based on actual proposed grading, excavation and construction. The plans are required to be more specific than the draft plan. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the environment shall be provided in the plan. At a minimum, the plan shall include the following: 1) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASP) shall be prepared in accordance with 0 SHA regulations by all contractors at the Project site. This includes a HASP for all demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. The plan shall also designate provisions to limit worker entry and exposure and shall show locations and type of protective fencing to prevent public exposure to any hazards during demolition, site grading, and construction activities. 2) Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize exposure to any subsurface contamination shall be developed. This shall include treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance with local and Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines. Groundwater encountered in trenches and other excavations shall not be discharged into the neighboring storm drain, but into a closed containment facility, unless proven to have concentrations of contaminants below established regulatory guidelines. Contaminated groundwater will be required to be stored in Baker tanks until tested. If testing determines that the water can be discharged into the sanitary sewer system, then the applicant must acquire a ground water discharge permit from the City of South San Francisco Sanitary Sewer District and meet local discharge limits before being allowed to discharge into the sanitary sewer. Water must be analyzed for the chemicals of concern at the site, which include metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and cyanide. 3) General sampling and testing plan for excavated soils shall determine suitability for reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility. Testing shall include the California Title 22 Hazardous Metals (CAM 17 metals), TPH as gasoline, TPH as diesel, and TPH as motor oil. Testing results shall be compared to DTSC California Human Health Screening Levels and RWQCB Environmental PAGE 7-12 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Screening Levels t0 determine suitability to remain On-Slte aS engineered fill or landscape fill. Any soils determined to exceed the CHHSLs and ESLs for Commercial sites shall be deemed as unsuitable for re-use as fill above the future cap. 4) Future subsurface work plan. The plan shall document procedures for future subsurface landscaping work, utility maintenance, etc., with proper DTSC notification, where applicable. The plan shall include a general health and safety plan for each expected type of work, with appropriate personal protective equipment, where applicable. Implementation of mitigation measures Haz-3a and Haz-3b would reduce the impact from exposure of Construction Workers to contaminated soils and groundwater to a level of less- than-significant. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS N EAR SCHOOLS Impact Haz-4: Contaminated Dust. Three sensitive receptors are located nearby the Project site. During grading, limited areas of contaminated soils that are currently buried could be disturbed. Disturbed soils could be mobilized by movement of heavy equipment and the wind, resulting in potential dispersal of contamination. Dispersed contaminants could be inhaled, ingested or adsorbed and present a potential health hazard. Dispersal of contaminated dust during demolition and grading would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Haz-4: Demolition and Construction Air Quality Control. Following closure of businesses, a demolition plan with permit applications shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building Department for approval prior to demolition. The Demolition Plan shall address both on- site Worker Protection and off site resident protection from both chemical and physical hazards. Building materials shall be tested for chemicals of concern and unless recycled shall be disposed to appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, any hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint or asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. Both the Demolition and Grading Plans submitted to the City for approval shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. This shall be in accordance with BAAQMD basic and enhanced measures and all other applicable standards. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plans. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 7-13 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Plan shall include details of site watering, covering of exposed stockpiles, and security fencing to prevent trespassers during demolition and construction. During demolition and construction, the site shall be inspected regularly to ensure compliance with the approved plan. Materials determined or even suspected of being hazardous waste shall be off hauled by a hazardous materials contractor to an appropriately licensed landfill facility inclosed vehicles. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to the school from possible contaminated dust to alevel ofless-than-significant. Impact Haz-5: Future Emissions Near Schools. Since the proposed development includes research laboratory facilities, it is likely that hazardous chemicals will be stored and used on the property. In certain circumstances these chemicals could spill, mix, ignite, or volatilize and cause a hazardous emission near the childcare center, which would be a potentially sign scant impact. Mitigation Measure Haz-5: Future Building Compliance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standards. Each independent R&D facility operating on the property shall obtain necessary permits and comply with monitoring and inspection requirements of the BAAQMD. Future operations shall comply with all local, state and federal requirements for emissions. Each facility shall also meet OSHA and California OSHA standards for R&D facilities. This includes plan review by the City of South San Francisco to examine if the proposed development plans meet the same standards as for other similar facilities. Engineering controls, such as exhaust hoods, filtration systems, spill kits, fire extinguishers, and other controls, shall be incorporated into laboratory facilities to meet OSHA and California OSHA requirements. These standards are primarily designed to maintain worker safety, but also function to reduce the risk of accidental upset and limit potential hazardous emissions. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to the school from possible hazardous emissions to alevel ofless-than-significant. AIRPORT LAN D USE PLAN Impact Haz-6: Airport Land Use Plan. The Project would be located within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport. According to the East of 101 area plan, the most stringent height limits in South San Francisco are south of Forbes PAGE 7-14 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Boulevard and Lindenville, including the Project area. In this area Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, limits building heights to an elevation of 161 feet above mean sea level, approximately 12 to 14 stories. Since the tallest building portion would not exceed 161 feet in height, the Project would be incompliance with the Airport Land Use Plan. The impact of the Project on the Airport Land Use Plan is less-than-significant with no mitigation warranted. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Private aircraft are sometimes granted air space in the East of 101 area, but Project buildings and structures are expected to conform to design guidelines for visibility and meet aviation requirements. Therefore, the Proj ect would have no impact relating to a private airstrip. ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN No changes to the major access and evacuation routes along East Grand Avenue and Little- field Avenue are planned since the Project calls for redevelopment rather than reconstruction or new development of an entire area. Therefore, the Project would have no impact relating to an adopted emergency response plan. WI LDLAN D FI RES The Project area is urbanized and is not in an area adjacent to wildland subject to wildfires. Therefore the Project would have no impact from wildland fires. CUMULATIVE HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS Impact Haz-7: Cumulative Hazardous Impacts. The Project would be one of numerous sites, some of which are also existing hazardous materials sites that are anticipated to undergo development/redevelopment in the vicinity. The Project would contribute to a cumulative increase in the number of sites handling hazardous materials, both in the vicinity in general as well as near a school, and would result in a cumulative increase in transportation, use, disposal, and potential for exposure to and/or accidental release of hazardous materials during both construction and operations. However, the cumulative impact is expected to be slight and identified Proj ect- specific mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-than- signi~cant level with no additional mitigation required. Potentially significant impacts of the Project are detailed above under the Impact Analysis section of this document. The following contributing elements to Impact Haz-7 above are discussed in more detail below: (a) Hazardous Materials Use, Transport; (b) Hazardous Materials Sites; and (c) Hazardous Materials near Schools. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 7-15 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Hazardous Materials Use, Transport Routine hazardous materials use and transport may have a slight cumulative impact in that because there would be an increase in the number of sites handling potentially hazardous materials and an increase in transportation of those materials through the City, there is a potential for an increased cumulative impact. More releases of hazardous materials could occur from accident during the transportation of hazardous materials through the City. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures Haz-1 a, Haz-1 b, Haz-1 c, Haz-1 d and Haz-1 e would reduce the cumulative impact to less-than-significant. Accidental Hazardous Materials Release Accidental hazardous materials release during use and transport may have a slight cumulative impact in that because there would be an increase in the number of sites handling potentially hazardous materials and an increase in transportation of those materials through the City, there is a potential for an increased cumulative impact. More releases of hazardous materials could occur from accident during use or the transportation of hazardous materials through the city. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures Haz-2a and Haz-2b would reduce the cumulative impact to less-than-significant. Hazardous Materials Sites The Project site contains limited amounts of subsurface hazardous materials. The Project could exposure hazardous materials during construction. Releases of hazardous materials could occur during construction if not properly executed, this could have a cumulative effect on the surrounding area, which contains numerous hazardous materials sites. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures Haz-3a and Haz-3b would reduce the cumulative impact to less-than-significant. Hazardous Materials near Schools The proposed Project would demolish existing structures and would use hazardous materials, under laboratory-controlled conditions, greater than one-quarter mile from a school site. Other sites under redevelopment within the Project area have similar demolition requirements and future uses of hazardous materials. This could create a potential cumulative impact. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures Haz-4 and Haz-5 would reduce the cumulative impact to less-than-significant. PAGE 7-16 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT • ~~ HYDROLOGY INTRODUCTION This section presents an evaluation of potential Project impacts to hydrology and water quality. The discussion is based on: (1) review of the Preliminary Project Description and Use Permit Application plans (dated September 28, 2007); (2) a site visit conducted on December 18, 2007 by Lamphier-Gregory personnel; (3) review of the Summary of Environmental Review and Investigation; and (4) prior correspondence with City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County Public Works Departments. SETTING CLIMATE AND TOPOGRAPHY The 6.7 acre Project site is located in a relatively flat industrial area east of Highway 101 in the City of South San Francisco. The San Francisco Bay shoreline is located approximately 3,200 feet southeast of the site. The regional climate is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters. About 80 percent of the total annual precipitation occurs during the months of November through March with an average annual precipitation of 20.25 inches. Average yearly temperatures range from a high of 73.4 degrees Fahrenheit in September to a low of 42.4 degrees Fahrenheit in January.l The Proj ect site and surrounding area are largely developed with light industrial, research and development, warehousing, retail, office, and hotel land uses. Approximately 90 percent of the 6.7 acre Project area of work is currently covered in impervious surfaces. Recall that four office buildings and associated parking areas currently occupy lot.2 Surrounding the site are public streets, open parking lots and a residual unpaved strip consisting of a railroad right-of way running along the western boundary of the property. The site generally slopes gently (at approximately 2.5 percent) to the southwest property corner and elevations range from approximately 12 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) along the southern boundary of the site to approximately 30 feet above MSL at the northern boundary. 1 Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Weather Station: San Francisco WSO AP, California (047769). ~ Dowler Gruman Architects, September 28, 2007, Concept Plan Set. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 8-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REGIONAL HYDROLOGY The Project site drains to the Colma Creek watershed. The Colma Creek watershed includes portions of San Bruno Mountain as well as urbanized areas of Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco. Most of this urbanized creek is channelized and/or conveyed underground to allow for urban development. The percent of impervious surface area in Colma Creek was previously estimated at 63 percent, the highest in the County.3 Colma Creek is a flood control channel maintained by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works that discharges into the San Francisco Bay just north of the San Francisco International Airport. Improvements and maintenance of the creek are funded by the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone, which contains the parcels that must contribute financially to the Zone's revenue and maintenance of flood control infrastructure. The Project site is located within the designated boundaries of the Zone. SITE HYDROLOGY As mentioned, approximately 90 percent of the 6.7-acre Project site is currently covered by impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Project site begins as overland sheet flow. Numerous storm drain inlets currently exist on the Project site parking areas. Existing on-site storm drains convey storm water runoff East Grand Avenue or Roebling Road. Drop inlets then convey flows into a 3 6-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that runs south down Harbor Way and west to Utah Avenue, before discharging into Colma Creek and then the San Francisco Bay. GROUNDWATER The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines state groundwater basins based on geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the site is located within the Westside Groundwater Basin. The Westside Groundwater Basin consists of bedrock and unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated materials overlying the basin represent the primary water-bearing strata and are comprised of dune sands and the Colma Formation, which are overlain by a relatively impermeable clayey formation of Bay Mud and fill materials. The Bay Mud layer represents the base of the shallow groundwater layer. Groundwater is typically encountered within a few feet of the surface with a general flow direction of southwest.4 While groundwater quality in the basin is generally in compliance with drinking water quality standards, some wells in the basin have experienced nitrate- nitrogen concentration in excess of the primary maximum contaminant levels.5'6 Following 3 City of Daly City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program,1998 4 ENVIRON, Quarterly Ground Dater Monitoring Report -February 2007, March 12, 2007 s Phillips, Steven P., Scott N. Hamlin, Eugene B. Yates, 1993, Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Estimation of Ground- WaterRecharge in San Francisco, California 1987-92. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93- 4019. PAGE 8-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY site remediation in the 1980's, currently detectable chemical concentrations above Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) include Trichloroethene (TCE), Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and vinyl chloride. ~ FLOODING The Project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone of Colma Creek as delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). According to the FIRM, several areas southwest of the Project site are located within the 100-year floodplain. These include properties south of East Grand Avenue and those south and west of Colma Creek and north of the navigable slough (1981). REGULATORY SETTING The proposed Project must be constructed in accordance with several regulatory programs, laws, and regulations that aim to protect surface water resources. In some cases, Federal laws are administered and enforced by state and local government. In other cases, state and local regulations in California are stricter than those imposed by Federal law. This section summarizes relevant regulatory programs, laws, and regulations with respect to hydrology and water quality and how they relate to the proposed Project. Federal Laws and Re ulations Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum water quality standards for all waters of the United States. Several mechanisms are employed to control domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution under the CWA. At the Federal level, the CWA is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations, in part to assist in the implementation of the CWA and related Federally mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum 6 Department of Water Resources, 2003, California Department of Water Resources, California's Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Update 2003. ~ ENVIRON, Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring Report -February 2007, March 12, 2007 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 8-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT standards and policies and the laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards exceed the Federal requirements. State Laws and Regulations Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCBs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth the state's water quality standards (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The NPDES permit must be consistent with the Basin Plan for the site region. NPDES Permit Requirements The CWA has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from any point source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added section 402(p), which established a framework for regulating nonpoint source (NPS) storm water discharges under the National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES). The Phase I NPDES storm water program regulates storm water discharges from industrial facilities, large and medium-sized municipal separate storm sewer systems (those serving more than 100,000 persons), and construction sites that disturb five or more acres of land. Under the program, the Project applicant will be required to comply with two NPDES permit requirements. The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as excavation. The Project applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board's (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality. The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities that will occur on the site. The applicant will also be required to submit asite-specific plan called the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. The SWPPP will include a description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharge of pollutants from the site during construction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain coverage under the permit prior to site construction. The NPDES General Industrial Permit Requirements apply to the discharge of storm water associated with industrial sites. The permit requires the implementation of management measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology (BAT) economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Under the statute, operators of new facilities must implement industrial BMPs in the Project SWPPP and perform monitoring of storm water discharges and unauthorized non-storm water discharges. An annual report must be submitted to the RWQCB each July 1. Operators of new facilities must file an NOI at least 14 days prior to the beginning of operations. PAGE 8-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY Local Programs and Re ulations San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program To comply with the Clean Water Act, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and towns in the County formed the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region and specifies water quality objectives to maintain the continued beneficial uses of these waters. The proposed Project is required to adhere to all water quality objectives identified in the Basin Plan. Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters and GroundwateNs The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater in its corresponding jurisdiction. The beneficial uses of surface waters in Colma Creek include wildlife habitat, municipal and domestic supply, agricultural supply, and industrial supply. The beneficial uses of groundwater in the Westside Groundwater Basin (also referred to as the Merced Valley North Groundwater Basin) include municipal and domestic supply, industrial process supply, industrial supply, and agricultural supply. East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 area plan provides detailed planning policies that are consistent with policies of the adopted South San Francisco General Plan. With respect to hydrology and water quality, the plan aims to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals to determine drainage and flood protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of water quality by minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and requiring that Projects comply with NPDES permit requirements. s g City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan,1994. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 8-5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT City of South San Francisco The City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant requires Source Control Measures of Stormwater Pollutants for issuance of an NPDES permit, including methods for managing pollution sources. Applicable control measures include Stormwater pollution prevention devices, management of refuse areas, pesticide/fertilizer application for landscaping, use of treatment devices for interior level parking garage floor drains, and marking of on-site storm drains.9 Colma Creek Flood Control District The Colma Creek Flood Control District (District) is administrated by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works. The District was created for the purpose of constructing flood control facilities along the Colma Creek channel and reducing flooding problems in the City of South San Francisco. The Colma Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone) extends over the entire watershed and contains the parcels that must contribute financially to the District's revenue and maintenance of the flood control facilities. Several channel improvements have been constructed since the District was created in 1964. Since the Project is located within the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone boundary, it would be required to contribute to funds for flood control improvements and maintenance. IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's hydrology impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 2. Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 3. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site? 9 South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant. July 2005 PAGE 8-6 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY 4. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off site? 5. Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6. Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 7. Would the Proj ect place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8. Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9. Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10. Would the Proj ect cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are washed by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and streets and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical industrial NPS pollutants for various industrial activities are listed in Table 8-1 below. Under the NPDES storm water permit, the proposed Project is required to provide permanent treatment for site runoff. To meet this requirement, the proposed Project includes the use of treatment bioswales along building perimeters, within parking islands and along the southern property frontage. The proposed covered parking garage and increased proportion of landscaped areas will significantly reduce the amount of surface area that typically produces NPS pollutants. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 8-7 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE 8-1 POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS FROM INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES ~ .~ ~ ~ a~ ~ . o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~-+ ~ V N ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ^y U ~ • ~ .. .i ~ O ~ V1 ~ INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY bA 0 ~ 0 Vehicle & Equipment Fueling X X X Vehicle & Equipment Washing X X X X X X Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance & Repair X X X Outdoor Loading & Unloading of Materials X X X X X X X Outdoor Container Storage of Liquids X X X X X Outdoor Process Equipment Operations & X X X X Maintenance a~ U .~ N X Outdoor Storage of Ray Materials, Products, & X X X X X X X Byproducts Waste Handling & Disposal X X X X X X Contaminated or Erodible Surface Areas X X X X X X X X Building & Grounds Maintenance X X X X X X X Building Repair, Remodeling, & Construction X X X X ParkinglStorageRrea Maintenance X X X X Source: California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003. California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Industrial & Commercial, PAGE 8-8 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY Impact Hydro-1: No Treatment of Loading /Trash Area Runoff. Development of the proposed Project could contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering downstream waters, including the San Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants also have the potential to infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of groundwater drinking sources. No water quality BMPs have been proposed for the Loading /Trash Area. This area represents a source of suspended solids, petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals and other Source Point pollutants related to temporary waste storage. The majority of the Project designs could reduce non-point source pollution, but the lack of treatment of loading and trash area runoff represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Hydro-1: Implement Water Quality BMPs for Stormwater Runoff from the Loading /Trash Area. The Project applicant shall implement storm water quality BMPs for treatment of runoff from the Loading /Trash Area. Possible BMPs include drop inlet filtration devices such as the vault based media filters, or others delineated in the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Stormwater media filters are usually two-chambered, including a pretreatment settling basin and a filter bed filled with sand or other absorptive filtering media. As Stormwater flows into the first chamber, large particles settle out, and then finer particles and other pollutants are removed as Stormwater flows through the filtering media in the second chamber. Any storm water quality BMPs implemented at the site must be approved by the City's Public Works Department. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a level of less-than- signi~cant. Impact Hydro-2: Site Soil and Groundwater Elevations May Be Unsuitable for Vegetated Swales. Appropriate evaluation of site conditions is critical to the effectiveness of vegetated Swales. The site history of soil contamination and high groundwater conditions may render vegetated Swales unsuitable. This issue of feasibility may be compounded by potential future chemical or hazardous material storage on-site unless they are prevented from entering the Swales. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 8-9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The majority of the Project designs would reduce non-point source pollution, but the untested feasibility of vegetated bioswales represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Hydro-2: Evaluate Project Site for Feasibility of Vegetated Swales as Water Quality BMP. The use of Swales at the Project site may be limited by several factors, including fill elevations, soil characteristics, distance to groundwater, and proposed land uses. The feasibility of vegetated Swale BMPs at the Project shall be evaluated as follows: 1) Groundwater levels at the invert of the Swales shall be reevaluated. The Project applicant shall ascertain that the distance from the proposed trench inverts to groundwater is a sufficient distance to prevent groundwater to surface water contamination. 2) Soil parameters, such as the amount of silt and clay shall be examined. Soils below Swales shall have clay content sufficient to prevent groundwater to surface water contamination. Proposed land uses and grading shall be examined to determine whether infiltration BMPs are suitable. Infiltration BMPs shall be considered not suitable for sites that use or store chemicals or hazardous materials unless hazardous and toxic materials are isolated such that they are not able to enter the Swale and/or if the site elevations result in Swales that could impact water quality. Installation of a clay or geotextile barrier beneath Swale areas may be used to prevent infiltration to groundwater or contaminated soil depths. If site constraints preclude the use of vegetated Swales at the Project site, other BMPs that prevent the interaction with groundwater and contaminated soils shall be used. Possible alternatives for storm water treatment include vault based media filters, storm drain inlet filters, strainer baskets, sediment/debris catch baskets, geotextile filter bags, composite filter medium, and mechanical swirl treatment units if used in a sequence or "train" with other devices. Use of several of these alternative methods of sediment and hydrocarbon filtration and removal devices in a treatment sequence will be required. Any storm water quality BMPs to be implemented at the site must be approved by the city's Public Works Department. PAGE 8-10 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY The use of effective BMPs at the Project site would reduce impacts on groundwater and surface water quality to a level of less-than- signi~cant. Impact Hydro-3: Potential Contamination of Local Groundwater. The Project site is located within a groundwater basin as defined by the DWR. The potential for groundwater contamination from infiltration BMPs must be carefully considered, especially in areas where the distance between groundwater and the Swale invert is small or where groundwater is or could potentially be used for human consumption or agricultural purposes. The infiltration of industrial and parking lot pollutants into shallow groundwater could potentially impair the quality of local groundwater sources. This represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Hydro-3: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during and after construction. The Project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation measures for the construction period: 1) Grading and earthwork shall be prohibited during the wet season (October 15 through April 15) and such work shall be stopped before pen ing storm events. 2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be utilized in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments "Erosion & Sediment Control Measures" manual. Silt fences shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Hay bales shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. 3) BMPs shall be used for preventing the discharge or other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream waters. 4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 8-11 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site should be described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. 7) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs should be budgeted to include disposal at a proper Slte. 8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. 9) The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum, the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP at the Project site would reduce impacts on potential contamination of local groundwater to a level ofless-than-significant. GROUNDWATER DEPLETION/ RECHARGE The proposed Project will not draw on, or otherwise reduce groundwater resources. Approximately 90 percent of the Project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. Redevelopment of the site would result in an approximately 10 percent decrease in PAGE 8-12 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY impervious surface areas. Thus, the proposed Project would not likely have a negative effect on groundwater recharge.lVo impact would occur and no mitigation is required. INCREASED EROSION OR SI LTATION TO RECEIVING WATERS The proposed Project is not subject to the hydromodification management measures of the Lead Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.10 This exemption is attributed to the Project site's eventual stormwater flow contribution to hardened channels. Changes in the timing and volume of runoff from a site are known as "hydrograph modification" or "hydromodification". When a site is developed, much of the rainwater can no longer infiltrate into the soils, so it flows offsite at faster rates and greater volumes. As a result, erosive levels of flow occur more frequently and for longer periods of time in creeks and channels downstream of the Project. As indicated above, the proposed Project will provide less impervious surface area and include permanent water quality treatment measures (i.e., vegetated bioswales). The Project site is also located in aloes-gradient bayside area with an adjoining tidal zone. When combined, these factors result in a reduced capacity for high velocity stormwater flow leaving the site. This low erosion potential is further benefited by the Project site's stormwater non-contribution of flow to a natural creek or earthen channel. Despite the low erosion potential of the Project, portions of the Project site will consist of bare earth susceptible to rainfall. In the event of rainfall, silt could be transported to the San Francisco Bay via Colma Creek. Impact Hydro-4: Erosion or siltation on- or off site. Construction of the proposed Project would involve demolition of existing structural foundations and pavement areas that currently help to stabilize site soils. Although no cut/fill estimates were available for review, significant site grading is expected to occur. Construction operations associated with the Project would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff. This represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Hydro-4: Compliance with NPDES Requirements. The Project applicant shall comply with all Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities permit requirements established by the CWA and the Grading Permit requirements of the city of South San Francisco. Erosion control 10 Appendix J, C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Manual, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 8-13 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT measures to be implemented during construction shall be included in the Project SWPPP. The Project SWPPP will accompany the NOI filing and will outline erosion control and storm water quality management measures to be implemented during and following construction. The SWPPP will also provide the schedule for monitoring performance. Refer to Mitigation Measure Hydro-3 for more information regarding the Project SWPPP. Implementation of Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities permit requirements would reduce construction- related impacts associated with erosion and/or siltation to less-than- signi~cant. CHANGES IN STORMWATER RUNOFF The Project site currently has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Redevelopment of existing office/R&D development in the Project area is not expected to increase runoff from the site. Proposed Project development would result in an approximate 10 percent decrease in impervious surfaces at the Proj ect site. A decrease in impervious surface area would result in a corresponding decrease in peak discharge and related polluted runoff from the Project site. As currently designed, the proposed Project would not increase peak flows to downstream infrastructure. 1Vo impact associated with increases in peak runoff is anticipated and no mitigation is necessary. By reducing the amount of pavement and hard surface area and increasing the amount of landscaped area, the proposed Project will reduce the quantity and response time of storm water runoff to the storm drain system. New storm drains shown on the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan will collect water from these areas, and deliver runoff to the existing storm drain. The Project will have no impact on stormwater drainage system, and no mitigation is required. OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE WATER QUALITY The proposed Project will reduce the amount of surface area contributing non-point source pollution runoff. Other previously mentioned impacts, if mitigated, would ameliorate potential short and long term negative impacts on water quality. Therefore, there will be no additional significant impact on water quality. HOUSING WITHI N A 100-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD AREA The Project does not include housing and is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone of Colma Creek as delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). The Project will have no impact related to housing and flooding. PAGE 8-14 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 8: HYDROLOGY The Project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone of Colma Creek as delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). In regard to impeding flood or any other flows, the Project will have no impact. SIGNIFICANT RISK INVOLVING FLOODING The Proj ect is not located within the vicinity of a levee, nor in a potential flood path of a dam failure, and it will have no impact related to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving 0o mg. INUNDATION BY SEICHE, TSUNAMI OR MUDFLOW Impact Hydro-5: Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Project site is not located in an area that would expose persons to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The site is nearly level and does not lie in close proximity to a large lake or the ocean. Although seismically induced waves are a possibility in the Bay, the site elevations are above those considered to be at risk for tsunami wave run-up. Consequently, this impact would beless-than-significant with no mitigation required. A seiche is a tide-like rise and drop of the surface of a landlocked body of water (e.g., a lake); its period can vary from a few minutes to several hours. The site is not in close proximity to a landlocked body of water that could cause inundation by seiche. Tsunamis, or tidal waves, are huge sea waves that are caused by seismic activity or other disturbance of the ocean floor. Portions of South San Francisco that are near the bay and low- lying are considered to be at risk for inundation by tsunami wave run-up. Wave run up is estimated at 6 feet above mean sea level fora 500-year tsunami.ll Project site elevations range from 12.5 feet to 13.5 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, the site would not be considered to be at risk for inundation by tsunami. CUMULATIVE HYDROLOGY IMPACT ANALYSIS Impact Hydro-6: Cumulative Impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality. The increased construction activity and new development resulting from the Project, in conjunction with other foreseeable development in the city, would result in less-than-significant impacts on hydrology and water quality conditions with no additional mitigation measures necessary. 11 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Health and Safety Element, 1999, p. 250. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 8-15 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Assuming concurrent implementation of the Project with other reasonably foreseeable future pr0~ efts In the V1Clnlty, adverse cumulative effects on hydrology and water quality could include construction impacts related to increases in stormwater runoff and pollutant loading to Colma Creek and San Francisco Bay. The Project and other future projects in the city would be required to comply with drainage and grading ordinances intended to control runoff and regulate water quality at each development site. New projects would be required to demonstrate that stormwater volumes could be managed by downstream conveyance facilities and would not induce flooding. Moreover, the Project will be required, through a standard approval condition, to pay a proportionate share to the Colma Creek Flood Control District for flood control improvements and maintenance. Therefore, the effect of the Project on water quality and hydrology, in combination with other foreseeable projects, would be less-than-significant. PAGE 8-16 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT 9 LAND USE INTRODUCTION This chapter describes existing land uses, adopted General Plan land use classifications, and zoning designations on and around the Project site. This chapter also describes the applicable plans and policies that guide development in the Project area and evaluates the Project's consistency with these plans and policies and other existing land use regulations. SETTING HISTORY South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to initially locate industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in order to take advantage of topography and winds on Point San Bruno.l Another development trend that shaped the arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City, single family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. During the 1950s, the City of South San Francisco converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the City for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 fora 600-acre industrial park adjacent to the newly developed Oyster Point Marina. This industrial park was South San Francisco's first industrial development to incorporate comprehensive planning and integrated design and performance provisions. It supplied ample parking and consistent landscaping and building design. In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a slow industrial transformation for the past 3 0 years. Steel production and other heavy 1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 9-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT industries have largely been replaced by warehousing, research, development and biotechnology. Because the City's industrial base has continued to evolve as the context for industry has changed, industry will continue to play an important role in South San Francisco's uture. The City's continued status as a goods transportation hub, stemming mainly from proximity to San Francisco International Airport, is reflected in the presence of large tracts of land, formerly used for heavy industry, east of U.S. 101. As high technology businesses have moved into many of these older industrial areas, conflicts, such as between automobile and truck traffic, and land use and visual character have become increasingly pronounced. The needs of business centers include smaller blocks, more through street connections, ancillary facilities such as restaurants, easier connections to transit, sidewalks and bikeways and higher landscape standards. These needs are much different than those of warehousing and industrial areas. The City attempts to balance regional growth objectives with conservation of residential and industrial neighborhoods. EXISTING USES The Project site is currently developed with four 1 & 2 story buildings totaling 124,000 sq.ft. Industrial land use types occupy existing buildings. The Project would remove all existing buildings yet retain a like land use. The Project is located in the East of 1 O l area and of which is largely comprised of industrial and high technology business uses. As with the proposed Project, many other sites in the area have already or have plans to increase the intensity of research and development uses in this area. REGULATORY SETTING There are no federal or state land use regulations applicable to the proposed Project. South San Francisco General Plan The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) provides long-term guidance and policies for maintaining and improving the quality of life in, and the resources of, the community, both man-made and natural. The General Plan provides direction for the City's Growth and development. The site's General Plan designation is Business and Technology Park. This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices, up to a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 with qualifying bonuses such as structured parking and transportation demand management. East of 101 Area Plan The Project site is part of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The East of 101 area plan, adopted in 1994, was prepared PAGE 9-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 9: LAND USE to maximize the potential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City's traditional industrial East of 101 area. Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for quality design are important components of the Plan. In addition to policies relating to land use dispersion, intensities, and transportation, the Plan includes a Design Element to help achieve high- standard development. South San Francisco Municipal Code Policies set forth with the General Plan and East of 101 area plan are implemented through enforcement of the City's zoning regulations as presented in the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC). Zoning regulations prescribe the allowable uses within specific zoning districts and impose standards on those uses. Under the City's existing zoning regulations, the Project site is subject to the provisions of the SSFMC Chapter 20.32 (Planned Industrial District). IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Project physically divide an established community? 2. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project? 3 . Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? DIVIDING ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY The Project would involve demolition/construction of an office/research and development facility located within an existing office/R&D business park. The proposed Project would have no impact related to the division of an established community. CON FLICT WITH PLANS AN D POLICI ES The Project site is currently zoned Planned Industrial (P-I) and is part of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's General Plan designation is Business and Technology Park. This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices, up to a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 with structured parking. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 9-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT While it is in the domain of the City's decision-makers to decide ultimate proj ect consistency with applicable City plans and policies related to Project approval, from a CEQA perspective, the Project would not conflict with plans or policies in any way that could have an adverse environmental impact. The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan policies: Policy 3.5-G-3Promote campus style biotechnology, high technology and research and development uses. Policy 3. S-I-3 Do not permit any residential uses in the East of 101 area. The proposed Project is consistent with the following East of 101 area plan policies: Policy DE-13 New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees and landscaping to meet the City's specifications for their frontages. Streetscape planting, irrigation and hardscape should be designed for minimum maintenance by City staff. Selection and spacing of street trees shall be approved by the City Landscape Architect and the DirectoN of PaNks, Recreation and Community Services. Medians should be cobbled and grouted or landscaped with low maintenance plants with automatic irrigation. Policy DE-1 S Site design should de-emphasize the visual prominence of parking areas by sepaNating paNking areas into relatively small components and locating paNking behind buildings whenever possible. The standaNd practice of placing the majoNity of the parking between the building and the main street frontage should be avoided when possible. Policy DE-22 Developments in the Planned Industrial category should include on- site open space as a unifying element and as areas for employee use. Open space should be continuous and should connect sepaNate buildings or sites, especially in campus-like developments. Open spaces should particularly be located adjacent to lunch rooms and conference rooms. Policy DE-25 The design of front yard landscaped buffers should be integrated with that of adjacent sites. PAGE 9-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 9: LAND USE Policy DE-27 PaNking lots should be shaded with tNees and should also include shrubs in most cases. Trees should be planted along parking lot edges and in planters among stalls. Design policies for the number of trees and amount of shrubbeNy in paNking lots aNe contained in Section D of the Design Element foN the individual land use categories. Policy DE-28 Plant species chosen foN the aNea should include low maintenance plants and plants adaptive to the extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant species and planting design should complement the development's design. Policy DE-34 All activities and stored materials in loading, service, storage and trash disposal areas should be screened from views from public streets, trails, adjacent properties, and overhead views from adjacent properties, by planting, berms and/or decorative walls. The screening should be integrated into the design of structures or the site landscaping, so it does not appear as an appendage added to the outside of the structure. This policy applies to all types of outdoor storage areas containing materials, supplies, or equipment, including autos, trucks and trailers. Policy DE-37 The installation or replacement of exposed chain link fences, barbed wiNe, NazoN wire oN similaN material shall not be allowed in those parts of the East of 101 Area that aNe visible fNOm public rights-of-way, including roads and trails. Policy DE-38 The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials and the selection of landscape materials and street furniture shall consider the overall context of the Project and promote the development of a sense of identity for the East of 101 area. Policy DE-52 Rooftop mechanical equipment should be scNeened fNOm view by integral architectuNal elements such as pitched Noofs, oNnamental parapets, mansards or low towers. Policy DE-56 The following additional design policies apply in Planned Industrial areas: Street TNees: Street trees should be planted within at least 30 feet of each otheN and should be selected to match or complement the existing pines on Allerton Avenue and poNtions of East GNand Avenue. Landscape Bu~~: Landscape buffers along major arterial streets should be at least 20 feet wide and along other streets at least 10 feet wide. On side and rear property lines, they should be six feet wide. All 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 9-5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT landscaping shall provide a clear connection between the street and buildings for pedestrians. Blank Walls: Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-39. Pedestrian scale is of particulaN importance for campus-like developments and settings. Building Orientation: Buildings should be oriented with a clear relationship to the street to create a sense of continuity along it. Inviting pedestrian linkages from individual buildings shall be provided. Design Guidelines: New development plans for laNger campus-like projects should include specific design guidelines, developed as an integral part of master planning efforts. Parking Lot Shrubs: Medians and bulbs inside the perimeters of a parking lot shall be planted. A minimum of five percent of the total parking lot area requiNed to be landscaped shall be planted with shNUbs. The proposed Project would be consistent with and would not conflict with applicable City of South San Francisco General Plan and East of 101 area plan land use policies, thereby constituting no adverse impact. CONFLICT WITH CONSERVATION PLAN The Project site is predominantly covered with asphalt and large office/R&D buildings. The existing vegetation consists of parking lot and screening landscaping including a line of trees of varying heights along the Project's southern boundary with the rail corridor. However, none of the trees on site are large enough to be considered Protected Trees under the City of South San Francisco Tree Protection Ordinance2. As per the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 13.30.020, a protected tree is "Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural grade." The Project would have no impact related to conflict with a conservation plan since none apply to the East of 101 area. 2 City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 13.30 PAGE 9-6 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT 10 NoisE INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the potential for impacts related to noise and ground-borne vibration resulting from implementation of the Project. The primary noise concerns related to the Project would result from the increased vehicular traffic and noise levels associated with construction. Specifically, this chapter evaluates site-specific environmental impacts related to substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project and whether exposure to these increases would be in excess of standards established in the East of 101 area plan, the City's Noise Ordinance, or any other applicable standards. SETTING FUNDAMENTALS OF SOUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave. In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 10-1 below. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 10-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- weighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 10-2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT According to the South San Francisco General Plan, the primary noise sources within the City are streets and highways, rail operation, and industrial use. Background noise in the Project vicinity includes vehicle noise from US 1 O l to the west as well as vehicles in the parking areas, local vehicular traffic, municipal bus, and commercial truck traffic. The East of 101 area is a historically industrial area with higher ambient noise levels and higher allowable noise standards. REGULATORY SETTING In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use criteria for noise impacted areas. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses, in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less than 75 dBA (CNEL)1 are acceptable noise levels for industrial and open space uses. 1 The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA". CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). PAGE 10-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 10: NOISE TABLE 10-1 ~EFINITIC-N OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS TERM DEFINITIONS A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the Decibel, dB logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter). Frequency, HZ The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter A-Wei hted Sound Level, dB de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of g the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise. Lol, Llo, Lso~ L9o The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%,10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period. Equivalent Noise Level, Leq The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained Community Noise Equivalent after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM Level, CNEL and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 am. The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained DaylNight Noise Level, Ldn after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 am. LmaX~ Lm~n The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends Intrusive upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Source: ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INCJAcoustical Engineers, from City of South San Francisco 249 East Grand Avenue EIR, 10/2005 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 10-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE 10-2 TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS MEASURED IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRY A-Weighted At a Given Distance Sound Level Subjective From Noise Source in Decibels Noise Environments Impression 140 Civil Defense Siren (100') 130 Jet Takeoff (200') 120 Pain Threshold 110 Rock Music Concert Diesel Pile Driver (100') 100 Very Loud 90 Boiler Room Freight Cars (50') Printing Press Plant Pneumatic Drill (50') 80 Freeway (100') In Kitchen With Garbage Vacuum Cleaner (10') 70 Disposal Running Moderately Loud 60 Data Processing Center Light Traffic (100') 50 Department Store Large Transformer (200') 40 Private Business Office Quiet Soft Whisper (5') 30 Quiet Bedroom 20 Recording Studio 10 Threshold of Hearing 0 Source: ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INCJAcoustical Engineers, from City of South San Francisco 249 East Grand Avenue EIR, 10/2005 PAGE 10-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 10: NOISE The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.030) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The Project site is zoned "P-I, Planned Industrial," and the noise level standard for this zone is 70 dBA (LSO).2 Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but only for specified periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the standard. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3 . Would the Project lead to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? 4. Would the Project lead to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? 5. For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? 6. For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? 2 The noise limit that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour). 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 10-5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PERMANENT NOISE INCREASES Impact Noise-1: Permanent Noise Increases. Project-generated traffic noise and other operational noise sources such as HVAC equipment would not exceed noise standards and would not significantly increase ambient noise levels nor substantially impact noise-sensitive receptors. This would be a less- than-significant impact with no mitigation warranted. Traffic. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase traffic noise levels along local streets due to Project generated traffic. In general, a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a 3-dBA noise increase for a traffic dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise increase is barely perceptible to most people. As per the Transportation and Circulation chapter of this EIR, Proj ect related daily traffic trips would be generated at a rate of 11.01 per 1,000 square feet so would increase from an estimated 1,365 daily trips under the site's current development, to an estimated 3,212 daily trips under the proposed Project, a difference of 1,847 trips. This would lead to a small but noticeable increase in traffic noise levels at the Project site and its vicinity. However, due to the prevalence of industrial land uses in the area, noise thresholds vis-a-vis the Project and neighboring land uses are higher there than they would be if more sensitive land uses were present near the Project site. Due to these factors, the impact of traffic noise produced by the Project would be considered less-than-significant. 1Vlechanical Equipment. Implementation of the proposed Project could increase ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity due to the operation of more powerful rooftop mechanical equipment than currently function at the Project site. The impact of the HVAC system would be considered less-than-significant provided that the noise level produced by it conforms to the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. The maximum permissible noise levels at the Project site are: 60 dB between the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM, and 65 dB between the hours of 7 AM and 10 PM. The provisions of the Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 8.32) are mandatory. Vibration. It is not be expected that future land uses at the Project site would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Businesses anticipated to occupy the Project site include science laboratories and offices. These land uses do not characteristically generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Therefore, it is expected that the Project would have no impact related to excessive groundborne vibration or excessive groun orne noise. NOISE, GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION Temporary Noise Increase. During site preparation and construction at the Project site, operation of heavy equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Proj ect site. PAGE 10-6 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 10: NOISE Impact Noise-2: Construction Related Noise. Project construction could result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. This would be a potentially significant impact associated with Project development. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. Mitigation Measure Noise-2: Noise Abatement. The Project applicant shall require by contract specification that construction best management practices be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels to the noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance (90-dBA at 25 feet). Best management practices include: • Ensuring that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards, • Implementing noise attenuation measures which may include but are not limited to noise barriers or noise blankets. • Requiring heavily loaded trucks used during construction to be routed away from noise and vibration sensitive uses. This would reduce construction-related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of less- than-significant. AIRPORTS The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and projected airport noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. These contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future airport noise contours. Projected contours for road and railroad noise are also included in the Noise Element. These contours indicate that the Project site is located in an area where noise levels generated by major road and railroad noise sources will continue to be 60 dBA (CNEL) or less, except right along East Grand Avenue, where they may be 65 dBA (CNEL). Based on the City's land use criteria, the proposed Project's research and development type land use would be compatible with future noise level projections in the Proj ect vicinity of less than 60 to 65 dBA (CNEL), thereby representing no impact. CUMULATIVE NOISE IMPACTS Impact Noise-3: Cumulative Noise Increases. The Project, together with anticipated future development in the area could result in long-term traffic increases that could cumulatively increase noise levels. However, these increases are not anticipated to be noticeable in the context of existing ambient noise 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 10-7 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT and the Project's impact on cumulative noise increases would be considered less-than-significant with no mitigation warranted. Noise from cumulative development in the area would primarily occur from increases in motor vehicle traffic. Cumulative traffic noise levels in the area are based on traffic volumes prepared by Crane Transportation for Chapter 11 of this document. As can be seen in Figures 7 through 16 (Appendix D), volumes on nearby roadways would less than double during peak hours in future cumulative scenarios compared to the existing situation. As discussed under project-specific noise increases above, in general, a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a 3-dBA noise increase in a traffic dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise increase is barely perceptible to most people. Therefore, the cumulative noise increase from increases traffic would not be expected to generate noise levels perceptible over the existing ambient noise levels and the impact would be considered less-than-significant. PAGE 10-8 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT 11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the transportation conditions in the study area in terms of existing roads and traffic operations, transit service and pedestrian and bicycle conditions. Where appropriate, excerpts and findings from the following EIRs or initial studies/negative declarations have been included in this chapter: Genentech Master Plan Revised Draft EIR (EIP Associates and Korve Engineering, as partially revised December 2006), 250-270 East Grand Avenue Draft EIR (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, December 2007) and the Terrabay Phase 3 Final EIR (City of South San Francisco and Crane Transportation Group, October 2006). Figures referenced in this chapter are included in Appendix D. SETTING ROADWAYS The 213 East Grand Avenue Project site is located east of Forbes Boulevard, north of East Grand Avenue and west of Roebling Road (Figure 1 in Appendix D). The project site is now served by one driveway connection to East Grand Avenue and two driveway connections to Roebling Road. All driveways are connected via internal parking aisles and will remain connected after construction of the proposed Project. Project access to the U.S. 101 freeway is provided by a variety of major streets with several route options available to the three interchanges that could potentially be used by Project traffic. Each is briefly described below, while a schematic presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and control are presented in Figure 2 (in Appendix D). Freewa s U.S.101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the Project area. It extends from downtown San Francisco and northern California to Los Angeles and southern California. Within the study area, U.S.101 has northbound on-ramps at Grand Avenue, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue) and at Oyster Point Boulevard; northbound off ramps are provided at East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue) and at Dubuque Avenue (just south 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT of Oyster Point Boulevard). Southbound on-ramps are provided from Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard), Airport Boulevard (north of Oyster Point Boulevard), and at Produce Avenue; southbound off ramps are provided at Produce Avenue, Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard and at Airport Boulevard (just north of Oyster Point Boulevard). There are auxiliary lanes on northbound U.S.101 both north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound U.S.101 south of Oyster Point Boulevard. In 2006 U.S.101 carried an annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 158,000 vehicles south of Produce Avenue, 201,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard and 201,000 vehicles just north of Oyster Point Boulevard. l CtrPPtC East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/ office areas east of the U.S.101 freeway. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway and narrows to four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection. In the Project vicinity it has two travel lanes in each direction and left turn lanes provided on the eastbound approach to Roebling Road and on the westbound approach to Harbor Way. A short continuous two-way left turn lane is also provided about midway between the Roebling Road and Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersections serving a driveway on the north side of the street that provides access to the 213 East Grand Avenue site. No on-street parking is allowed along either the north or south sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). In addition, "Keep Clear" messages have been painted in the westbound lanes at the Roebling Road intersection. A railroad track diagonally crosses the East Grand / Forbes Boulevard-Harbor Way intersection adjacent to the site. Roebling Road is a 40-foot-wide street extending about 600 feet north of East Grand Avenue before ending in a cul-de-sac. There is no posted speed limit nor a painted centerline. Pavement condition is adequate. Curb, gutter and sidewalks line both sides of the street. Roebling Road is stop sign controlled on its approach to East Grand Avenue. Harbor Way is a two-lane street serving existing and planned industrial/office uses south of East Grand Avenue. Harbor Way provides access to South Airport Boulevard and several U.S.101 freeway ramps via Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue. Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane collector street connecting the San Bruno Point Genentech area with East Grand Avenue. In the Project vicinity it is 60 feet wide curb to curb with an intermittent raised median that is 12 feet wide. On-street parking is prohibited and the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour. A sidewalk is provided along the west (north) side of the street while a railroad spur runs along the east (south) side of the street. Airport Boulevard is afour- to six-lane, north-south arterial street that parallels the west side 1 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, Caltrans 2006. PAGE 11-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION of the U.S.101 freeway. This roadway continues north into the City of Brisbane and the City of San Francisco, where it is called Bayshore Boulevard. South of San Mateo Avenue, Airport Boulevard changes names to Produce Avenue. In the General Plan, Airport Boulevard is classified as a major arterial. Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane major arterial street connecting East Grand Avenue with South Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Littlefield Avenue is a 40-foot-wide, two-lane north-south street connecting East Grand Avenue with Utah Avenue. Utah Avenue is afour-lane east-west street connecting Littlefield Avenue with South Airport Boulevard. South Airport Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway traveling from the Airport Boulevard /San Mateo Avenue /Produce Avenue intersection in the north near U.S.101 to the San Bruno Avenue East /North McDonnell Road in the south. Most of South Airport Boulevard runs parallel to U.S.101 near its northbound lanes. Dubuque Avenue is a two- to four-lane roadway running east of and almost parallel to U.S.101 in a north/south direction. Extending from East Grand Avenue to Oyster Point Boulevard this roadway functions as a connector street for the traffic traveling between U.S.101 and Oyster Point Boulevard. Dubuque Avenue has two lanes south of the Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Ramps and four lanes north of this location. According to the General Plan, Dubuque Avenue is classified as a collector. Mitchell Avenue is a two-lane roadway running in an east/west direction. Mitchell Avenue connects Airport Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard in the west to Harbor VVay in the east. Oyster Point Boulevard is one of the primary arterial access routes serving the "East of 101 area" in South San Francisco. It has six travel lanes near its interchange with the U.S.101 freeway, four lanes east of Veterans Boulevard and two lanes near Gull Road. Bicycle lanes are provided in both directions the entire length of the roadway. Vnl»mac Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was requested by City staff at the following 21 major intersections serving the Project site. Twenty locations are currently in operation, while intersection number 2, below, at the Terrabay office access along Airport Boulevard, will be active after completion of this Project. 1. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps (Signal) 2. Airport Boulevard /Terrabay Phase 3 Access (Signal)-Future conditions only. 3. Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point Boulevard (Signal) 4. Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp (Signal) 5. Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound Off Ramp & Southbound On-Ramp (Signal) 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 6. Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp Flyover (Signal) 7. Oyster Point Boulevard /Eccles Avenue (Signal) 8. Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue / U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp (Signal) 9. Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue (Signal) 10. Grand Avenue Overcrossing /Dubuque Avenue (Signal) 11. U.S.101 Northbound Off Ramp / E. Grand Avenue /Executive Drive (E. Grand Stop Controlled Right Turn) 12. E. Grand Avenue /Grand Avenue Overcrossing (Signal) 13. E. Grand Avenue /Gateway Boulevard (Signal) 14. E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way (Signal) 15. E. Grand Avenue / Littlefield Avenue (Signal) 16. Forbes Boulevard /Eccles Avenue (Signal) 17. Airport Boulevard /San Mateo Avenue /Produce Avenue (Signal) 18. Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue (Signal) 19. S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane (Signal) 20. S. Airport Boulevard /Utah Avenue (Signal) 21. E. Grand Avenue /Roebling Road (Roebling Stop Sign Controlled) Existing counts were obtained for most locations from the Genentech Master Plan Revised Draft EIR or the 250-270 East Grand DEIR. Counts for the Genentech study were conducted in December 2005, while new counts at four locations were conducted by Crane Transportation Group for the 250-270 East Grand DEIR in September or October 2006 at the following locations: • Oyster Point Boulevard /Eccles Avenue • Forbes Boulevard /Eccles Avenue • S. Airport Boulevard /Utah Avenue • East Grand Avenue / Littlefield Avenue In addition, at City request, new counts were conducted in February 2008 at the following ocatlons. • E. Grand Avenue /Roebling Road • E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard-Harbor Way • All driveways along Roebling Road • The project driveway along E. Grand Avenue Figures 3 and 4 (in Appendix D) present existing AM and PM peak hour volumes at the analysis intersections, while Figure 5 present AM and PM peak hour volumes for all driveways along Roebling Road and at the 213 E. Grand Driveway along E. Grand Avenue. PAGE 11-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION INTERSECTION OPERATION Analysis Methodolo~Y Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation Research Board [TRB] Highway Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The control delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular Project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/control delay relationship is provided in Appendix D. Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity ll~lanual. Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and control delay designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements. Appendix D provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. Analysis Software All existing operating conditions have been evaluated using the Traffix software program. However, the Synchro software program has been utilized to evaluate year 2015 conditions at the East Grand intersections with Roebling Road and with Forbes Boulevard-Harbor Way, at all signalized intersections directly serving a freeway off ramp, at all locations in close proximity to off ramp intersections serving a significant amount of of ramp traffic, and at all other intersections within the Oyster Point interchange. The Synchro program has been utilized at these locations as it is required by Caltrans for all future analysis of freeway interchange intersections. In addition, due to its ability to accurately project queuing on intersection approaches, the City of South San Francisco has requested its use for analysis of intersections immediately adjacent to the project site. All other locations have been evaluated for year 2015 conditions using the Traffix software program. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Ctanr~arr~c The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections, with LOS E the poorest acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has no standards for turn movements from private driveways. Existing Intersection Operating Conditions Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all 20 existing analyzed intersections are currently operating at good to acceptable (LOS D or better) Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION REQUIREMENTS Traffic signals are used to provide an orderly flow of traffic through an intersection. Many times they are needed to offer side street traffic an opportunity to access a major road where high volumes and/or high vehicle speeds block crossing or turn movements. They do not, however, increase the capacity of an intersection (i.e., increase the overall intersection's ability to accommodate additional vehicles) and, in fact, often slightly reduce the number of total vehicles that can pass through an intersection in a given period of time. Signals can also cause an increase in traffic accidents if installed at inappropriate locations. There are 8 possible tests for determining whether a traffic signal should be considered for installation. These tests, called "warrants", consider criteria such as actual traffic volume, pedestrian volume, presence of school children, and accident history. Usually, two or more warrants must be met before a signal is considered for installation. In this report, the test for Peak Hour Volumes (Warrant #3) has been applied. When Warrant 3 is met there is a strong indication that a detailed signal warrant analysis covering all possible warrants is appropriate. These rigorous analyses are described in the 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices by the Federal Highway Administration, while Warrant 3 is presented in Appendix D of this report. It is possible that an unsignalized intersection will not meet signal warrants, but will have one or more movements that experience LOS F operations. Level of Service F can be indicated for a very low volume of vehicles at a stop sign. Although these stopped vehicles may experience long delays of one minute or more, there would not be an overall benefit if the higher numbers of vehicles on the major street are stopped in favor of the few vehicles on the minor street. The signal warrant considers a balance between major street and minor street delays, and may indicate that there is overall benefit if drivers for some turn movements from the minor street continue to experience long (LOS E or F) delays. PAGE 11-6 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 11-1. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING & YEAR 2015 WITH 25O E. GRAND IMPROVEMENTS IN PLACE AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION EXISTING YEAR 2015 BASE BASE CASE CASE* + PROJECT Airport B1vd.IU. 5.101 SB Hook Ramps (Signal) B-12.5~1~ B-17.7 B-17.6 Airport B1vd.ITerrabay Phase 3 Access (Signal) NAB ~ C-27.1 C-27.1 Airport B1vdJSister Cities B1vdJOyster Point Blvd. (Signal) C-29.1~1~ D-41.1 C-41.9 Oyster Point/Dubuque AveJU.S.101 NB On-Ramp (Signal) C-24.8~1~ C-34.1 C-34.3 Dubuque Ave.IU.S101 NB Off Ramp & SB On-Ramp (Signal) B-12.2~1~ D-37.0 D-37.2 Oyster Point Blvd./GatewaylU.S.101 SB Off Ramp Flyover (Signal) C-29.4~1~ E-77.5 F-83.8 Oyster Point B1vd.lEccles Ave. (Signal) A-8.3~1~ D-43.6 D-43.6 Airport B1vdJMillerlU.S.101 SB Off Ramp (Signal) C-25.4~1~ C-24.7 C-25.4 Airport B1vd.IGrand Ave. (Signal) D-35.7~1~ D-47.9 D-51.7 E. Grand OvercrossinglDubuque Ave. (Signal) A-79~1~ A-8.5 A-8.5 U.S.101 NB Off Ramp/E. Grand AveJExecutive Drive (E. Grand Stop Controlled Right Turn) NA~~~~~~ NA NA E. Grand Ave.IGrand Ave. Overcrossing (Signal) B-20.0~1~ C-21.9 C-22.8 E. Grand Ave.IGateway Blvd. (Signal) C-259~1~ D-51.2 E-75.3 E. Grand AveJForbesBlvd./Harbor Way (Signal) D-36.9~1~ D-53.8 F-81.5 E. Grand Ave.ILittlefield Ave. (Signal) B-16.7~1~ E-56.3 E-57.3 E. Grand AveJRoebling Rd. (Stop Sign Control) B-10.7~3~ C-18.7 E-37.6 Forbes B1vd.lEccles Ave. (Signal) A-7.6~1~ B-10.6 B-10.6 Airport B1vdJSan Mateo Ave.IProduce Ave. (Signal) C-28.6~1~ C-34.0 C-34.0 Gateway B1vdJS. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave. (Signal) C-269~1~ C-27.0 C-27.2 S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook RampslWondercolor (Signal) C-26.9~1~ D-35.7 D-38.5 S. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave. (Signal) C-25.8~1~ C-32.8 D-35.5 ~ Base Case =traffic projections from the Genentech Master Plan Revised Draft EIR (including full Genentech buildout + 328 Roebling Rd.). ~ ~ NA =Intersection does not currently exist. ~ ~ ~ NA = No right turns during the AM peak hour. (1) Signalized level ofservice -vehicle control delay in seconds. ~~~ Unsignalized level ofservice -vehicle control delay in seconds/E. Grand Ave. westbound right turn to Executive Dr. (3) Unsignalized level of service -vehicle control delay in seconds/Roebling Rd. stop sign controlled approach to E. Grand Ave. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-7 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE 11-2. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING & YEAR 2015 WITH 25O E. GRAND IMPROVEMENTS IN PLACE PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION EXISTING YEAR 2015 BASE BASE CASE CASE* + PROJECT Airport Blvd./U.S.101 SB Hook Ramps (Signal) B-17.2~1~ E-63.0 E-64.5 Airport Blvd./Terrabay Phase 3 Access (Signal) NA~~ B-17.1 B-17.1 Airport Blvd./Sister Cities B1vd.l0yster Point Blvd. (Signal) C-31.0~1~ C-27.9 C-27.9 Oyster PointlDubuque Ave.IU.S.101 NB On-Ramp (Signal) C-27.8~1~ F-181 F-193 Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off Ramp & SB On-Ramp (Signal) B-16.6~1~ B-19.3 B-19.5 Oyster Point B1vd.IGateway/U.S.101 SB Off Ramp Flyover (Signal) C-27.8~1~ F-80.7 F-88.4 Oyster Point B1vdJEccles Ave. (Signal) B-ll.6~1~ D-50.8 D-50.8 Airport Blvd./MillerlU.S.101 SB Off Ramp (Signal) C-24.5~1~ C-20.7 C-20.7 Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) C-34.6~1~ D-36.6 D-37.3 E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave. (Signal) A-69~1~ B-12.4 B-12.4 U. 5.101 NB Off RamplE. Grand Ave.lExecutive Drive (E. Grand Stop Controlled Right Turn) B-10.0~~~ B-10.8 B-10.8 E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing (Signal) B-15.7~1~ B-12.1 B-12.1 E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) B-189~1~ C-21.6 C-21.7 E. Grand AveJForbes B1vd.IHarbor Way (Signal) C-34.2~1~ F-98.3 F-115.3 E. Grand Ave./Littlefield Ave. (Signal) A-99~1~ C-22.3 C-23.1 E. Grand Ave./Roebling Rd. (Roebling Stop Sign Control) B-13.4~3~ D-34.7 F-149 Forbes Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) A-7.6~1~ B-13.0 B-13.0 Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave. (Signal) C-30.2~1~ D-47.6 D-54.4 Gateway B1vd.IS. Airport B1vdJMitchell Ave. (Signal) C-33.2~1~ D-54.6 E-68.2 S. Airport B1vd.lU.S.101 NB Hook Ramps/Wondercolor (Signal) C-30.7~1~ C-27.1 C-27.9 S. Airport B1vd.lUtah Ave. (Signal) C-211~1~ C-25.5 C-25.8 ~ Base Case =traffic projections from the Genentech Master Plan Revised Draft EIR (including full Genentech buildout + 328 Roebling Rd.). ~ ~ NA =Intersection does not currently exist. ~ ~ ~ NA = No right turns during the AM peak hour. (1) Signalized level of service -vehicle control delay in seconds. ~~~ Unsignalized level of service -vehicle control delay in secondslE. Grand Ave. westbound right turn to Executive Dr. (3) Unsignalized level of service -vehicle control delay in secondslRoebling Rd. stop sign controlled approach to E. Grand Ave. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group PAGE 11-8 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Existing Signalization Needs Currently, the East Grand Avenue /Roebling Road intersection has AM and PM peak hour volumes below signal warrant criteria levels (see Table 11-3). TABLE 11-3. INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION REQUIREMENTS EXISTING & YEAR 2015 Do volumes meet peak hour volume signal warrant #3 criteria levels? AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2015 YEAR 2015 LOCATION EXISTING E. Grand AveJ No No No No Borderline Yes Roebling Rd. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group VEHICLE QUEUING Analysis Methodolo~Y The Synchro software program has determined year 2015 projections of vehicle queuing on the critical approaches to five signalized off ramp intersections evaluated in this study, on the approaches to adjacent intersections that need to accommodate flow from the off ramp intersection and at the E. Grand Avenue intersections with Roebling Road and Forbes Boulevard I Harbor Way. • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp /Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue intersection & the adjacent Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue intersection • U.S.101 Northbound Off Ramp /South Airport Boulevard I Wondercolor Lane intersection • U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off Ramp /Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard intersection • U. 5.101 Northbound Off Ramp /Dubuque Avenue intersection & the adjacent Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp I Airport Boulevard intersection In addition, off ramp queuing was also evaluated on the U.S.101 Northbound Off Ramp connection to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive. While this off ramp is not controlled on its approach to this first intersection, East Grand Avenue is signal controlled at its next major intersection to the east (at Grand Avenue Overcrossing). Queuing results from the TRAFFIX worksheets for this signalized location were evaluated to see if any queuing extended back to the off ramp. Projections are provided for each off ramp as well as for turn lanes and other BASE BASE BASE CASE BASE CASE + CASE + PROJECT EXISTING CASE PROJECT 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT surface street approaches that have nearby adjacent intersections. Queuing Stan ar s The standard adopted by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans is that the 95th percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage for each off ramp and on the approaches to intersections adjacent to off ramp intersections that accommodate a significant amount of off ramp traffic. In addition, no off ramp traffic is allowed to back up to the freeway mainline during the entire AM or PM peak traffic hour. The 95th percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups will only extend beyond this length five percent of the time during the analysis hour. Queuing analysis is presented in this study for year 2015 Base Case and Base Case + Proj ect conditions. Off ramp queuing has been evaluated using both the Synchro software output, which details queuing for one of the signal cycles during the peak traffic hour, as well as using the SIM traffic feature of the Synchro program, which evaluates off ramp operation and backups during the entire peak traffic hour. FREEWAY OPERATION Analysis Methodology U.S.101 freeway segments have been evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual as specified by Caltrans and the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). U.S.101 existing traffic conditions have been evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hour. Existing traffic volumes used for the analysis were derived from Caltrans 2005 Traffic Volumes on California Highways (Caltrans 2005). Freeway mainline analysis was performed using the HCS software based upon the HCM methodology for freeway mainlines. A description of HCM analysis methodology is provided in Appendix D. San Mateo CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county boarder, the LOS standard was set as LOS E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing Level of Service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on aCMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS), mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial, environmental or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient PAGE 11-10 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Cond1t10nS. A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic originating outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance. Existin Freewa~peration Existing Levels of Service on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based upon results contained in the Genentech Master Plan Revised Draft EIR circulation analysis (December 2006). Table 11-4 shows a summary of existing U.S. 101 freeway operation and Table 11-5 shows details of the existing freeway Level of Service results based on late 2005 traffic counts. Currently, all U.S.101 freeway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS E or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Conditions are generally poorer along U.S.101 to the north of Oyster Point Boulevard, and peak in the southbound direction during the AM peak hour and in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour. TABLE 11-4. SUMMARY OF EXISTING U.$.101 FREEWAY OPERATION AM PEAK HOUR Southbound LOSE North of the Oyster Point interchange LOS C South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp (just north of I-380) Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off ramp (just north of I-380) LOS D North of the Sierra Point on-ramp PM PEAK HOUR Southbound LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange LOS C South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp (just north of I-380) Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off ramp (just north of I-380) LOSE North of the Sierra Point on-ramp TABLE 11-5. DETAILED U.$.101 FREEWAY EXISTING OPERATING CONDITIONS, DEC. 2005 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR U.S.101 SEGMENT VOLUME LOS DENSITY VOLUME LOS DENSITY Noah of Oyster Point Blvd. Northbound Direction 7,129 D 28.5 8,374 E 37.8 Southbound Direction 8,246 E 36.6 6,802 D 26.8 North of I-380 Northbound Direction 5,366 C 10.5 5,484 C 20.9 Southbound Direction 6,567 C 25.6 6,294 C 24.4 LOS =Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Density is not computed when free-fl ow speed is less than 55 mph. Source: Korve Engineering, 2006 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-11 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OFF-RAMP OPERATION AT DIVERGE FROM FREEWAY MAINLINE Analysis Methodology & Standards Caltrans uses an off ramp volume of 1,500 vehicles per hour as the maximum acceptable limit that can be accommodated by a single lane off ramp at its divergence from the freeway mainline. Existing Off Ramp Diverge Operations Table 11-6 shows that currently all U.S.101 freeway off ramps serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 area are operating acceptably and have volumes below 1,500 vehicles per hour during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with the exception of the northbound off ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive during the AM peak hour (with a volume of 1,573 vehicles per hour). TABLE 11-6. OFF-RAMP CAPACITY & VOLUMES AT DIVERGE FROM FREEWAY MAINLINE EXISTING & YEAR 2015 VOLUMES EXISTING YEAR 2015 DEC. 2005 BASE U.S.IOIOFF-RAMP CAPACITY* OR BASE CASE (VEH/HR) SEPT. 2006 CASE + PROJECT AM Peak Hour SB Off Ramp to Airport Blvd. SB Off Ramp Flyover to Oyster Point/Gateway SB Off Ramp to Airport Blvd./Miller Ave. NB Off Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor Ln. NB Off Ramp to E. Grand Ave ./ Executive Drive NB Off Ramp to Dubuque Ave. 1500 172 505 505 1500 899 1678 1718 1500 640 1155 1203 1500 1300 2080~~ 2148** 1500 1573 2089~~ 2146** 1500 899 1674 1674~~~ PM Peak Hour SB Off Ramp to Airport Blvd. 1500 383 570 570 SB Off Ramp Flyover to Oyster Point/Gateway 1500 100 280 287 SB Off Ramp to Airport Blvd./Miller Ave. 1500 608 719 726 NB Off Ramp to S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor Ln. 1500 619 756~~ 767~~ NB Off Ramp to E. Grand Ave./Executive Drive 1500 563 745 ~ 761 ~ ~ NB Off Ramp to Dubuque Ave. 1500 580 1114 1114 ~ Caltrans desired volume limit that can be accommodated by a single off ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline. ~~ Second off ramp lane connection to U.S.101 mainline programmed for both locations by 2015. Capacity increased to more than 2,200 vehicles per hour. ~ ~ ~ No significant impact; project adds no traffic to this ramp. Existing & 2015 Base Case + Project Volumes = Korve Engineering Bolded results =significant Project impact. Year 2015 Base Case Volumes =Crane Transportation Group Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group PAGE 11-12 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ON-RAMP OPERATION Analysis Methodology & Standards On-ramp operation has been evaluated using planning level methodology contained in the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (page 25-4/Exhibit 25-3). Capacity is dependent upon the free flow speed of on-ramp traffic. For single lane diamond on-ramps with higher speeds, capacity has been set at 2,200 vehicles per hour, while for single lane button hook or curving on-ramps, capacity has been set at 2,000 vehicles per hour. Existing On-Ramp Operations Table 11-7 shows that currently, all U.S.101 freeway on-ramps serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 area are operating acceptably and have volumes well below capacity during the AM and PM peak hours. TABLE 11-7. ON-RAMP CAPACITY & VOLUMES EXISTING & YEAR 2015 VOLUMES EXISTING YEAR 2015 CAPACITY* DEC. 2005 OR BASE CASE U.S.101 OFF-RAMP (VEH/HR) SEPT. 2006 BASE CASE + PROJECT AMPeak Hour SB On-Ramp from Dubuque Ave. 2000 653 816 816 SB On-Ramp from Produce Ave. 3300~~ 958 1155 1171 NB On-Ramp from S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor Lane 2000 291 296 296 NB On-Ramp from Grand Ave. 2000 512 609 618 NB On-Ramp from Oyster Point Blvd.l 2200~~~ 632 906 911 Dubuque Ave. PM Peak Hour SB On-Ramp from Dubuque Ave. 2000 1118 1793 1793 SB On-Ramp from Produce Ave. 3300~~ 1880 2899 3004 NB On-Ramp from S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor Lane 2000 498 498 498 NB On-Ramp from Grand Ave. 2000 682 1164 1224 NB On-Ramp from Oyster Point Blvd.l 2200 ~ ~ ~ 123 5 23 51 23 91 ~ ~ ~ Dubuque Ave. existing ~ ~vl~ tsase case ~ rro~ect vo~umes = norve engineering Year 2015 Base Case Volumes =Crane Transportation Group * Planning level capacity: Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Report 209. * ~ Produce Avenue on-ramp has two straight travel lanes. One on-ramp lane merges to the freeway mainline, while the other on-ramp lane continues as an auxiliary lane to the I-380 off-ramp. *~* Planned two on-ramp lane connection to freeway by 2015 will increase capacity above 3000 vph = no significant impact. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-13 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TRANSIT & SHUTTLE SERVICE Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service and regional rail service. Figure 6 (in Appendix D) shows bus/shuttle service east of the U.S.101 freeway in the Project vicinity, while Table 11-8 lists the type and frequency of transit service provided to South San Francisco and the Project area and Table 11-9 lists the Alliance Shuttle Service shuttles and schedule. TABLE 11-8. TRANSIT SERVICE-SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FREQUENCY SERVICE ROUTE AM/PM PEAK MIDDAY AREA SERVED Airport/Linden-Daly SamTrans City and Colma BART 20/20 30 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave. Stations (130) South SF BART 30/30 50 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave. Station (132) Airport/Linden- 30/30 60 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave. S erramonte (13 3 ) Palo Alto-Daly City 30/30 30 South SF BART Bay 3 (390) Redwood City-Colma 15/30(a) 15(a) El Camino Real/South SF BART Station (391) BART Station San Mateo-SF (292) 15I15(a) 30 Airport B1vd.IBaden Ave. Caltrain Gilroy-SF 30/30 60 South SF Caltrain Station BART Pittsburg-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station Fremont-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station Richmond-Daly City 15/15 - Daly City BART Station Dublin-Millbrae 15/15 15 South SF BART Station Gateway Area 30/30 - Genentech Bldgs B9, BS Caltrain Shuttle Oyster Point Area 30I30(a) - GulllOyster Point and 384 to SSF Station Oyster Pomt Sierra Point Area 30I30(a) - 5000 Shoreline Ct. Utah-Grand Area 30I30(a) - Cabot/Allerton BART Shuttle Sierra Point Area 35/35 - 5000 Shoreline Ct. to SSF Station Gateway Area 20/20 - 1000 Gateway Genentech 15/15 - Genentech Bldgs. B5, B54 Oyster Point Area 23/23(a) - Gull/Oyster Point and 384 Oyster Pomt Utah-Grand Area 23123(a) - Cabot/Allerton Frequency of transit service is presented in minutes. SF =San Francisco (a) =average frequency period. Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (511. orgy, San Mateo County ALLIANCE (commute. org) PAGE 11-14 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 11-9. ALLIANCE SHUTTLE SERVICE-SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHUTTLE STATION SERVED SCHEDULE AREA SERVED BART eight AM & nine PM trips Oyster Point Blvd., Gull Rd., Oyster Point Eccles Ave., Forbes Blvd., Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips Veterans Blvd. BART nine AM & nine PM trips E. Grand Ave., Utah Ave., Utah-Grand Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips Harbor Way, Littlefield Ave. BART ten AM & twelve PM trips Gateway Blvd.-BART Gateway Area Gateway Blvd., Genentech Caltrain six AM & five PM trips Office-Caltrain BART four AM & four PM Sierra Point Sierra Point, Shoreline Caltrain four AM & four PM trips Both shuttles alternate between 15-and 30-minute headways during both peak hours. Source: San Mateo County ALLIANCE (Commute. o~g) R»c CPr~I1f P The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco. However, currently there is no SamTrans service east of the U.S.101 freeway. Bus service running just west of the freeway is as follows. Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center-Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This route operates during midday only on weekdays with headways of about two hours. Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART-South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Colma BART station and Daly City. It operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 60- minute headways on Sundays. Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays. Route 292: San Francisco-SF Airport-Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 30- to 60-minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-15 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (~'altrain Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue Overcrossing in South San Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during ml ay. Caltrain/BART Shuttles Van shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S.101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service to/from the Colma BART station. Shuttle stops are provided at two locations along East Grand Avenue near the Project site. The Gateway Area/Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue. There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. The Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers in the Utah/Grand/Littlefield area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot Court, Grandview Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Haskin VVay and Utah Avenue. There are nine trips in the morning and nine trips in the afternoon on the BART shuttle, with nine morning and eight afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. All shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute periods. The shuttles are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board (JPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the CIty/COUnty ASSOC1at10n of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent). PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Sidewalks are in place along the north and south sides of East Grand Avenue and along both sides of Roebling Road in the Project vicinity. However, there are no Class II or Class III bicycle lane designations along East Grand Avenue, Forbes Boulevard or Roebling Road adjacent to the Project site, although there are numerous bicycle facilities available in the study area. Bike lanes are provided along East Grand Avenue east of Littlefield Avenue, Sister Cities Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard (east of Gateway Avenue), Gull Road, and Gateway Boulevard (south of East Grand Avenue). Bike routes are designated on South Airport Boulevard and on East Grand Avenue between Executive Drive and the East Grand Overcrossing. Bike paths are available along Executive Drive, and along the shoreline. Future bike lanes are planned along Gateway Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, Allerton Avenue, and Forbes Boulevard (east of Allerton Avenue). Future bike routes are planned along Forbes Boulevard (west of Allerton Avenue), while a future bike path is planned along PAGE 11-16 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION the Caltrain right-of way. The proposed future bike lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the General Plan Transportation Element. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management) (refer to Appendix D). The purposes of the TDM ordinance are as follows: • Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development pursuant to the City's police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. • Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the City of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated. • Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. • Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. • Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development. • Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this chapter. • Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are imp emente . The analysis prepared for the General Plan Amendment includes the assumption that a moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 9.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates. The objective of TDM programs is to reduce vehicle trips at commercial/residential developments by incorporating project components such as encouraging increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists an pe estrians. South San Francisco has a "menu" of potential TDM programs, each with a specific number of points that relate to the program's effectiveness. Examples of TDM programs include bicycle racks and lockers, free carpool parking, shuttle services, and on-site amenities. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-17 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FUTURE BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) CONDITIONS The proposed Project's traffic impacts have been evaluated in relation to year 2015 Base Case conditions. Year 2015 reflects a horizon year that the 213 East Grand Project could be completely constructed and fully occupied. This section details the process to determine Base Case traffic operating conditions for year 2015 conditions. Year 2015 Base Case Development, Cumulative Scenario The year 2015 baseline conditions include traffic generated by approved and proposed development in the study area, as well as traffic generated by projects that are under construction. The majority of the traffic projections have been recently developed as part of the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan Revised Draft EIR. In addition, traffic from one recently proposed development not included in the Genentech DEIR (328 Roebling Road) has also been included in the Base Case conditions. Year 2015 peak hour Future Without Project conditions were developed by adding traffic expected to be generated by all the approved and proposed development projects in the greater East of 101 Area (as provided by the City of South San Francisco) to the existing traffic network. The data in this DEIR includes expected traffic volumes generated by several recently approved background projects including the Lowe's, Home Depot, Terrabay and Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan projects as well as traffic from the proposed 328 Roebling Road development. The number of trips generated by future developments is provided in Table 11-10. TABLE 11-1 O. TRIP GENERATION-APPROVED & PLANNED LOCAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BY 2015 (WITHOUT 213 EAST GRAND PROJECT) AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL East of 101 Total wlo Genentech 2606 973 3579 1331 2858 4189 Genentech Proposal 1762 215 1977 292 1519 1811 Total 4368 1188 5556 1623 4377 6000 Source: Korve Engineering/Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan RevisedDraft EIR & Crane Transportation Group Freeway segment traffic volumes for 2015 peak hour Future Without Project conditions were developed by adding traffic expected to be generated by all approved and likely development projects and by applying an annual 0.5 percent growth rate to existing volumes (as documented in approved transportation studies). The growth in freeway on- and off ramp volumes was based on the anticipated traffic increases generated by the approved development projects. Year 2015 Base Case (without Project) AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 7 and 8 (in Appendix D). PAGE 11-18 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION YEAR 2015 BASE CASE OPERATING CONDITIONS Roadway Improvements Planned by 2015 The following intersection improvements were projected by City of South San Francisco Public Works staff to be in place for year 2015 Base Case analysis. These improvements will be funded by approved proj ects or the City's East of 1 O l capital improvements program. • Oyster Point Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Airport Boulevard a. Restripe and reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities approach to provide two left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right turn lane. b. Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. c. Restripe the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane. • South Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound Off Ramp / Wondercolor Lane d. Add a second right turn lane on the northbound off ramp approach. • Airport Boulevard /Terrabay Phase 3 Access (when built) e. Provide approach lanes as detailed in the Terrabay EIR. In addition to the above improvements, the following additional mitigations are being required as part of the 250-270 East Grand development, on the south side of East Grand Avenue opposite the 213 East Grand site. At direction of City Public Works staff, these improvements have also been considered in place as part of the Base Case condition being evaluated in the 213 East Grand DEIR as traffic from the 250-270 East Grand development has been included in the Base Case evaluation. • Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp f. Add an exclusive right turn lane to the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Miller Avenue. • Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue g. Restripe southbound Airport Boulevard to provide two left turn lanes, one through and one combined through/right turn lane. Restripe eastbound Grand Avenue to provide a left turn lane and a combined through/right turn lane. • Airport Boulevard /Produce Avenue /San Mateo Avenue h. Restripe the Airport Boulevard westbound approach to provide a third westbound left turn land and reconfigure the southbound departure on Produce Avenue to provide three departure lanes. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-19 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT • So. Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue /Gateway Boulevard i. Add a second right turn lane on the southbound Gateway Boulevard approach. • E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor VVay j . Widen the southbound Forbes Boulevard approach and stripe as one left, one through and two right turn lanes. Restripe the northbound Harbor Way approach as one left, one through and one right turn lane. Widen eastbound East Grand to provide an exclusive right turn lane. Change northbound and southbound signal phasing from split to protected and provide right turn overlap phasing. • E. Grand Avenue /Grand Avenue Overcrossing ~ E. Grand Avenue Northbound Off Ramp k. Add a second northbound off ramp lane at the freeway diverge and reconfigure the existing East Grand approach to Grand Avenue Overcrossing to provide a left turn lane, a combined left/right turn lane and a new 400-foot-long exclusive left turn lane. • Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue Intersection 1. Add a second northbound on-ramp lane at the freeway merge area. • Northbound Off Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane Intersection m. Add a second northbound off ramp lane at the freeway diverge. Figure 9 provides a schematic presentation of year 2015 intersection approach lanes and control. Intersection Level of Service All intersections with year 2015 Base Case volumes would be operating at acceptable Levels of Service with the following exceptions (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2). • Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound (Flyover) Off Ramp (Signal) AM Peak Hour: LOS E PM Peak Hour: LOS F • Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp (Signal) PM Peak Hour: LOS F • E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor VVay (Signal) PAGE 11-20 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PM Peak Hour: LOS F • Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp (Signal) PM Peak Hour: LOS E • E. Grand Avenue / Littlefield Avenue (Signal) AM Peak Hour: LOS E Intersection Si~nalization Needs The following unsignalized intersections would have year 2015 Base Case volumes meeting or exceeding peak hour signal warrant #3 volume criteria levels (see Table 11-3). • E. Grand Avenue / Roebling Road PM Peak Hour: (Borderline) Vehicle Queuing The following off ramps and/or approaches to adjacent intersections would have 95th percentile year 2015 Base Case queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the Synchro software program (see Table 11-11). 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-21 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE 11-11.95TH PERCENTILE VEHICLE QUEUES*-YEAR 2015 INTERSECTIONS AT OR NEAR U.$.101 IN TERCHANGES POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY THE 250-270 E. GRAND PROJECT WITH SIGNAL TIMING FOR OPTIMIZED LEVEL O F SERVICE YEAR 2015 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR STORAGE BASE BASE CASE BASE BASE CASE INTERSECTION DISTANCE* CASE + PROJECT CASE + PROJECT S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB On- and Off-Ramps/Wondercolor Lane NB Off Ramp Left 1675 1499 1561 460 473 Turn/ThroughlRight (Total) Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp SB Off Ramp Left Turn/Through 1225 759 812 517 518 (Total) Airport Blvd./Grand Avenue SB Left Turn 320 475 507 98 100 SB Through 320 97 97 363 362 SB Right Turn 75 NA NA NA NA Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave. NB Left Turn 135 149 154 765 776 NB LeftlThrough 255 322 322 705 716 NB Right Turn 210 17 17 22 23 Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 SB On/NB Off-Ramps Off Ramp/Left/Through/Right 1600 1462 1462 824 824 (Total) Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp/ Commercial Access SB Off Ramp Through (Total)s 5600 1352 1376 270 270 SB Off Ramp Right Turn Lane 360 303 329 44 44 Airport Blvd./SB I DI On-Off Ramp SB Off Ramp Left/Right Turn 1200 282 282 642 642 Airport Blvd./Terrabay Entrance SB Through 450 241 249 125 126 SB Right Turn 230 73 71 0 0 E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing NB E. Grand Right Turn Laney ~ 800 650 700 125 150 NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane~~ 800 175 175 275 275 Bolded results =significant Project impact. The proposed Project would not result insignificant impacts to vehicle queuing at any of the other intersections experiencing unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing as Project traffic contributions would be less than 1 percent of the total. ~ Storage and queues-in feet (per total lane group or approach; or per turn lane as indicated). The term "Total" applies when storage is for a group of lanes with the same movement to which drivers have equal access or for a group of more than one through or turn lane on an off ramp intersection approach where drivers would be expected to access each lane in the most efficient queuing order. ~~ Traffix software utilized as NB off ramp not sign or signal controlled at adjacent East Grand/Executive Drive intersection. Synchro software used for all analysis unless noted. Source: Crane Transportation Group PAGE 11-22 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue AM Peak Hour: The Airport Boulevard southbound approach left turn movement would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage. PM Peak Hour: The Airport Boulevard southbound approach through movement would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp AM Peak Hour: The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left and through movements would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage. PM Peak Hour: The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left and through movements would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage. The following off ramps would have year 2015 Base Case queuing extending back to the U.S.101 mainline one or more times during the peak traffic hours as determined using the SIM traffic software program (unless noted). • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue Intersection AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline. • U.S.101 Northbound Off Ramp to Dubuque Avenue AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline. PM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline. • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline. Off Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline The following off ramps would have year 2015 Base Case volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles/hour on a one-lane off ramp connection to the freeway mainline or 2,20 vehicles/hour on a two-lane off ramp connection to the freeway (see Table 11-6). • U.S.101 Southbound (Flyover) Off Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection AM Peak Hour: 1,678 vehicles per hour using off ramp. • U.S.101 Northbound Off Ramp to Dubuque Avenue 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-23 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AM Peak Hour: 1,674 vehicles per hour using off ramp. On-Ramp Operation No on-ramps would have year 2015 Base Case volumes exceeding ramp capacities (see Table 11-7) assuming improvements are made to the U.S.101 northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard at Dubuque Avenue (as detailed in the improvements currently being funded and anticipated by 2015). U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Level of Service The following mainline freeway segments with year 2015 Base Case volumes would be operating at unacceptable Levels of Service (see Table 11-12). • U.S.101 Southbound (North of the Oyster Point Interchange) AM Peak Hour: LOS F operation. • U.S.101 Northbound (North of the Sierra Point On-Ramp) PM Peak Hour: LOS F operation. TABLE 11-12. YEAR 2015 U.$.101 FREEWAY OPERATING CONDITIONS BASE CASE BASE CASE + PROJECT SEGMENT VOL LOS DENSITY VOL LOS DENSITY AMPeak Hour North of Oyster Point Blvd. Northbound Direction 7813 D 33.1 7825 D 33.1 Southbound Direction 10042 F - 10140 F~ North of I-380 Northbound Direction 7498 D 30.9 7643 D 31.8 Southbound Direction 7380 D 30.1 7396 D 30.2 PM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Blvd. Northbound Direction 10123 F - 10211 F~ Southbound Direction 7668 D 32.0 7686 D 32.1 North of I-380 Northbound Direction 6454 C 25.1 6481 C 25.2 Southbound Direction 8450 E 38.6 8555 E 39.7 Bold =Significant Project impact. The proposed Project would result in significant impacts to this freeway segment experiencing Base Case LOS F operation as Project volume increases would be more than 1 percent. * freeway segment operation not unacceptable as project produces less than a 1 percent increase in volume. LOS = Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group (Base Case), Korve Engineering (Base Case + Project) PAGE 11-24 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Standards of Significance have been measured based on CEQA, City of South San Francisco and C/CAG Guideline thresholds. Therefore, Project impacts would be significant if they result in any of the following conditions: a. The Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system (C/CAG criteria only). b. Signalized intersection operation and all-way-stop operation would change from Level of Service (LOS) A, B, C or D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least two percent. c. Uncontrolled turn movements or stop sign controlled approaches at side street stop sign controlled intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least two percent. Side street criteria are applicable only for stop sign controlled approaches with more than 25 trips during any peak traffic hour. d. Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels, or to meet pedestrian/school crossing signal warrant criteria levels. e. The proposed Project would increase total volumes passing through an intersection by two percent or more with signalized orall-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and the stop sign controlled Base Case operation is at LOS F (and there are more than 25 vehicles on the stop sign controlled approach). f. The proposed Project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels. g. Project traffic would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle queuing on all freeway off ramps and also on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading away from off ramp intersections to unacceptable levels (as determined by the Synchro software program), or if Base Case 95th percentile queuing on the freeway off ramps or on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading away from off ramp intersections is already proj ected at unacceptable lengths, the Proj ect would increase queuing volumes by one percent or more. h. Project traffic results in queues exceeding off ramp storage capacity based upon SIM traffic software evaluation for the entire peak hour of operation. If base case traffic already exceeds the storage capacity of the off ramp, then aone-percent addition in traffic due to the proj ect is considered a significant impact. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-25 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT i. Proj ect traffic would degrade operation of the U. S. l o l freeway or freeway ramps from LOS E to LOS F with at least a one percent increase in volume, or would increase volumes by more than one percent or on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with Base Case LOS F operation. j . If on-site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow through various parts of the Project site. k. Proj ect parking would not meet City criteria. 1. Project development or Proj ect traffic would produce a detrimental impact to local transit ors utt e service. m. If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a significant traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety concern would be created or worsened. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Table 11-13 shows that a total net new 291,634 square feet of research and development or office uses would be likely to generate 359 inbound and 50 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 67 inbound and 327 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This assumes a 9.5 percent reduction in peak hour trips due to a moderate TDM program and office rather than R&D uses to provide a conservative analysis, as trip generation has been found to be higher from office than from R&D uses. As shown in Table 11-14, after allowance for traffic associated with existing uses on the project site, the proposed project would result in 337 inbound and 40 outbound net new trips on the local circulation system during the AM peak hour, with 63 inbound and 302 outbound net new trips on the local circulation system during the PM peak hour. TABLE 11-13. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION NEW DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS SQUARE 2-WAY TRIPS IN OUT IN OUT USE FOOTAGE RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL Office 291,634 SQ.FT. 11.01 3212 1.23~1~ 359 .17~1~ 50 .23~1~ 67 1.12~1~ 327 (1) 9.5% reduction in average trip rates due to City mandated TDM program (see Appendix D). Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group PAGE 11-26 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TABLE 11-14.213 EAST GRAND SITE NET NEW TRIPS DUE TO REPLACING EXISTING WAREHOUSE USE WITH OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN OUT IN OUT Proposed Project (Office) 359 50 67 327 Existing Site Activities (includes 22 10 4 25 driveway and on-street) NET NEW TRIPS 337 40 63 302 Source: Crane Transportation Group PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Project traffic was distributed to the regional roadway network based upon East of 1 O l development traffic patterns contained in the April 2001 Draft SEIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance (see Table 11- 15) as well as traffic distribution patterns at driveways already serving development on the Project site. Virtually no existing site traffic was surveyed traveling to/from west of the project site on East Grand Avenue. Overall, about 62 percent of Proj ect traffic is Proj ected to be destined to/from south and southwest of the site, with 3 8 percent destined to/from the north and northwest. It is likely that Project drivers destined to/from the U.S.101 freeway either north or south would choose to access the freeway via several routes and interchanges. AM and PM peak hour Project traffic is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Figures 10 and 11 (in Appendix D), while Figures 12 and 13 (in Appendix D) present resultant year 2015 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Project volumes. Figure 14 (in Appendix D) presents resultant 2015 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Project volumes at Project driveways along Roebling Road. TABLE 11-15. YEAR 2015 PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION DIRECTION SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEVELOPMENT U.S.101 North/San Francisco 29 U.S.101 South 48 South San Francisco (central area) 3 Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 8 Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway 0 Brisbane 7 Airport Area via South Airport Blvd. 3 Local East of U.S.101 2 TOTAL 100% Source: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-27 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Impact Traf 1: Project Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The Project would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours (377 two-way (inbound + outbound) trips during the AM peak hour and 365 two-way trips during the PM peak hour (see Table 11- 13)). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-1: Transportation Demand Management Program. The Project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. Impact reduced to ales-than-significant level. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. The Project's TDM program is included in Appendix D and will generate trip credits to offset the 3 77 total AM peak hour and 3 65 PM peak hour trips generated by the Project. Therefore, because the TDM would offset all of the net new trips, the impact would be less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. ON-SITE CIRCULATION AN D ACCESS Proj ect Access The Project would be accessed via one driveway connection to East Grand Avenue and three driveway connections to Roebling Road. AM and PM peak hour turn movement projections are presented in Figure 14 in Appendix D. The proposed driveway along East Grand Avenue would allow westbound right in/right out movements only. All driveways along Roebling Road would allow in and outbound movements, but due to the cul-de-sac would just experience left turn inbound and right turn outbound movements.. Impact Traf 2: Sight lines at East Grand Avenue Driveway. The Project's driveway connection to East Grand Avenue would be located about 3 00 feet east of the Forbes Boulevard /Harbor VVay intersection and about 220 feet west of the Roebling Road intersection. Sight lines at the Project's only driveway connection along East Grand Avenue, where right turns only would be allowed, would be at least 420 feet to the east (to see westbound traffic). Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 40 miles per hour (five miles greater than the posted speed limit) would be 305 feet. PAGE 11-28 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at this location. This would be ales-than-significant impact, therefore no mitigation is require . Impact Traf-3: Sight Lines at Roebling Road Driveways. Roebling Road is straight and level along its 600-foot length adjacent to the Project. Project driveways would be located along the west side of the street about 200 feet, 440 feet and 600 feet from East Grand Avenue. Speeds along Roebling Road are now 25 miles per hour or less and would be expected to remain at this level with the Project. Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour would be 155 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at these driveways. This would be ales-than-significant impact, therefore, no mitigation is require . Internal Circulation Impact Traf 4: Internal Vehicular Circulation. The internal circulation plan as shown on the 9/28/07 site plan by DGA Planning /Architecture /Interiors appears acceptable. Each Project driveway along Roebling Road would be channelized at least 40 feet internal to the site, with the East Grand Avenue driveway being channelized at least 50 feet internal to the parking lot. In addition, all surface lot parking aisles are shown to be 25 feet or greater in width, which meets city code criteria and good traffic engineering practice. Also, all garage parking aisles are shown to be at least 25 feet wide, which meets City code criteria. This would be ales-than-significant impact, therefore, no mitigation is require . The circulation plan for the Project site follows good traffic engineering practices and meets applicable City code criteria aimed at ensuring the vehicular circulation on-site does not create safety hazards. The existing design of the Project site is adequate under these standards and no mitigation is necessary. Impact Traf 5: Internal Pedestrian Circulation. Internal walkways are shown on the site plan connecting all buildings and connecting the buildings to the sidewalk along Roebling Road. However, there are no walkway connections shown between the sidewalk along East Grand Avenue and the Project's main entrance. The auto driveway would need to be used for pedestrian access. This would be a significant safety impact. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-29 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mitigation Measure Traf-5: Sidewalks and Crosswalks. Provide a sidewalk connecting the Project's main entrance with the sidewalk along East Grand Avenue. Impact reduced to ales-than-significant level. The Project site plan does not currently show a walkway connection to the East Grand Avenue sidewalk to ensure pedestrian safety. The provision of a walkway as specified in mitigation measure Traf 5 would correct this deficiency and ensure adequate levels of safety for pedestrian circulation. PARKING Impact Traf 6: On-Site Parking. A total of 826 spaces would be required based upon Clty COCIe Crlterla, while a total of 828 on-site parking spaces would be prove e . This would be ales-than-significant impact, therefore, no mitigation is require . Proposed parking exceeds that required by City code criteria. In addition, a Transportation Demand Management Plan has been prepared and is included in Appendix D. Implementation of this plan should further reduce Proj ect parking demand. RAI L SAFETY There is an at grade railroad crossings adjacent to the Project site diagonally across the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection. No gates or lights are provided at the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection crossing. Impact Traf 7: Grade Crossing Approaches Missing Signing and Pavement Striping. The State Public Utilities Commission (September 26, 2006 letter to City of South San Francisco) has noted in a recent inspection that the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection grade crossing is not up to minimum standards on one or more approaches for required advanced warning signing and pavement striping (i.e. R15-1 and W-10-1 signs as well as RxR pavement striping). This results in an existing safety concern that would be aggravated by the addition of Proj ect traffic. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-7: Impacts to Grade Crossing Approach Signing & Pavement Striping. The Project shall provide all needed signs and pavement markings on the PAGE 11-30 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION approaches to the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection "at grade railroad crossing" to meet minimum State Public Utilities Commission requirements as detailed in the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by the Federal Highway Commission. Impact reduced to ales-than-significant level. While the Project itself does not incorporate an on-site rail line, it would aggravate an existing safety concern at a nearby public rail crossing. Mitigation to bring this rail crossing up to meet current regulations as described in mitigation measure Traf 8 would reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level. PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION OPERATION Impact Traf 8: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2). • E. Grand Avenue /Gateway Boulevard AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 5.0 percent at a location where acceptable LOS D Base Case signalization operation would be degraded to unacceptable LOS E operation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf 8: E. Grand Avenue /Gateway Boulevard. (see Table 11-16 and Figure 15 in Appendix D) The following improvements would mitigate the proj ect-specific impacts. This improvement is not included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The project proponent will be solely responsible for implementation of the following improvements or fair share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for this project: Add a second right turn lane to the northbound Gateway Boulevard approach. Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS D-51.7 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS C-21.7 seconds control delay 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-31 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mitigation measure TRAF-8 would reduce the impact at this location to a less-than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with City standards. TABLE 11-16. MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE YEAR 2015 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR BASE MITIGATED BASE MITIGATED BASE CASE + BASE CASE BASE CASE + BASE CASE INTERSECTION CASE PROJECT + PROJECT CASE PROJECT + PROJECT East Grand Ave./Forbes D-53.8 F-81.5 D-45.0~1~ F-98.3 F-115.3 D-53.8~1~ Blvd./Harbor Way (Signal) E. Grand Ave.IRoebling C-18 7 E-37 6 B-149~~~* D-34 7 F-149 B-13 7~~~~ Rd. . . . . Gateway Blvd./S. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave. C-27.0 C-27.2 C-26.9~3~ D-45.6 E-68.2 D-37.8~3~ (Signal) E. Grand Ave.IGateway D-51.2 E-75.3 D-51.7~4~ C-21.6 C-21.7 C-21.7~4~ (Signal) ~ Signalized intersection level ofservice-vehicle control delay (in seconds). ~ ~ Side street stop sign controlled intersection-southbound approach vehicle control delay (in seconds). (1) Widen westbound E. Grand Ave. approach to provide a third through lane and a second left turn lane. Widen northbound Harbor Way approach to provide a second through lane and a second right turn lane. ~~~ Signalize the intersection and add a third through lane on the westbound E. Grand Ave. approach. (3) Add a second through lane to the westbound Mitchell Ave. approach. (4) Add a second right turn lane to the northbound Gateway Boulevard approach (not included in City's traffic impact fee). Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group The planned implementation of these improvements would maintain or improve the current levels of service at these intersections (see Table 11-16), which would mitigate potential Project impacts. Specific improvements planned for the East Grand Avenue /Gateway Boulevard intersection and the resultant level of service are presented in mitigation measure Traf 8. Impact Traf 9: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2). • E. Grand Avenue /Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 7.5 percent at a location with Base Case LOS D operation being degraded to LOS F operation. PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 8.5 percent at PAGE 11-32 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized operation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf 9: E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /Harbor VVay. (see Table 11-16 and Figure 15 in Appendix D) The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impacts. These improvements are included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee contribution to this program. Widen East Grand Avenue east of Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way in order to provide a third westbound through lane and a second westbound left turn lane. The third westbound through lane should begin to the east of the Roebling Road intersection (in order to mitigate left turn queuing impacts). In addition, widen the northbound Harbor Way approach to provide one additional through lane and one additional right turn lane (total five lanes: one left, two through and two right turn lanes). Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS D-45.0 seconds control delay (which would be better than Base Case LOS D-53.8 seconds control delay operation) PM Peak Hour: LOS D-53.8 seconds control delay (which would be better than Base Case LOS F-98.3 seconds control delay operation) Implementation of mitigation measure TRAF-9 will reduce the impact at this location to ales-than-significant level through contribution of funds to an established transportation improvement program that will be applied to physical improvements to improve the functioning of the intersection. The E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection is included in the City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the traffic impact fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned improvements to this intersection that would maintain or improve the current levels of service and reduce the Project's impact to a level of less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for this intersection and the resultant level of service are presented in mitigation measure Traf 9. Impact Traf 10: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2). 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-33 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT • E. Grand Avenue /Roebling Road PM Peak Hour: The Project would degrade acceptable Base Case LOS D operation of the stop sign controlled Roebling Road approach to an unacceptable LOS F. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-10: E. Grand Avenue /Roebling Road. (see Table 11-16 and Figure 15 in Appendix D) The following improvements would mitigate the proj ect- specific impacts. The project proponent will be solely responsible for implementation of the following improvements or fair share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for this project. 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way. 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection (see Traf 9). 3. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue intersection approach from 75 feet up to 175 feet. This will leave room fora 250- to 260-foot left turn lane on the westbound East Grand Avenue approach to Harbor Way, which would accommodate a year 2015 95th percentile queue of 125 feet during the PM peak hour. Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.8 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.6 seconds control delay These improvements are not currently included in the City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee. Mitigation measure TRAF-10 would reduce the impact at this location to ales-than-significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection incompliance with City standards. The nearby 328 Roebling Road project proposal, also undergoing environmental analysis at the time of drafting this report, would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be solely responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other proj ect if/when it proceeds. PAGE 11-34 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact Traf 11: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2). • Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 3.4 percent at a location with acceptable LOS D Base Case signalized operation being degraded to unacceptable LOS E operation. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf 11: Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue. (see Table 11-16 and Figure 15 in Appendix D) The following improvements would mitigate the proj ect-specific impacts. These improvements are included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee contribution to this program. Widen the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach to provide a second through lane. Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: PM Peak Hour: LOS D-37.8 seconds control delay Implementation of mitigation measure TRAF-11 will reduce the impact at this location to ales-than-significant level through contribution of funds to an established transportation improvement program that will be applied to physical improvements to improve the functioning of the intersection. The Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue intersection is included in the City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the traffic impact fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned improvements to this intersection that would maintain or improve the current levels of service and reduce the Project's impact to a level ofless-than-significant. The proposed Project would not result in significant impacts at other intersections experiencing unacceptable Base Case operation as Project volume increases would be less than 2 percent. AM Peak Hour: • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp Flyover 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-35 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT • E. Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue PM Peak Hour: • Airport Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp Flyover Impact Traf 12: Intersection Signalization Needs. The analysis concluded that the East Grand Avenue /Roebling Road unsignalized intersection would receive a significant signal warrant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case PM peak hour volumes. Volumes would be increased by more than two percent (7.73%) at the one nearby unsignalized intersection where Base Case volumes would already be meeting peak hour signal warrant criteria levels (see Table 11-3). This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf 12: E. Grand Avenue /Roebling Road. (see Table 11-16 and Figure 15 in Appendix D) Coincidently, mitigation measure Traf 10 would also reduce impact Traf 12 to a less than significant level. Again, the project proponent will be solely responsible for implementation of the following improvements or fair share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for this project. The following improvements would mitigate the project's intersection signalization impact at East Grand Avenue / Roebling Road: 1. Signalize the intersection and coordinate operation with the signal at East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way. 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection (see Traf 9). 3. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue intersection approach from 75 feet up to 175 feet. Resultant 2015 Base Case + Project Signalized Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.8 seconds control delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.6 seconds control delay PAGE 11-36 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Mitigation measure TRAF-12 will reduce the impact at this location to a less than significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with City standards. These improvements are not currently included in the City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee. The nearby 328 Roebling Road project proposal, also undergoing environmental analysis at the time of drafting this report, would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. whichever project initiates construction first would be solely responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other proj ect if/when it proceeds. PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE VEHICLE QUEUING Impact Traf 13: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing - Synchro software evaluation. The following approach to an intersection providing direct access to the Project site would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-11). • E. Grand Avenue /Roebling Road (unsignalized) AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 217 percent in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue at an unsignalized intersection would be extended from 70 up to 225 feet in a location with only 75 feet of storage. PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 210 percent in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue at an unsignalized intersection would be extended from 75 up to 125 feet in a location with only 75 feet of storage. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf 13: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Figure 15 in Appendix D) The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impact. The project proponent will be solely responsible for implementation of the following improvements or fair share reimbursement (as determined by the City Engineer) if implemented by another party prior to initiation of construction for this project. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-37 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT • E. Grand Avenue /Roebling Road 1. Signalize the intersection. 2. Provide a third westbound through lane and continue to the Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection (see Traf 9). 3. Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach from 75 up to 175 feet. Mitigation costs should be shared with the 328 Roebling Road project. See Traf 10 for resultant 95th percentile queues. Mitigation measure TRAF-13 will reduce the impact at this location to a less than significant level through implementation of physical improvements that will improve the functioning of the intersection in compliance with City standards. These improvements are not currently included in the City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee. The nearby 328 Roebling Road project proposal, also undergoing environmental analysis at the time of drafting this report, would contribute to the impact at this intersection and require the same mitigation. Whichever project initiates construction first would be solely responsible for implementation of the improvements, and may be reimbursed on a fair share basis (as determined by the City Engineer) by the other proj ect if/when it proceeds. Impact Traf 14: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. The following approach to an adjacent intersection leading away from an off ramp would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-11). • Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 5.9 percent in the left turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Grand Avenue at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The 95th percentile vehicle queue would be extended from 475 up to about 510 feet in a location with only 320 feet of storage. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-14: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Figure 16 in Appendix D) The following improvements would mitigate the proj ect-specific impact. These improvements are included in the East of 101 Transportation PAGE 11-38 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee contribution to this program: • Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue Widen the eastbound Grand Avenue approach from one exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane to provide an exclusive left turn lane, a shared through/left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. Resultant Southbound Queue: AM Peak Hour: Southbound left = 255' Southbound through = 85' PM Peak Hour: Southbound left =125' Southbound through =180' Implementation of mitigation measure TRAF-14 will reduce the impact at this location to ales-than-significant level through contribution of funds to an established transportation improvement program that will be applied to physical improvements to improve the functioning of the intersection. The Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue intersection is included in the City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the traffic impact fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned improvements to this intersection that would improve vehicle queuing capacity and reduce the Project's impact to a level of less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for this intersection are presented in mitigation measure Traf 14. The proposed Project would not increase traffic more than one percent on the approaches to any other location which is projected to experience unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing based upon the Synchro software program. Impact Traf 15: Off Ramp Queuing To Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours - SIM traffic evaluation. The following off ramp would receive a significant impact with backups extending to the freeway mainline sometime during one or both peak hours due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes. • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp Flyover to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 2.4 percent on the off ramp and by 1.8 percent at the Oyster Point /Gateway 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-39 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Boulevard intersection with year 2015 Base Case off ramp traffic occasionally backing up to the freeway mainline. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-15: Improvements for Off Ramp Queuing. (see Figure 16 in Appendix D) The following improvements would mitigate project-specific impacts. These improvements are included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee contribution to this program: • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard Intersection 1. Restripe the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard intersection approach from one left turn lane, two exclusive through lanes and a shared through/right turn lane to provide one left turn lane, two exclusive through lanes and one right turn lane. Resultant Off Ramp Queues: AM Peak Hour: Through lanes =1115' (with 2,550 feet of storage per lane) Right turn lane = 3 60' (with 3 60 feet of storage) PM Peak Hour: Through lanes = 325' Right turn lane = 50' Implementation of mitigation measure TRAF-15 will reduce the impact at this location to ales-than-significant level through contribution of funds to an established transportation improvement program that will be applied to physical improvements to improve the functioning of the intersection. The U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard intersection is included in the City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the traffic impact fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned improvements to this off ramp that would improve vehicle queuing capacity and reduce the Project's impact to a level of less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for this off ramp are presented in mitigation measure Traf 15. Impact Traf 16: Off Ramp Queuing To Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours. SIM Traffic evaluation The following off ramp would receive a significant impact with backups extending to the freeway mainline sometime during one or both peak hours due to the addition of Project PAGE 11-40 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes. • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue Intersection AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 4.8 percent at a location with year 2015 Base Case off ramp traffic occasionally backing up to the freeway mainline. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf 16: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Figure 16 in Appendix D) The following improvements would mitigate the project-specific impact. These improvements are included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the Project's traffic impact fee contribution to this program: • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue Intersection 1. Provide improvements to the Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue intersection as listed under Traf 14. Implementation of mitigation measure TRAF-16 will reduce the impact at this location to ales-than-significant level through contribution of funds to an established transportation improvement program that will be applied to physical improvements to improve the functioning of the intersection. The U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue intersection is included in the City's East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the traffic impact fee collected for the proposed Project will be used to help fund planned improvements to this off ramp that would improve vehicle queuing capacity and reduce the Project's impact to a level of less-than-significant. Specific improvements planned for this off ramp are presented in mitigation measure Traf 16. CUMULATIVE FREEWAY MAI N LI N E AN D ONIOFF-RAM P OPERATION Impact Traf 17: Off Ramp Operation At Mainline Diverge. The following off ramp diverge location from the U.S.101 freeway mainline would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-6). • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard Intersection 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-41 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase off ramp volumes by 2.4 percent (from 1,678 up to 1,718 vehicles) with Base Case volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure Traf-17: Improvements for Off Ramp Operation. (see Figure 16 in Appendix D) No improvements are feasible to mitigate proj ect-specific impacts. The spacing of southbound off ramp connections to Airport Boulevard and to Oyster Point Boulevard precludes the possibility of providing a second off ramp lane connection to southbound U.S.101 to serve the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound off ramp. Impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Project traffic would not significantly increase volumes nor produce a significant impact at the other single lane off ramp location which would have year 2015 Base Case AM peak hour volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour: • Northbound Off Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Two off ramp locations with expected Base Case and Base Case + Project 2015 AM peak hour volumes in excess of 1,500 vehicles per hour (N.B. off ramps to Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Land and to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive) are programmed to have second off ramp lane connections to the U.S.101 freeway by 2015, which will increase capacities to more than 2,200 vehicles per hour. Also, one additional off ramp with Base Case AM peak hour volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour (northbound off ramp to Dubuque Avenue) would not receive a significant impact as the Project would not be adding traffic to this location. Impact Traf 18: On-Ramp Operation. The analysis concluded that no on-ramp to the U.S.101 freeway would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-7). These would be less-than-significant impacts; therefore, no mitigation is require . Impact Traf 19: Freeway Mainline Operation. No U.S.101 mainline segments would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-12). Although there would be one segment of the freeway during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation, the project would add less than a one percent increase in traffic to both locations. PAGE 11-42 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • U.S.101 Southbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interchange) AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 0.98 percent (from 10,042 to 10,140 vehicles per hour) at a location with unacceptable LOS F year 2015 Base Case operation. • U.S.101 Northbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interchange) PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 0.875 percent (from 10,123 to 10,211 vehicles per hour) at a location with unacceptable LOS F year 2015 Base Case operation. These would be less-than-significant impacts; therefore, no mitigation is require . 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 11-43 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This Page Intentionally Left Blank PAGE 11-44 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT 12 UTILITIES INTRODUCTION This chapter describes existing public utilities on and in the vicinity of the Project and evaluates the impact of the proposed project on the provision of public utilities and possible adverse physical impacts to the environment that could result from constructing expanded facilities. SETTING WATER SUPPLY South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company Peninsula District (CWSC) serves that portion of the City east of Interstate 280, which represents the majority of the City's area. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water allocation among these communities. The company's current contract with the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) entitles the City to 42.3 million gallons per day (MGD) per year. An additional 1.4 MGD can be pumped from groundwater. The Westborough County Water District serves the area west of I-280, an area not targeted for growth in the City's General Plan. l Water use has increased steadily, and at a rate faster than increases in the number of users. Water use has rebounded significantly from the levels of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when an extended period of drought and resulting conservation measures brought water use levels down considerably.l While residential users comprise approximately 90% of the water accounts in South San Francisco, less than half of the total consumption may be attributed to these users. On the other hand, industrial users comprise only 0.46% of the water accounts but use 11 % of the total water. Part of the reason for the high industrial water usage in the City is the predominance of biotechnology firms in the City. Pharmaceutical manufacturing requires extremely pure water, and large quantities of water are used to achieve necessary water purity levels. 1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 12-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The CWSC bases its future water use projections on estimates of both the number of future water users and the amount of water each type of user will consume. The five year average growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the utility's projections of the number of water users through 2020. Water use projections for 2020 range from 5.9 MGD to 9.1 MGD. Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modified during the remaining contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand.2 Water lines in the East of 101 area would generally be adequate to serve new development allowed under the East of 101 area plan.3 The water distribution system in the area was designed and constructed to meet industrial water demands. It consists of a network of 12- inch lines in relatively good condition, adequate to serve the 2,500 gallons per minute fire flow requirement and use demands for the land uses planned for the area. WASTEWATER South San Francisco Municipal Wastewater System The existing wastewater system serving the Project site and surrounding community is operated and maintained by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. The complete sewer network consists of approximately 155 miles of 6-inch through 36-inch diameter pipes, which convey flows from the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and portions of Daly City and Colma to the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) located at the end of Belle Air Road in South San Francisco.4 Much of the existing South San Francisco sewer collection system is over sixty years old, and portions of the system are in need of repair. In the area east of Highway 101, subsidence of sewer lines has resulted in reduced capacity though these issues are being addressed through an area master plan to replace or repair these lines. An upgrade to Pump Station #4 is currently under construction. At completion, it will approximately double the sewer capacity for the East of 101 area. The pump station serves the South San Francisco area north of Colma Creek and east of South Airport Boulevard. Since 1997, the City of South San Francisco has been under a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to upgrade its facilities in order to protect the environmental quality of the Bay. The required work at the WQCP has been completed; the remaining work within the sewer collection network was not 2 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p.194. 3 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan,1994, p. 98. 4 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, 249 East Grand Ave EIR, 2005 PAGE 12-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES accomplished by the CDO deadline of November 2005, however the remaining work is in process or planned.5 Currently, the WQCP has the capacity to provide secondary treatment for 13 MGD in dry weather and 60 million gallons per day in wet weather. Average dry weather flows to the plant are 8.8 MGD; peak wet weather flows approach 40 MGD.6 Wastewater treatment at the WQCP consists of screening, grit removal, chemical addition to aid settling of solids, primary settling under vacuum, aeration, clarification, and disinfection by chlorination. Excess chlorine is removed prior to discharge of the treated water 2 miles offshore in San Francisco Bay. ~ In an ongoing Recycled Water Feasibility Study conducted by the City of South San Francisco and other agencies, the WQCP is being considered as a potential source of recycled water to serve portions of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Colma. The aim of the study is to evaluate the feasibility of developing a recycled water treatment and distribution system to reduce the demand on the potable water supply in the San Francisco Peninsula area. The Recycled Water Feasibility Study is expected to be complete around the time this DEIR will be published; however, they are considering implementation for large irrigation uses only at this time and are not likely to be in a position to provide or to request recycled water capability for anoffice/R&D project such as the proposed Project. s Project Site Sewer S,, s Figure 12-1 below shows the portion of the South San Francisco municipal sewer system that serves the Project site and adjacent areas. The sewer along East Grand Avenue is an 18- inch pipe that runs westward to Harbor Way, where it connects to a 30-inch pipe running south on Harbor Way. The 3 0-inch pipe was installed in 2000 to replace an old, subsided 21- inch pipe. It receives flows from all of the area north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right- of way and all of the area east of Littlefield Avenue; it is intended to serve most of the expected future development in the City's East of 101 area. Flows through this pipe are conveyed to Pump Station #4 on Harbor Way (near the intersection with Mitchell Avenue), from which they are pumped to the WQCP.9 Pump Station #4 is scheduled for upgrade in the fiscal year 2007-08; including a new structure, four new pumps, and new motor controls. A new force main will be installed as a separate project expected to closely follow the pump 5 Castagnola, 2007 6 Castagnola, 2007 South San Francisco Public Works, SSF Water Quality Control Plant webpage httpa/www.ci.ssf.ca.us/news/displa® news.asp?NewsID=305 s Razavi, personal communications, Feb. 2, 2007 9 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, 249 East Grand Ave EIR, 2005 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 12-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT station upgrade, giving the station a new dry weather capacity of 5 MGD, and a wet weather capacity of 13 MGD.Io The city's design wastewater flow criterion for commercial/industrial buildings is 0.4 gallons per day (gpd) per square foot of building space.// The Project's new building will have a total floor area of 291,634 square feet, which translates to a flow of approximately 116,653 gallon per day (gpd) using the City's standard flow criteria. Figure 12-1: Project Area Sanitary Sewer Sysfem Source: city of s. San Francisco, 2005 REGULATORY SETTING Wastewater treatment and disposal in the City of South San Francisco is governed by laws, regulatory programs and policies established by the Federal government, the State of California, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, and the City of South San Francisco. Most of the pertinent requirements affecting wastewater facilities for the proposed Project are contained in the following: 10 Razavi, personal communications, Feb. 2, 2007 11 Razavi, personal communications, Feb. 2, 2007 PAGE 12-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES Federal Laws and Re ulations Clean Water Act (CWA) The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since its inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum water quality standards for all waters of the United States. At the Federal level, the CWA is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations to assist in the implementation of the CWA and related Federally mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards, and the laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards are more restrictive, i.e. more protective of the environment. State Laws and Re ulations Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCBs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth the state's water quality standards (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region and specifies effluent limitations, discharge prohibitions, and water quality objectives to maintain the existing potential beneficial uses of the waters. The proposed Project is required to adhere to all applicable requirements of the Basin Plan. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 12-5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Requirements The San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP operates under an NPDES permit issued by the State of California. One of the requirements of the permit is that the WQCP implement a Pretreatment Program to regulate the collection of toxic and hazardous wastes in municipal sewers. Under the Pretreatment Program, dischargers of industrial wastewater are required to abide by specific wastewater discharge limits and prohibitions. Industrial dischargers are also required to submit self monitoring reports on the total volume and pollutant concentrations of their wastewater, and to allow for inspections by the City of South San Francisco. Local Programs and Re ulations East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 area plan was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in 1994 in order to guide and regulate development in the City's East of 101 area, which includes the Project site. The Plan provides detailed planning policies for land use, circulation, public facilities, design, conservation, financing and other related elements. With respect to wastewater collection and treatment, the Plan outlines policies for the repair and reconstruction of East of 101 area sewer collection lines, pump stations, and the WQCP. The Plan also addresses the issue of increasing wastewater treatment demand, and recommends that new projects that will generate large wastewater quantities be required to lower their wastewater treatment needs through water recycling, on-site treatment, graywater irrigation, or other similar technologies wherever feasible. STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES The existing drainage system in the East of 101 area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Thus, any redevelopment of existing development will generally not increase runoff. SOLID WASTE Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at the South San Francisco Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the landfill, has a permit for forward expansion of the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill. The South San Francisco Scavenger Company's facility is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 1,250 tons per day of wastes and recyclable materials. This facility gives the Company increased capability to recover valuable materials from wastes, reducing the PAGE 12-6 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES amount of waste being sent to the landfill. South San Francisco recycles both household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge. With an expected buildout population of 67,000 residents in South San Francisco, the City will generate approximately 38,000 tons of solid waste each year, based on the assumed generation rates used by San Mateo County. M PACT A N A LYS I S STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines: 1. Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2. Would the Project require substantial expansion or alteration of the City's water or wastewater treatment and collection facilities? 3. Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities? 4. Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5. Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6. Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? 7. Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NCREASE I N WASTEWATER FLOWS The Project would contribute both domestic sewage and industrial wastewater to the City of South San Francisco's municipal sewer system. It would have two waste disposal systems (a domestic sewer system and an industrial waste system) that would combine into one sewer line. The domestic sewer system would be used for discharges from restrooms, break rooms and other similar areas, while the industrial waste system would collect wastewater from laboratory sinks, fume hoods, floor drains, autoclaves, glass washers and other similar equipment. An outdoor sampling port would be located in the industrial waste system before the connection to the combined sewer but after any necessary pre-treatment on-site to enable 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 12-7 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT monitoring by the City of South San Francisco. The combined sewer would then connect to the City's existing 18-inch sewer pipeline on East Grand Avenue.12 Potential wastewater impacts would be primarily related to the increased flows that would be contributed by the Project to the City's existing sewer facilities. The Project includes a building with a floor area of 291,634 square feet. According to the city's design wastewater flow criterion of 0.4 gallons per day (gpd) per square foot of building space, the projected wastewater flows for the proposed Project would be 116,653 gpd. This represents an increase of approximately 42.5 percent over the wastewater flows which are estimated at approximately 49,600 gpd for the 124,00 square feet of existing building space to be replaced (per City criteria). The proposed Project does not include specific plans for graywater recycling, on-site treatment, or any other method that would reduce its wastewater flows to the municipal system. Impact Util-1: Increased Wastewater Flows. According to City of South San Francisco design wastewater flow estimates, the Project would contribute 116,653 gpd of sewage and industrial wastewater to the City's sanitary sewer system, which amounts to an increase of approximately 42.5 percent as compared with the existing building square footage on the site. The Project does not include conservation or recycling technologies that would lessen its wastewater flows to the municipal system. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Util-1: Sanitary Sewer Fees. The city of South San Francisco is currently upgrading its sanitary sewer facilities to handle increased flows from new development. In order to recover the costs of these upgrades, the City charges new development aflat-rate sewer connection fee and a monthly impact fee. The amount of the impact fee is based on the quantity (flow) of wastewater generated. The occupants of the proposed Project shall pay the sanitary sewer fees imposed by the City of South San Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of the sewer system upgrades necessary to manage the wastewater flows generated by the Project. The implementation of Mitigation Measure Util-la would reduce the impact of the Project's wastewater flows to a level of less-than-significant. The funding of South San Francisco's ongoing pipeline improvements and the scheduled upgrade of Pump Station #4 would ensure that the City's wastewater system has sufficient capacity to handle the increased flows generated by the Project. Therefore, this impact would be reduced to a level of less than significant. 12 Underground Piping Plan dated September 28, 2007 (SNCE Consulting Engineer). PAGE 12-8 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES EFFECTS ON GROUNDWATER, WATER QUALITY, AND PUBLIC HEALTH Wastewater flows from the proposed Project would include both domestic sewage and industrial wastes. The industrial wastewater at the Project site would be collected separately from the domestic sewage, and a sampling port would be installed in the industrial sewer line in accordance with the San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP Pretreatment Program. After the monitoring point, both wastewaters would be combined and routed through the City's sanitary sewers to the WQCP. The WQCP treats wastewater to secondary levels and discharges effluent to the San Francisco Bay in accordance with RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements. The Project would not have a negative effect on groundwater recharge, water quality, or public health.lVo impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. UTI LITY I N FRASTRUCTU RE CAPACITY Impact Util-2: Increased in Demand for Utilities. The Project would lead to an increase in demand for utilities such as potable water and sewer capacity. However, the new demand can be accommodated with existing facilities or planned upgrades. The Proj ect would have ales-than-significant impact on utility services and infrastructure with no mitigation warranted. The Project would not lead to an increase in demand for potable water that could not be fulfilled by the California Water Service Company, as stated in the South San Francisco General Plan. The wastewater treatment plant that serves the City and the trunk sewer system that would serve the Project site have recently been, or are in the process of being expanded and upgraded. This work will ensure adequate wastewater collection and treatment service over the City's buildout horizon. Because the existing drainage system in the East of 101 area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development, it is capable of accommodating large amounts of storm water from the large amount of impervious surfaces in the area. Thus, any redevelopment of existing development, including on the Project site, will generally not increase runo . The Project would have ales-than-significant impact on utility service and infrastructure in the City of South San Francisco and East of 101 area. LAN DFI LL CAPACITY Impact Util-3: Solid Waste Disposal. The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs, and would not require or result in construction of landfill facilities or expansion of existing facilities nor would it impede the ability of the City to meet the applicable federal, state and local statutes and 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 12-9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT regulations related to solid waste. The Project would have ales-than- signi~cant impact with no mitigation warranted. The City of South San Francisco's solid waste is transported to the Ox Mountain Landfill Facility, which has a permit to receive waste until 2016.13 Upon expiration of the permit, either Corinda Los Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill. Given the large amount of space still available at Ox Mountain, and the option of opening Apanolio Canyon after Ox Mountain is no longer available, the Proj ect would have a less-than-significant impact on solid waste service capacity. ENERGY The Proj ect would be considered to have a significant impact related to energy use if it would violate applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations relating to energy standards and/or if energy consumption increases resulting from the Project would trigger the need or expanded off site energy facilities. Impact Util-4: Increased Energy Consumption. The Project would have an incremental increase in the demand for gas and electrical power given the increase in development on the Project site. However, the Project is expected to be served with existing capacity and would not require or result in construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing off site facilities and would not violate applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations relating to energy standards. The Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to energy consumption with no mitigation warranted. The Project proposes replacement and expansion of existing office/R&D uses for 167,634 square feet of office/R&D space over what is currently on the Project site. Overall, the level of energy required for a Proj ect of this size and type would not be expected to violate applicable federal, state and local statues and regulations relating to energy standards or exceed PG&E service capacity or require new or expanded off site facilities. The Project would be required by the City to comply with all standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, aimed at the incorporation of energy-conserving design and construction. PG&E infrastructure exists on the Project site, and any improvements and extensions required to accommodate the Project would be determined in consultation with PG&E prior to installation. As a result, although the Project would incrementally increase energy consumption, it would not result in a significant impact related to the provision of energy services. 13 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. PAGE 12-10 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES CUMULATIVE UTILITIES IMPACTS Impact Util-5: Cumulative Demand for Utilities and Service Systems. The increased development resulting from the Project, in conjunction with other foreseeable development in the area, would not result in cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems and would be considered less- than-significant with identified project-level mitigation measures. As discussed previously in this chapter, the Project after mitigation would not result in significant project-level effects on the ability of the City of South San Francisco and other service providers to effectively deliver water supply, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage, solid waste, and energy services to the Project site. The Project site is located in a largely built-out urban area where utility services are currently provided. While the proposed Project as well as other foreseeable projects in the area would increase demand for utilities and service systems, intensification of development in the area is and has been anticipated by the City and service providers and is within what is planned for future capacity of these systems. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 12-11 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This Page Intentionally Left Blank PAGE 12-12 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT 13 ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines, 1970, as amended, Section 15126.6) require an EIR to include a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. The CEQA Guidelines also require that the EIR explain why specific project alternatives considered at one time in developing the Proj ect proposal were rejected in favor of the proposed Project. The selection of alternatives is to be guided by the provision of reasonable choices and the promotion of informed decision making and informed public participation. An EIR need not evaluate alternatives that would have effects that cannot be determined, or for which implementation would be remote and speculative. The Guidelines also require that the EIR specifically evaluate a "no project" alternative within this discussion and that an "environmentally superior" alternative be identified (Section 15126.6 [e]). The alternatives addressed in this EIR were selected based on the following factors: 1. The extent to which the alternative would accomplish most of the basic proj ect obj ectives 2. The extent to which the alternative would avoid or lessen any of the identified significant environmental effects of the project (discussed in Chapters 4 through 12) 3. The potential feasibility of the alternative (as discussed in this Chapter) 4. The extent to which the alternative contributes to a "reasonable range" of alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice The proposed Project is fully described in Chapter 3 of this EIR (Project Description). The environmental consequences associated with this Project are fully addressed in Chapters 4 through 12 of this EIR. In addition to the proposed Project, this EIR includes a discussion of the following alternatives: • No Project Alternative, which would leave the Proj ect site in its current state • Proposed Project with reduced intensity equating to 25% less floor area. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT • Proposed Project with reduced parking by 9.5% of city requirement and modified vehicular circulation including connectivity between proposed surface parking lots and ingress and egress access across the western site boundary. The proposed Project results in modification and expansion of an existing land use that is, in both the before and after situations, compliant with both the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. For this reason, alternative locations are not considered in this analysis. Alternate locations could not accomplish the city's adopted land use policy direction for the East of 101 Area. PROJECT OBJECTIVES CEQA requires the analysis of alternatives that would feasibly attain "most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project." 1 Therefore, the Project's stated obj ectives can be used as a metric against which an alternative can be measured when determining overall feasibility.2 Additionally, CEQA requires the evaluation of a proposed Project to address only impacts to the physical environment; economic and social effects can be analyzed only as one link in a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision (e.g., physical changes caused, in turn, buy economic and social changes).3 However, economic viability can be considered when determining the feasibility of a Project alternative.4 Applicant objectives are often expressed in terms of economic viability, particularly those proposing housing projects. Therefore, economic viability, as expressed in the Project objectives, can be considered among the factors for accepting or rej ecting a considered alternative. The following are applicant and city obj ectives that are fulfilled by the proposed Project (also outlined on page 3-2 of this document). Alternatives will be evaluated in part based on their ability to meet these obj ectives. 1. Construction of a new building for high technology research and development including office uses, 2. Build a project that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco, 3. Generate net property tax and other fees from the development project and enhance property values, 4. Build a proj ect which is viable in the East of 101 Area based upon market conditions and projected service requirements for the Area, 1 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 (a) ~ Ibid., Section 15126.6 (a) 3 Ibid., Section 15131. 4Ibid., Section 15126.6(f)(1). PAGE 13-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES 5. Develop a Project of high quality design as called for in the Design Element of the East of 101 area Plan and which integrates with adjoining properties, 6. Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the General Plan designation of the site for Business and Technology Park facilities, and 7. Continuing to develop the East of l of Area into a nationally recognized research and development center that will attract other life science and high technology businesses. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Development of the proposed Project would result in significant or potentially significant impacts to the following resources (before mitigation): • Aesthetics • Alr Quallty • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology • Land Use • Noise • Transportation and Circulation • Utilities and Service Systems Most of the potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through incorporation of mitigation measures. The following analysis presents the alternatives that were considered for this project. Each alternative is examined for its ability to reduce environmental impacts relative to the proposed Project, feasibility of implementation, and ability to meet most basic project objectives. The three alternatives considered in this EIR would all have the same or lessened impacts on Traffic and Circulation and Air Quality than the proposed Project. Impacts in the other topic areas of Aesthetics, Geology and Soils, Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Utilities would be the same or minimally reduced by these alternatives. Table 13-4 at the end of this Chapter shows a summary comparison of the impacts of these alternatives, while a more detailed discussion of each alternative is provided below. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Description Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain as it is today, with four existing 1 & 2 story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet providing for office land uses. While it is possible the site will be redeveloped at some future point even if a project does not proceed at this time, there is no reason to believe this would happen in the near-term or that new development would necessarily be more intensive than the existing development. Therefore, the No Project Alternative presumes the site would remain in its current state. Impact Anal The No Proj ect Alternative would not involve any change to the Proj ect site and so would not introduce any new environmental impacts. The impacts associated with the existing Project site constitute the baseline for evaluation in this EIR. Therefore, this baseline situation results in no new impacts. However, leaving the site in its current state would avoid all construction- related impacts as demolition, grading, and construction. Because the No Project Alternative would not involve modifications to the existing developed site condition, it would not improve landscaping to levels aesthetically consistent with other modern development in the area and as required in applicable land use regulations. TABLE 13-1. TRIP GENERATION - NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Building Trips Square Footage per Thousand Square Feet 1 Daily Trips Project 291,634 11.01 3,210 No Project Alternative 124,000 11.01 1,365 Notes: 1 See Chapter ll; Traffic, Trip Generation Table 11-13. This rate presumes office uses as those are higher traffic-generating than R&D uses and the proposed mix of the two is unknown. No reductions from the TDM program are shown for this comparison as TDM reductions are targeted at peak hours rather than daily rates. Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives The No Project Alternative would not change the existing condition of the site, and so would not meet any of the Project's basic objectives to the same degree as the proposed Project. This Alternative would not upgrade or expand Research and Development uses, it would not accomplish the General Plan objectives to create acampus-like facility with employee amenities, nor would it provide new j obs or increased revenues. This alternative would not fulfill the East of 101 Sub-Area Plan's stated purpose "to maximize the potential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City's traditional PAGE 13-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES industrial East of 101 area. Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for quality design are important components of the Plan."5 It would prevent the establishment of the large amount of landscaping and design improvements that are being proposed for the site by the Project applicant to further meet the design guidelines for the East of 101 Area. REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE Description Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a measurement of the intensity of development calculated by dividing the total square footage of the building by the total square footage of the site. Aone- story building that covers 100% of a site would have an FAR of 1 as would atwo-story building that covers only 50% of a site. This analysis considers a reduced FAR of the Project. Under this alternative, the Project's FAR would be reduced from the currently proposed 1.0 FAR for a total 291,634 square feet of building space, to an FAR of 0.75, for a total square footage of 218,275. This Alternative represents a 25% reduction in the amount of building space proposed to be built on the Project site, which equates to at least two stories less building height excluding the proposed parking garage. Impact Analysis The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant under the proposed Project. Less than significant impacts are discussed only if implementation of the alternative will substantially increase the impact. Impact Summary Reduced development intensity proposed under this Alternative would produce fewer vehicle trips and less air pollutant emissions. However, the Alternative's resulting degree of trip generation reduction would not reduce traffic levels sufficiently to reduce either the C/CAG peak hour trip generation limit impact (Traf 1), nor any off site traffic impact to a less than significant level. Reduced square footage would result in a shorter construction phase so a reduced impact related to construction noise and diesel emissions from construction vehicles. Reduced square footage would also be expected to result in a reduced number of workers/level of operations so would translate to a reduction in the operational use of hazardous materials and potential for hazardous materials-related impacts. A reduction in the number of workers on site would also slightly reduce impacts related to geological events that could pose a danger to people as there would be fewer people on site. 5 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan,1994 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Overall, this Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Aesthetics Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be upgrading the site with highly designed buildings and extensive landscaping and would have no significant aesthetic impacts. Air Quality Because this Alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips to the Project site than the proposed Project, air quality impacts associated with vehicle trips would be slightly less than those identified under the proposed Project. The proposed Project's total (not subtracting for existing uses to be replaced) emissions are estimated at 19.09 pounds per day (lbs/day) for ROG, 23.18 lbs/day for NOX, and 29.47 lbs./day for PMIO. URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.2) model estimates for this Alternative's emission results in amounts of 14.32 lbs./day for ROG, 17.39 lbs./day for NOX, and 22.11 lbs./day for PMIO. All of these emissions are below the threshold of significance. While the building size would be reduced under this Alternative, the footprint of the buildings would be expected to remain the same. Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same or similar air quality impacts related to construction activities at the site as the proposed Project and mitigation measure Air-1 would be required to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. As with the proposed Project, despite contributing only less-than-significant levels to cumulative air quality impacts, this Alternative will also be required to create and follow a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan (Mitigation Air-3) that will reduce the number of vehicle trips and therefore the amount of emissions. Geology and Soils Impacts to the exposure of people and/or structures to strong seismic groundshaking and the effects of liquefaction, densification, and settlement would be slightly reduced under this Alternative as compared to the proposed Project due to the fact that fewer people would be employed at the Project site, thereby slightly reducing the risk of human injury. Mitigation measures Geo-2a, Geo-2b, Geo-2c, Geo-3a, Geo-3b, and Geo-4 would be required to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Impacts related to increases in erosion during the construction phase of the Project and the potential for differential settlement due to unstable soils and Bay Mud would be the same as those described for the proposed Project. It is assumed that while there would be less square footage constructed under this Alternative, the footprint of the project would not change. As a result, no decreases in the potential for erosion or the exposure of structures to differential PAGE 13-6 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES settlements would be realized by this Alternative. Mitigations Geo-4 and Geo-6 would be required to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts related to the potential for accidental upset, release, and environmental contamination of hazardous materials during project operation, and the potential impacts on the nearby children's center would be slightly reduced under this Alternative as compared to the proposed Project due to the fact that reduction in building size would reduce research and development activities on site with fewer employees and decreased use of hazardous materials. Mitigation measures Haz-1 a through Haz-1 e, Haz-2b, and Haz-5 would be required to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Similar to the proposed Project, this Alternative would result in impacts related to construction such as release of hazardous materials from structure materials during demolition, fugitive contaminated dust during grading and construction, potential contact with contaminated soils and groundwater, and the potential impacts on the nearby children's center. It is assumed that while there would be less square footage constructed under this Alternative, the footprint of the buildings would not change. Therefore, hazardous materials impacts related to construction would remain the same as with the proposed Project with the following mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: Haz-2a, Haz-3a, Haz-3b, and Haz-4. Hydrology While the square footage on the Project site under this Alternative would be reduced by approximately 25%, the project footprint would not be expected to change under this Alternative. As a result, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the same or similar impacts to hydrology and water quality as those described for the proposed Project. Mitigations measures Hydro-1 through Hydro-4 would be required to reduce impacts to less- than-significant levels. Land Use and Planning Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not result in any significant land use impacts. Noise Because the total square footage of the Project would be reduced by approximately 25% under this alternative, it is expected that construction phases would be shortened, thereby decreasing the duration of construction-related noise in the Project area and resulting in somewhat reduced construction-related noise impacts compared to those described for the proposed Project. Mitigation measure Noise-2 would result in this Alternative having, like the Proj ect, ales-than-significant impact. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-7 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Transportation and Circulation Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in new vehicle trips in the vicinity. The number of trips generated under this Alternative would still result in an increase over the threshold of 100 new vehicle trips, triggering the requirement of a TDM Plan. TABLE 13-2. TRIP GENERATION -REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE Building Trips per Thousand Square Square Footage Feet l Daily Trips Project 291,634 11.01 3,210 Reduced Intensity Alternative 218,275 11.01 2,403 Notes: 1 See Chapter 11; Traffic, Trip Generation Table 11-13. This rate presumes office uses as those are higher traffic-generating than R&D uses and the proposed mix of the two is unknown. No reductions from the TDM program are shown for this comparison as TDM reductions are targeted at peak hours rather than daily rates. As shown in Table 13-2 above, when compared to the proposed Project, this alternative would reduce peak hour trip generation by 25 percent. However, this degree of trip generation reduction would not reduce traffic levels sufficiently to reduce either the CICAG peak hour trip generation limit impact (Traf 1), nor any off site traffic impact to a less than significant level (Intersection Level of Service [Traf 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ]; Signalization Needs [Traf 12]; Intersection Queuing [Traf 13, 14, 15, 16]; and Off Ramp Diverge [Traf 17]). In addition, it could not necessarily be assumed that the one significant on-site impact (pedestrian circulation) would be acceptable in a revised reduced intensity sight plan, although this would be easy to mitigate. Impact Traf 17 (unacceptable operation of the diverge of the U. S. l o l southbound off ramp to the Oyster PointlGateway intersection) would remain a significant, unavoidable impact. Utilities and Service Systems As the Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the total square footage of the project, fewer employees would be accommodated at the Project site. This reduction in employees would translate to reduced wastewater flows relative to the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts related to increased wastewater flows would be somewhat reduced under the Alternative as compared to the Project. Mitigation measures Util-1 a and Util-1 b would be required to reduce the impact to ales-than-significant level. PAGE 13-8 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives Like the proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would support all Project obj ectives albeit to a lesser degree. Furthered Proj ect obj ectives include an increase in quality jobs, additional tax and fee generation, and the upgrading and provision of quality research and development facilities in the East of 101 Area. However, this Alternative would not, as discussed above, result in the avoidance or lessening of the Project's identified significant impacts to a less than significant level. REDUCED PARKING & MODIFIED CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE Description Under the Reduced Parking and Modified Circulation Alternative, the Project's parking would be reduced from the currently proposed 828 stalls to 748 stalls, as shown in Table 13- 3, and on-site vehicle circulation would be modified by providing connectivity between surface parking lots vis-a-vis demolition of the existing building at 215 E. Grand Avenue. Also, vehicular ingress and egress would be provided across the westerly property line connecting to Forbes Boulevard. The reduction in parking would coincide with the target reduction in peak hour single occupancy vehicles of 9.5 percent, which is derived from the conservative assumptions used for the traffic modeling for the General Plan Amendment, from the City's standard Research and Development parking requirements (City of South San Francisco Municipal Code section 20.74.060). TABLE 13-3. COMPARISON OF PARKING PROVISIONS -REDUCED PARKING & MODIFIED CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE Parking Spaces Reduction from Required Parking R&D Regulations) 826 n/a Proposed Project 828 +0.3% Reduced Parking Alternative 748 -9.5% Notes: 1 Required parking as per the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code section 20.74.060: Research and Development - 1 parking space for every 250 sq. ft. up to 50,000 sq. ft. plus 3 parking spaces for every 1,000 sq. ft. over 50,000 sq. ft. The Reduced Parking and Modified Circulation Alternative would more closely align with the TDM plans assumption for parking needs associated with reduced vehicle trips. Reduced parking would coincide with the City of South San Francisco's policy to promote reduction in parking from City zoning standards as a way to support trip reduction goals required per the City's TDM ordinance and supported by various policies in the General Plan (G.P. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Policies 4.3-1-8, 11 and 12). However, this may conflict, to an undeterminable extent, with the Project objective to result in a viable development based on market conditions since some building occupants may self impose higher parking requirements based upon private business plans. Impact Anal The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant under the proposed Project. Less than significant impacts are discussed only if implementation of the Alternative will substantially increase the impact. Impact Summary Reduced parking could reasonably be assumed to result in fewer vehicle trips and therefore lessened traffic and related air quality impacts. However, as the discussion below will explain, this assumption proves incorrect in this case. This alternative would also allow for a reduced parking structure and therefore a somewhat shorter phase for construction-related noise. A slightly modified vehicular circulation pattern would have no further effect on reducing vehicle trips and no discernable change to the construction period. With no other changes to the Project, all other impacts would remain the same or similar under this Alternative as under the proposed Project. Overall, this Alternative would result in impacts the same or similar to the proposed Project. Aesthetics Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Parking and Modified Circulation Alternative would also upgrade the site with buildings of higher quality architecture and landscaping area additions. Consequently, no significant aesthetic impacts would result. Air Quality As compared to the proposed Project, this Alternative would result in the same or similar air quality impacts. The proposed Project's total (worst case scenario not subtracting for existing uses to be replaced or mitigation measures) emissions are estimated at 19.09 pounds per day (lbs/day) for ROG, 23.18 lbs/day for NOX, and 29.47 lbs./day for PMIO. URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.2) model estimates for this Alternative's emission results in the same amount as the proposed Project. As compared to the proposed Project, this Alternative would also result in the same or similar air quality impacts related to construction activities at the site, which would not be reduced because the building footprints are not expected to change. While increased demolition activities related to the removal of the structure at 215 E. Grand Avenue would result, Mitigation Air-1 would be required to reduce all demolition-related air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. PAGE 13-10 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES Similar to the proposed Project and despite contributing only less-than-significant levels to cumulative air quality impacts, this Alternative would also be required to create and follow a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan (Mitigation Air-3) that will reduce the number of vehicle trips and therefore the amount of emissions. Geology and Soils Impacts to the exposure of people and/or structures to strong seismic groundshaking and the effects of liquefaction, densification, and settlement would be the same or similar under this Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. Mitigations Geo-2a, Geo-2b, Geo-2c, Geo- 3a, Geo-3b, and Geo-4 would be required to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Impacts related to increases in erosion during the construction phase of the Project and the potential for differential settlement due to unstable soils and Bay Mud would be the same as those described for the proposed Project. It is assumed that while the parking garage would have reduced square-footage under this Alternative, the footprint of the buildings would not change. As a result, no decreases in the potential for erosion or the exposure of structures to differential settlements would be realized by this Alternative. Mitigations Geo-4, Geo-6a, and Geo-6b would be required to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Hazards and Hazardous Materials While the size of the parking structure would be reduced under this Alternative and the footprint of the buildings would not be expected to change, this alternative would result in the demolition of one additional building at 215 E. Grand Avenue. Therefore, as compared to the proposed Project, there may be an increased risk for potential release of hazardous materials from structure materials during demolition, such as fugitive contaminated dust during grading and construction, potential contact with contaminated soils and groundwater, the potential for accidental upset, release, and environmental contamination of hazardous materials during project operation, and the potential impacts on children's daycare in the vicinity. However, Mitigation measures Haz-1 a through Haz-1 e, Haz-2a, Haz-2b, Haz-3 a, Haz-3b, Haz-4, Haz-5, Haz-6a, and Haz-6b would have equal effect in reducing impacts relating to this Alternative to less-than-significant levels. Hydrology While the square footage of the parking garage under this Alternative would be reduced, the project footprint would not change under this Alternative. Also, as the adjacent property at 215 E. Grand Avenue consists of 100% impervious surface, altered circulation would include landscape areas increasing the total permeable surface area. As a result, this Alternative would result in the same or similar impacts to hydrology and water quality as those described for the proposed Project. Mitigations measures Hydro-1 through Hydro-4 would be required to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-11 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Land Use and Planning Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Parking and Modified Circulation Alternative would not result in any significant land use impacts. Noise While the amount of building demolition would slightly increase under this Alternative, noise impacts would be similar compared to those described for the proposed Project since the total construction timeframe would be minimally altered. Demolition of one additional building located at 215 E. Grand Avenue would likely take less than one day. Moreover, any increase beyond this would be adequately addressed by Mitigation measure Noise-2 and which would reduce the impact to ales-than-significant level. Transportation and Circulation Similar to the proposed Project, this Alternative would result in new vehicle trips in the Vlclnlty. However, when compared to the proposed Project, this alternative would reduce peak hour trip generation by about 10 to 15 percent. This Alternative would result in a degree of trip generation reduction insufficient to reduce either the C/CAG peak hour trip generation limit impact (Traf 1) nor any off site traffic impact to a less than significant level (Intersection Level of Service [Traf 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ]; Signalization Needs [Traf 12]; Intersection Queuing [Traf 13, 14, 15, 16]; and Off Ramp Diverge [Traf 17]). In addition, it could not necessarily be assumed that the one significant on-site impact (pedestrian circulation) would be acceptable in a revised reduced intensity sight plan, although this would easily mitigated by Measure Traf 5 (Sidewalks and Crosswalks). Impact Traf 17 (Off Ramp Operation and Mainline Diverge) would remain a significant, unavoidable impact due to the inability to provide a second off ramp lane connection from the U.S.101 mainline to the southbound off ramp providing access to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. The limited spacing between the southbound off ramps to Bayshore Boulevard and to Oyster Point Boulevard precludes making this improvement. This impact would be reduced under this alternative, but would still remain significant and unavoidable. Utilities As compared to the proposed Project, this Reduced Parking and Modified Circulation Alternative would result in the same or similar impacts related to increased wastewater flows and mitigation measures Util-1 a and Util-1 b would be required to reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. PAGE 13-12 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives Like the proposed Project, the Reduced Parking Alternative would support all project objectives including increasing quality jobs, generating taxes and other fees, and upgrading and providing quality research and development facilities for the continued development of the East of 101 Area. Because this Alternative would have the same square-footage for officelResearch and Development activities, it would result in a Project that would meet all the objectives to the same degree as would the proposed Project and would additionally coincide with the City's policy to promote reduction in parking from City zoning standards in conjunction with a TDM Plan. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project be identified in an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines also require that "if the environmentally superior alternative is the `no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives. Consideration of the alternatives to the proposed Project reveals that the environmentally superior alternative would be the No Project Alternative, since it would result in no new environmental impacts. However, in the absence of the No Project Alternative, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be designated as environmentally superior. It would reduce the project's air emissions while fulfilling the Project Objectives albeit to lesser degree as the proposed Project. A reduction in vehicle trips and related air emissions would be achieved by project design, through provision of a reduced building area in conjunction with a TDM Plan. Table 13-4, on the following pages, provides a summary comparison of the environmental impacts (after mitigation) between the proposed Project and the alternatives. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-13 CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES TABLE 13-4. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS, PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance . Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative Impact Vis-1: Scenic Vista. Areas from which views of San Bruno Mountains-a prominent visual landmark in South San Francisco-maybe adversely affected are not designated scenic vistas, nor are they places where people might be expected LTS _ S S to gather in order to view the San Bruno Mountains, therefore, the Proj ect would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas with no mitigation warranted. Impact Vis-2: Light and Glare. The many windows and outdoor lights associated with increased development intensity on the Project site could potentially be substantial sources of day and LTS S S nighttime glare. However, the Project proposes use _ of materials and lighting that would reduce the amount of glare to ales-than-significant level. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Impact Air-1: Construction Dust and Exhaust. Construction activity involves a high potential for the emission of air pollutants. Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from LTS _ S S vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. This would be a potentially significant impact. Impact Air-2: Carbon Monoxide. Mobile emissions generated by Project traffic would increase carbon monoxide concentrations at intersections in the Project vicinity. However, these LTS - - - increases would be below significance thresholds of the Air Quality Management District so would be considered aless-than-significant impact. Therefore, no mitigation is required. LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-14 CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative Impact Air-3: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. The proposed Project would contribute to regional air quality emissions but would not exceed BAAQNID emissions thresholds for ROG, NOx and PM10. This would be considered a less than significant impact. LTS - - - While the Project is not expected to have a significant impact on cumulative air quality, the following mitigation measure has been proposed to ensure that cumulative air quality impacts remain less than significant. Impact Air-4: Future Emissions Near Sensitive Receptors. The Project could include laboratory facilities or stationary equipment (e.g., standby emergency generators) that emit air pollution. These sources could emit small amounts of toxic air contaminants with the potential to affect LTS - - S sensitive receptors, such as the childcare facility at 371 Allerton Avenue. This impact, however, would bereduced to aless-than-significant level with standard BAAQMD permitting requirements and mitigation measures Haz-4a and Haz-4b identified in this EIR. Impact Air-5: Construction-Related Diesel Odors. During construction, the various diesel- poweredvehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the Project site's boundaries. As the LTS S S potential for diesel odor impacts would not affect a - substantial amount of people, this impact is less than significant and is further reduced by Measures to Reduce Construction Exhaust in mitigation measure Air- l .Therefore, no mitigation is required. LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-cases) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-15 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative Impact Air-6: Operational-Related Objectionable Odors. While it is not known at this time exactly what businesses will occupy the completed Project, these businesses will be LTS - - S required to conform to applicable air quality regulations ensuring that any odors resulting from operations will remain at aless-than-significant level. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Impact Geo-1: Surface Fault Rupture. According to the latest available maps, the Project site is not contained within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. Published geologic maps of the area show the Hillside fault as lying 1,100 feet north of the site, but this fault is LTS - S S not considered active or potentially active, with an estimated age of most recent movement greater than 1.6 million years ago. The potential impact of surface fault rupture is considered less than significant. Impact Geo-2: Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a high probability that the proposed development will be subjected to strong to violent ground LTS S shaking from an earthquake during its design life. - - Strong to violent seismic ground shaking is considered a potentially significant impact. Impact Geo-3: Liquefaction, Densification, and Ground Surface Settlement. The Association of Bay Area Governments identifies the Project area as an area of high hazard for liquefaction. Liquefaction or densification of soils underlying the site could result in settlement and differential LTS - - S settlement of site improvements including buildings, pavements, and utilities and pose a threat to human health. The potential for liquefaction of site soils is considered a potentially significant impact. LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. PAGE 13-16 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative Impact Geo-4: Unstable Soils and Bay Mud. Undocumented fill soils are present on most of the subject site. Due to the presence of soil contamination at the site, these soils have not been reworked to provide a stable foundation for buildings, pavements and utilities. Fill soils of unknown quality are present in the proposed building and parking areas. Fill soils may settle due LTS S S to new building loads. Bay Mud and alluvial soil - deposits are present on adjacent sites and also constitute areas of potentially unstable soils. Bay Mud is likely present under portions of the Project site and may settle under design loading conditions resulting in differential settlement of structures. The presence of unstable soil and Bay Mud is a potentially significant impact. Impact Geo-6: Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading at a location which drains stormwater to the San Francisco Bay. Demolition of existing structures and pavements could expose underlying contaminated soil to the elements. Excavation of soil for construction of new buildings and pavement sections would also be performed and temporary stockpiles of loose soil LTS S S will be created. Soils exposed during site grading - would be subject to erosion during storm events. Grading would disturb site soils potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco Bay. This would be a potentially significant ijnpact during and following site construction activities. Impact Geo-7: Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts. Strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction and densification during seismic LTS - - S ground shaking, underlying unstable soils and bay mud, and soil erosion during Project construction and post construction are common impacts to LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-cases) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-17 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative projects located in the vicinity. The proposed Project would be one of numerous sites anticipated to undergo development/redevelopment in the vicinity and would contribute to a cumulative increase in sites facing these impacts. However, the Proj ect-specific contribution would be reduced by identified Project-specific mitigation measures to a less than significant level with no additional mitigation required. Impact Haz-1: Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed development is for construction of anine-story building for Class A laboratory and office use, a parking garage, central courtyard, and associated landscaping and infrastructure. Class A refers to a research laboratory, not merely an instructional laboratory. Depending upon the nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, for which detailed information has not yet been provided, there are likely to be both hazardous and potentially S S hazardous materials stored and used on the site that - - will eventually require disposal. There are likely to be biological hazards, chemical hazards and risk of fire or explosion. There is also likely to be transportation of hazardous materials to and from the site, probably traveling along Highway 101 and East Grand Avenue. The risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment is a potentially significant impact. Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. During demolition operations hazardous materials could be released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Following LTS - - S construction, operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of hazardous materials since the site is proposed to LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. PAGE 13-18 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative include Class A laboratory facilities, where hazardous materials may be stored, used, and disposed of. This represents a potentially significant impact. Impact Haz-3: Exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater. During demolition and construction, workers could be exposed to contaminated soil and groundwater. Following site development, future maintenance work is also likely to penetrate into the subsurface where contamination remains. Soil and groundwater LTS - S S disturbance presents an exposure hazard to workers and trespassers. Disturbance of the subsurface also increases the potential for contamination to spread through surface water runoff, creation of seepage pathways, and through wind blown dust. These impacts are potentially significant. Impact Haz-4: Contaminated Dust. The Early Years Children's Center is located at 371 Allerton Avenue, approximately one-quarter mile eastward and downwind of the northeast corner of the property. During grading, contaminated soils that are currently buried would be disturbed. Disturbed soils could be mobilized by movement of heavy LTS - S S equipment and the wind, resulting in potential dispersal of contamination. Dispersed contaminants, of which the most probable is lead, could be inhaled, ingested or adsorbed and present a potential health hazard. Dispersal of contaminated dust during demolition and grading would be a potentially significant impact. Impact Haz-5: Future Emissions Near Schools. Since the proposed development includes research laboratory facilities, it is likely that hazardous chemicals will be stored and used on the property. LTS - - S In certain circumstances these chemicals could spill, mix, ignite, or volatilize and cause a hazardous emission near the childcare center, LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-cases) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-19 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative which would be a potentially significant impact. Impact Haz-7: Airport Land Use Plan. The proposed Project would be located within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport. According to the East of 101 Area Specific Plan (available online through the City of South San Francisco Planning Department website), the most stringent height limits in South San Francisco are south of Forbes Boulevard and Lindenville, including the Project LTS S S area. In this area Federal Aviation Regulations, Part - 77, limits building heights to an elevation of 161 feet above mean sea level, approximately 12 tol4 stories. Since the tallest building portion would not exceed 161 feet in height, the Project would be in compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan. The impact of the Project on the Airport Land Use Plan is less than significant with no mitigation warranted. Impact Haz-7: Cumulative Hazardous Impacts. The proposed Project would be one of numerous sites, some of which are also existing hazardous materials sites that are anticipated to undergo development/redevelopment in the vicinity. The Project would contribute to a cumulative increase in the number of sites handling hazardous materials, both in the vicinity in general as well as near a school, and would result in a cumulative LTS - - S increase in transportation, use, disposal, and potential for exposure to and/or accidental release of hazardous materials during both construction and operations. However, the cumulative impact is expected to be slight and identified Project-specific mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level with no additional mitigation required. Impact Hydro-1: No Treatment ofLoading / LTS - S S Trash Area Runoff. Development of the proposed LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. PAGE 13-20 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative Project would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering downstream waters, including the San Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants also have the potential to infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of groundwater drinking sources. No water quality BMPs have been proposed for the Loading I Trash Area. This area represents a source of suspended solids, petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals and other Source Point pollutants related to temporary waste storage. The majority of the Project designs will reduce non-point source pollution, but the lack of treatment of parking lot runoff represent a potentially significant impact. Impact Hydro-2: Site Soil and Groundwater Elevations May Be Unsuitable for Vegetated Swales. Appropriate evaluation of site conditions is critical to the effectiveness of vegetated swales. The site history of soil contamination and high groundwater conditions may render vegetated swales unsuitable. This issue of feasibility maybe compounded by potential future chemical or LTS - S S hazardous material storage on-site unless they are prevented from entering the swales. The majority of the Project designs will reduce non-point source pollution, but the untested feasibility of vegetated bioswales represents a potentially significant impact. Impact Hydro-3: Potential Contamination of Local Groundwater. The Project site is located within a groundwater basin as defined by the DWR. The potential for groundwater LTS - S S contamination from infiltration BMPs must be carefully considered, especially in areas where the distance between groundwater and the swale invert LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-cases) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-21 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative is small or where groundwater is or could potentially be used for human consumption or agricultural purposes. The infiltration of industrial and parking lot pollutants into shallow groundwater could potentially impair the quality of local groundwater sources. This represents a potentially significant impact. Impact Hydro-4: Erosion or siltation on- or off- site. Construction of the proposed Project would involve demolition of existing structural foundations and pavement areas that currently help to stabilize site soils. Although no cut/fill estimates were available for review, significant site grading is expected to occur. Construction operations LTS - S S associated with the Project would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff. Additionally, new onsite stormdrains may require excavation of the soil cap and potentially, the soil below. Impact Hydro-5: Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Project site is not located in an area that would expose persons to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The site is nearly level and does not lie in close proximity to a large lake or the ocean. Although - S S seismically induced waves are a possibility in the LTS Bay, the site elevations are above those considered to be at risk for tsunami wave run-up. Consequently, this impact would beless-than- significantwith no mitigation required. Impact Hydro-6: Cumulative Impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality. The increased construction activity and new development resulting from the Project, in conjunction with LTS - S S other foreseeable development in the city, would result in less than significant impacts on hydrology and water quality conditions with no additional LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. PAGE 13-22 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative mitigation measures necessary. Impact Noise-1: Permanent Noise Increases. Project-generated traffic noise and other operational noise sources such as HVAC equipment would not exceed noise standards and LTS S would not significantly increase ambient noise - - levels nor substantially impact noise-sensitive receptors. This would be aless-than-significant impact with no mitigation warranted. Impact Noise-2: Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. This would be a potentially significant impact associated with Project LTS - S S development. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. Impact Noise-3: Cumulative Noise Increases. The proposed Project, together with anticipated future development in the area could result in long- term traffic increases that could cumulatively increase noise levels. However, these increases are LTS - S S not anticipated to be noticeable in the context of existing ambient noise and the Proj ect's impact on cumulative noise increases would be considered less-than-significant with no mitigation warranted. Impact Traf-1: Project Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The Project would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak hours (377 two-way (inbound + outbound) trips during the AM peak hour and 365 LTS - S S two-way trips during the PM peak hour (see Table 11-13)). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (CICAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the LTS =Less Than Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed S =Significant Project. An "s" (lower-cases) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-23 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) proj ected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact. Impact Traf 2: Site lines at East Grand Avenue Driveway. The Project's driveway connection to East Grand Avenue would be located about 300 feet east of the Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection and about 220 feet west of the Roebling Road intersection. Sight lines at the Project's only driveway connection along East LTS S S Grand Avenue, where right turns only would be - allowed, would be at least 420 feet to the east (to see westbound traffic). Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 40 miles per hour (five miles greater than the posted speed limit) would be 305 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at this location. Impact Traf-3: Sight Lines at Roebling Road Driveways. Roebling Road is straight and level along its 600-foot length adjacent to the Project. Proj ect driveways would be located along the west side of the street about 200 feet, 440 feet and 600 feet from East Grand Avenue. Speeds along LTS S S Roebling Road are now 25 miles per hour or less - and would be expected to remain at this level with the Project. Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour would be 155 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at these driveways. Impact Traf 4: Internal Vehicular Circulation. The internal circulation plan as shown on the 9/28/07 site plan by DGAPlanning / Architecture I LTS - S S Interiors appears acceptable. Each Project driveway along Roebling Road would be channelized at least 40 feet internal to the site, with the East Grand A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the LTS =Less Than Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed S =Significant Project. An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. PAGE 13-24 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative Avenue driveway being channelized at least 50 feet internal to the parking lot. In addition, all surface lot parking aisles are shown to be 25 feet or greater in width, which meets City code criteria and good traffic engineering practice. Also, all garage parking aisles are shown to be at least 25 feet wide, which meets City code criteria. Impact Traf-5: Internal Pedestrian Circulation. Internal walkways are shown on the site plan connecting all buildings and connecting the buildings to the sidewalk along Roebling Road. However, there are no walkway connections shown LTS - S S between the sidewalk along East Grand Avenue and the Project's main entrance. The auto driveway would need to be used for pedestrian access. Impact Traf-6: On-Site Parking. A total of 826 spaces would be required based upon City code LTS S S criteria, while a total of 828 on-site parking spaces - would be provided. Impact Traf-7: Grade Crossing Approaches Missing Signing and Pavement Striping. The State Public Utilities Commission (September 26, 2006 letter to City of South San Francisco) has noted in a recent inspection that the East Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection grade crossing is not up to minimum LTS - S S standards on one or more approaches for required advanced warning signing and pavement striping (i.e. R15-1 and W-10-1 signs as well as RxR pavement striping). This results in an existing safety concern that would be aggravated by the addition of Project traffic. Impact Traf-8: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a LTS - - S significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Tables A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the LTS =Less Than Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed S =Significant Project. An "s" (lower-cases) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-25 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative 11-1 and 11-2). • E. Grand Avenue /Gateway Boulevard AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 5.0 percent at a location where acceptable LOS D Base Case signalization operation would be degraded to unacceptable LOS E operation. Impact Traf 9: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2). • E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way AM Peak Hour: The Pro'ect would increase J LTS - - S volumes by 7.5 percent at a location with Base Case LOS D operation being degraded to LOS F operation. PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 8.5 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized operation. Impact Traf 10: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2). LTS - - s • E. Grand Avenue /Roebling Road PM Peak Hour: The Project would degrade acceptable Base Case LOS D operation of the stop sign controlled Roebling Road approach to an unacceptable LOS F. Impact Traf 11: Intersection Level of Service. LTS - - S The following intersection would receive a LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. PAGE 13-26 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Tables 11-1 and 11-2). • Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 3.4 percent at a location with acceptable LOS D Base Case signalized operation being degraded to unacceptable LOS E operation. Impact Traf-12: Intersection Signalization Needs. The analysis concluded that the East Grand Avenue /Roebling Road unsignalized intersection would receive a significant signal warrant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 LTS S Base Case PM peak hour volumes. Volumes would - - be increased by more than two percent (7.73%) at the one nearby unsignalized intersection where Base Case volumes would already be meeting peak hour signal warrant criteria levels (see Table 11-3). Impact Traf-13: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing - Synchro software evaluation. The following approach to an intersection providing direct access to the Project site would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-11). • E. Grand Avenue /Roebling Road LTS - - S (unsignalized) AM Peak Hour: The Proj ect would increase volumes by 217 percent in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue at an unsignalized intersection LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-cases) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-27 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative would be extended from 70 up to 225 feet in a location with only 75 feet of storage. PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 210 percent in the left turn lane on the E. Grand Avenue approach to Roebling Road at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue at an unsignalized intersection would be extended from 75 up to 125 feet in a location with only 75 feet of storage. Impact Traf-14: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing. The following approach to an adjacent intersection leading away from an off ramp would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-11). • Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue LTS - - s AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 5.9 percent in the left turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Grand Avenue at a location with unacceptable Base Case 95th percentile queuing. The 95th percentile vehicle queue would be extended from 475 up to about 510 feet in a location with only 320 feet of storage. Impact Traf 15: Off-Ramp Queuing To Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours - SIMtraffic evaluation. The following off ramp would receive a significant impact with backups extending to the freeway mainline sometime during one or both peak hours due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes. LTS - - S • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp Flyover to E. Grand Avenue /Gateway Boulevard Intersection AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 2.4 percent on the off ramp and by LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. PAGE 13-28 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative 1.8 percent at the Oyster Point I Gateway Boulevard intersection with year 2015 Base Case off ramp traffic occasionally backing up to the freeway mainline. Impact Traf-16: Off-Ramp Queuing To Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours - SIMTraffic evaluation. The following off ramp would receive a significant impact with backups extending to the freeway mainline sometime during one or both peak hours due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes. LTS - - s • U. S. l O l Southbound Off Ramp to Airport Boulevard I Miller Avenue Intersection AM Peak Hour: The Proj ect would increase volumes by 4.8 percent at a location with year 2015 Base Case off ramp traffic occasionally backing up to the freeway mainline. Impact Traf-17: Off Ramp Operation At Mainline Diverge. The following off ramp diverge location from the U. 5.101 freeway mainline would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-6). • U.S.101 Southbound Off Ramp to Oyster S - S S Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase off ramp volumes by 2.4 percent (from 1,678 up to 1,718 vehicles) with Base Case volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour. Impact Traf-18: On-Ramp Operation. The analysis concluded that no on-ramp to the U. 5.101 freeway would receive a significant impact due to LTS - S S the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-7). LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-cases) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-29 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative Impact Traf-19: Freeway Mainline Operation. No U.S.101 mainline segments would receive a significant impact due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 11-12). Although there would be one segment of the freeway during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation, the project would add less than a one percent increase in traffic to both locations. • U.S.101 Southbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interchange) AM Peak Hour: The Project would increase LTS - - S volumes by 0.98 percent (from 10,042 to 10,140 vehicles per hour) at a location with unacceptable LOS F year 2015 Base Case operation. • U. 5.101 Northbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interchange) PM Peak Hour: The Project would increase volumes by 0.875 percent (from 10,123 to 10,211 vehicles per hour) at a location with unacceptable LOS F year 2015 Base Case operation. Impact Util-1: Increased Wastewater Flows. According to City of South San Francisco design wastewater flow estimates, the Proj ect would contribute 116,653 gpd of sewage and industrial wastewater to the City's sanitary sewer system, which amounts to an increase of approximately LTS - - S 42.5 percent as compared with the existing building square footage on the site. The Project does not include conservation or recycling technologies that would lessen its wastewater flows to the municipal system. This is a potentially significant impact. LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. PAGE 13-30 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative Impact Util-2: Increased in Demand for Utilities. The Proj ect would lead to an increase in demand for utilities such as potable water and sewer capacity. However, the new demand can be LTS S accommodated with existing facilities or planned - - upgrades. The Project would have aless-than- significantimpact on utility services and infrastructure with no mitigation warranted. Impact Util-3: Solid Waste Disposal. The landfill would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs, and would not require or result in construction of landfill facilities or expansion of existing facilities nor would it impede LTS - - S the ability of the City to meet the applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Project would have a less-than-significant impact with no mitigation warranted. Impact Util-4: Increased Energy Consumption. The Project would have an incremental increase in the demand for gas and electrical power given the increase in development on the Project site. However, the Project is expected to be served with existing capacity and would not require or result in construction of new energy facilities or expansion LTS - - S of existing off site facilities and would not violate applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations relating to energy standards. The Project would have aless-than-significant impact relating to energy consumption with no mitigation warranted. Impact Util-5: Cumulative Demand for Utilities and Service Systems. The increased development resulting from the proposed Project, in conjunction LTS - - S with other foreseeable development in the area, would not result in cumulative impacts on utilities LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-cases) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 13-31 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Level of Impact Relative to the Proposed Project Significance Proposed No Project Reduced Reduced Potential Environmental Impacts Project Alternative Intensity Parking Alternative Alternative and service systems and would be considered less- than-significant with identified Project-level mitigation measures. LTS =Less Than Significant A "-" (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the S =Significant impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project. An "s" (lower-case s) signifies the impact would be the A "+" (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed proposed Project. Project, but was not applicable to items in this table. PAGE 13-32 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT 14 REFERENCES REPORT PREPARERS Lamphier -Gregory 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, Ca. 94606 510-535-6690 Lamphier-Gregory (Primary Report Preparers) Joan Lamphier, President Kevin Colin, Associate Planner Crane Transportation Group (Transportation and Circulation) Mark Crane, Principal REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments, www.abag.ca. ®~ov, accessed Feb. and March 2007. Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), 2007. Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQNID CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised 1999). Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries, 2003- 2005. Bonilla, M.G., Preliminary Geologic ll~lap of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California: A digital database, USGS Open-file Report 98-354,1998. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subj ect to the 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 14-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT California Environmental Quality Act. California Air Resources Board, September 2007a. Draft List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. California Air Resources Board, October 2007b. Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. California Air Resources Board, December 6, 2007c. Mandatory Reporting of California greenhouse gas Emissions, Presentation in El Monte, California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Earthquake Fault Zone Map of the South San Francisco Quadrangle, 1982. California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, 1994. California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Evaluation Reports Prepared Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, CGS CD 2002-0 1, 2002. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), New Development and Redevelopment Handbook, 2003. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), California Stormwater BNIP Handbook, Industrial and Commercial, January 2003. Caltrans, Traffic Volumes on CalifoNnia State Highways, 2005. Chicago Title Insurance Company, Title Report -Assessor's Parcel No.015-041-300, August 9, 2005. City of Daly City, City of Daly City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program,1998. City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, adopted July 1994. City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett &Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997. City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett &Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999. City of South San Francisco, prepared by Carollo Engineers, City of San Francisco East of Highway 101 Sewer System 1~laster Plan, September 2002. City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, 249 East Grand Avenue PAGE 14-2 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT CHAPTER 14: REFERENCES Project Environmental Impact Report, Draft December 2005, Final June 2006. City of South San Francisco and Crane Transportation Group, Terrabay Phase 3 Final EIR, October 2006. City of South San Francisco, prepared by EIP Associates and Korve Engineering, Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan Draft EIR, December 2006. Department of Toxic Substances and Control, Database (www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.~gov), accessed Feb. 2007. Department of Water Resources (DWR), California's Groundwater -Bulletin 118. Updated 2003,1975. bowler Gruman Architects, 213 East Grand Avenue Design Concept Plan Set, September 28, 2007. bowler Gruman Architects, 213 East Grand Avenue Design Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, September 28, 2007. bowler Gruman Architects, 213 East Grand Avenue Design Preliminary Underground Piping Plan, September 28, 2007. ENVIRON International Corporation, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Grand Roebling Property, 213 and 217 East Grand Avenue, 317 and 337 Roebling Road, South San Francisco, California, July 12, 2005. ENVIRON International Corporation, Results of Phase II Site Investigation, Grand Roebling Grand Roebling Facility, South San Francisco, California, July 29, 2005. ENVIRON International Corporation, Subsurface Investigation and Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation 213-217 East Grand Avenue, 317 and 337 Roebling Road, South San Francisco, California, January 31, 2007. ENVIRON International Corporation, Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring Report, February 2007, March 12, 2007. Gard, John T., Estimation of Maximum Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections, ITE Journal, November 2001. Kier & Wright Civil Engineers & Surveyors, Inc., ALTA/AGSM Land Title Survey, May 2005. Knudsen, K.L., Noleer, J.S., Sowers, J.M., Lettis, W.R., Quaternary Geology and Liquefaction Susceptibility, San Francisco, California 1:100, 000 Quadrangle: A Digital 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PAGE 14-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Database, USGS Open-File Report 97-715,1997. Phillips, Steven P., Scott N. Hamlin, Eugene B. Yates, Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Estimation of Ground Water Recharge in San Francisco, California 1987-92. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4019,1993. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, 2003 State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Database (geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov), accessed Feb. 2007. Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity ll~lanual, 2000. Wentworth, C.M., Graham, S.E., Pike, R.J., Beukelman, G.S., Ramsey, D.W., Barron, A.D., San Francisco Bay Region Landslide Folio Part C -Summary Distribution of Slides and Earthflows in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, USGS Open File Report 97-745 C, 1997. Western Regional Climate Center. Weather Station: San Francisco WSO AP, California (047769), 2005. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region,1001-2031, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-214. PAGE 14-4 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT APPENDIX A NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) AND COMMENTS This Page Intentionally Left Blank ~,, . Notice of Preparation Form B Notice of Preparation To: State Clearinghouse From: City of South San Francisco P.O, Box 3x44 315 Maple Avenue Sacramento, CA 9581 ~~~~$} South San Francisco,~r~~~83 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The Cityol:South San Francisco wrl l be the Lead Agency and wtl l prepare are env ~ron~ne~~tal impact report forthe project identified below, we need to know the views ofyour agency as to the scope a~~d content of the environmental information which is germa~~e to your agency's statutory responsibilities i~z connectio~~ with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by o~lr agency when considering your per~~~it or other app~~oval for the project, The project description, location, a~~d the potential environmental effects are co~~tained i~~ the attached materials, A copy of the Initial Study ~ ~ is ^ is not }attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response ~~ust be sent at the earliest possible date but ~~ot later than 3o days after receipt of this notice. ~~ Please send our res onse to Mike Lappen, Senior Planner y p shown above. we will need. the na~~ne for a co~~tact person in your agency. X13 E. Grand Project Project Title: at tl~e address Project applicant, if any: Alexandria Real Estate Equities, f nc. Date February 14, X008 Signature ~ ~ ~~ ~p~~~ Tide ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~- Telep~~a~~e 550-8778535 Reference: California Code of Regulations, Tile l~, {C~QA Gui~e[il~es~ SectioTis I S~$Z(a~,151 Q3, 1537. ~6 p~ of ~t~4~~~p~'~\t~r~G Al 5~ ~ iua~t;j r~F ¢ ~~~ ~' s ~~~ , ;~a STATE QF CALIFt~RNIA ~ ~ N w +u 8 m '' " 9 ~ °~ .~ ^~~:; ~~ ~ RNOR S OFFICE a PI.~~NNING AND RESEARCH GONE ,4 STATE CLF~A.RINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER ~ CYNTHIA BRYAI~'T GOVERNOR DIRECTOR Notice o#' Preparation . T Februa 19, 200$ - , ~ ~~,' ~ ~~ ~~ ~~` ~ ;. `~~ To: Reviewing Agencies Re: 213 E. Grand Project SCH~ 200$0?2094 Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP} for the 213 E. Grand Project draft Environmental Impact Report HEIR}. Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and conte~at of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, w~th~n 30 da s of recel t of the NGP from the Lead A enc . This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a renunder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early ~n the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Mike Lappen City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue P.4• Box 711 South San Francesca, CA 94083 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Gffice of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCfI number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at X91 b} 445-0613. Sincerely, ~~ Scott Morgan Project Analyst, State Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Lead Agency 140 loth! Streat P.o, Bc~ 3~~~ Sacia~l~~r-io, California ~~$l~-3u~4 ln1 ~l nn ~_I1~1 ~ ~ A~ l41 ~l ~~~.~fll R www_nnr.r.~.~nv Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2U08022094 Project Title 213 E. Grand Project Lead Agency South San Francisco, City of Type NoP Notice of Preparation Description The application under review proposes the demolition of four existing 1-and 2-story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet, and the subsequent construction of one 9-story officelresearch and development ~R&Dj building totaling 291,634 square feet including tenant amenity. A five-level parking garage . containing 625 spaces would be attached to the new building. Significant landscape improvements are also proposed. At this time, the project excludes the abutting property at the southeast corner of East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road. However, the applicant is negotiating its purchase and, as such, the EIR will address its inclusion as one of the project alternatives. Lead Agency Contact Name Mike Lappen Agency Gity of South San Francisco Phone (654) 877-8535 Fax email mike+Iappen@ssf.net Address 315 Maple Avenue P.a. Box 711 City South San Francisco Slate CA Zip 94083 Project Location County San Mateo Cify South San Francisco Region Cross Streets East Grand Avenue between Forbes Boulevard and Roebling Road . Parcel No. 015-041-300 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 101 Airporfs Railways Waterways Schools Land Use General Plzen: Business and Technology Park Zoning: P-I Planned Industrial District Project Issues AestheticlVisual;Alr Quality; Archaeologic~Historic; GeologiclSeismic; Soil ErosionlCompactionlGrading; ToxiclHazardous;Woter Quality; DrainagelAbsorption; Landuse; Noise; Growth Inducing; Public Services; RecreationlParks; Traffic/Circulation; Water Supply; Solid Waste; Wildlife; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Integrated Waste Management Board; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Department of Water Resources; Department of Conservation; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Department of Toxic Substances Control; fan Franricrn Ra~~ rnn~an~atinn and ~evelnnmPrtt Comm~sSlon ~J l..ill I II.JI ItJIV VV vu7 vvr.v V+ ~r• Date Received 02/1912008 Sfarf of Review 0211912008 Fnd of Review 03/19/2008 .- I ni ~ _ .._ ~_1_ t~_~..-_ ~__..11 i.....,... ........FC:...,....~ ~..,~~,-w,.,#inn vzrnleir~n/•1 hi, Innri nnnnr~i o ~- ~ _ ~ n n C C 43 ~ ~ C .~' 0 .. ~ ~ .~ O V O U ~ ~~ v~ .~. ~O •~ ~ ~ ~+ ([S ~ C ~ C ~ _O ~ C D r U ~ ~ C .~} ~ ~ N (~ -~ 0 O ~ '07 ~ (L ~ C ~ ~ ~ C ~ O m m O ~ ~ ~,~ ~ o ~ ~ m>m m> ~ ~ '~ m a~ m o ~ ~ ~ • _ ~ N m o '~ r~ o ~ ro ~• o °' ~ io ~ ~ o U ~a .~ ~ ~ U c ~ > ti !Y oa ro ~ o c maci° U U mccmc mU U V mom m? ~~~ ~~~ m~ ~Lo U = C3 t] m.~ mQ m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r as a :o ~ m ~L a..~ a~ N c~ E~ U ~ ~: U IY c tY ~~ a Q a~ ~ ~ U ro V p ~. ~ ~roQ ~C©c~ ~O ~~1D ~Nn ® ~0® _ ~0 ~(~ ~c~ ~ a .~ ~ ~ UZ ~!WUin RU ~:F-.~ EYULJJ t ~~ ~U ~cn t~cn 0 ~ ~ ® ® ~ ~ ® ® D ® ~ J ( ~ .p L o G 0 ~ ~ .;.., o C ro ~ ~ ~ ~ a C C U N p ~ U N -~ ~ ~ N .i.d ~ V n ~ N ~ /l ~ Q3 V W ~ E .~ ~ -~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ s ,~ `m 'L L~ '~ •~m '~~ ~ ~~ rom d~ ~m ~E ~ cn~ ~ ~c~ ~ro~ m~ a IZ U1~ N~ D ~ ^ ro N ©~ N~ ~E d D s m-w .~+1 0 Uc m -°~ a~ a IY ~ ~- - m ~' ~ mC a ~- ~- ~ c~ro ~~-ro a~ ~ _ ~ ~; C o U 0 = ~ tf1 p ~ N D N E ~ „ (~ N N N OL J N (!1 ~ [~ ~] C~ E v Q} ++ 11 4- t0 D ~y '`"" +.+ C D `~' , t0 - :~_~ D t9 = D ~.- l~ ~ d~ , tD D Y C6 ~ R1 ^ {G ~ IG ~l. d i"' '~ ~ ~'^ [~ ~ ~ 0 ~ J ~ ~ 'p C O ~ .p C U ~ ~ [ © ~ G ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ro .+~"+ ~ ~ro ~ roD ~ O .~ C Q Co ~a II- p 0 4• ~ N L ~ ro~~ .~ L .0 .N ~0~~ @ ~. ~ 4- 'N Qf N 'Uy ~O~o? ~v? ++ ~yW ~ a~ U^ UC7 UE- ro U-~ U[~ W U ~ d U~c~ N^[Y^ • NmU~U^ tl~cr~^ ^U ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ U Q~ ^ ^ ^ ^ c 0 ~ •- '~ ` ~ c Q ~ ~ G o W .E ~ ~ .N ~ •c ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ N a ~ ~ o .~, C C ~ ~ N D~ ro O U ~ 4 ~ c ~ N •~ ^ 'D G S ~ ~ a o ' ~ Q (~ ~L .~ U~ V U V 'L N s. L 'L ~ c .~ ~ V 1., V 's.. a ~~ c t~ (p ~_~ U .j~ O~~ C •~Q:~' ~ > "" D ~ ~ ~- m U I~ N _U a~ Ila =~,Q UO~o C N C Oro c IA f!i fI~ N N OC'pJ OE ~ C~ N ~ © N ~ © ~ ~ ~ C ~' cp IS3 ~ [~ ?+ ~ ~ N C ~ C = N C ~_ ~ ~ ~ fl` U 0) N C p s D C ~ N U C N C N > N -0 N C •-- C- C C C N ~ C ~ _ ~ N (II C p) ~J ,~ ~ ,,, 0 C C ~ ~' (A ~ p ._ . _~ Via- 0 ~ ~} 'y ~Z•~ ~ ~~ ro U ~~ ~~ ~-a ro ~ ~Y a ro ~ c .~ m ro m .c ~ io ~ ro ~ ~ m s ~ o m ~ o in m c~ ro ro ~ i~ ,E is r~ ~a o ~ .~ aY t!}C~ N~ t-QU .~ U QtA Uh UcnO =^~_ .~ U~ U~ U-~, Uk- UD U~ U> n U ~ ^ ® ~ ~ ~"'~ ~"""~ U U N ^ ® ^ m Q U U U E E c 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ,~ C ~ o . N ~ ~ c . Q? Q1 0 0 ` ~ ~ ] ~' = ~ ~ V C (~ N o v ~ v ~ :~ N ro rn ~ ... Q7 ~ ~~ m C ~ G3 ~ ~ N C M G d' C N L CG ` C a' C ~ cA U C D p .L ' U3 p C •~ U i~ 'p C E (/) ~ A. y., , ~ '~. _o o a_ o_ o 0 o a U ~ ~, d _N ~ a •~ ~ ~ .~ o , v ° °' _ p ~c m t~ G~ o~ N ro a- N [r ~ ~roZ p .:'-' ~ C ~~.n ~ ~-' ~ ~ ro Oi 0 t~ U) cU ~ ~ ^ ~ r~~ 0 C 0 ~ ~o v ~ ~ s G >, m ro Q7 E~ ~ p .,C Ev p E~ Q} U Q} U E-~c E~~ Q1 U = s U D Em ~~'m ~ Z3 .~~0 C a '''' ~o a~a~ t~ •~- -- o~~ V o~ ~ E~ ~s-~ '~. -C7 a m c~ m C'~ C ~n o U' I.I._ ra U ~ C ~ -c o ca ~ o U (II U {.~ ~ ~0 0 a LL ~, m ~ ~7 C 4. - ~' ~ ro ~ r ~` ~- r U a~ o .U y- CIJ ~ _ ~ _ .,~ u.. N C ~ _ d ,~ -o o T? W w ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ k~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ro .C +.~ +-, ~ (~ ~ ~ .C N ~ Q E p N ~ ,C ~ ~ CJ} N ~ o~ UJ p ~ 0 c '~ U 'C D p U "'" Q1 ~ C 0 .Q , U7 a" ~, p Q? ,U7 ~ L N U Q? ~ _N r ~ Np t ~ ,yQ s ~ y'~ .>r c ~ r .~ .O Npro Nro~ ' s .0 0 m a 0 '+~ ^ ,~[~~~ pNp ~ Q > a p©?N a -n d .0 ~ p] 0Dw d ~ Cl. ~ x}00 ~ •- ~ ..n NO ~~- c ~O > •~ 0~~3 :~ E .o c0ON ~.~ ~.o' ~.~ ~^_ u.C~= u.C7_a aC?~ ~ Ilcn^ DIZ. ^tr ^>^ ~ ~ ^^ 0^ 0~~ ZU^ J ~^ ^ ^ Q o ^ ~~ ~ ^ = o E~ ~ ^ ~ y ~+ C 0 ~ C C o a. N ~ 7 N N ~ :,:+ '~ ._ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ^ p W r r o ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ E Y ~ °~ C d1 C ~ N U ~ a s N ~. C L N dS to ~- ~ ° ) C ~ .E m ~ S G? p m ~ ~ O v Q~ ~~ oo o~ >E c UoQ rYN ~v ~c ° ~c~ .~~ o~ Woc ~ =,p~ ~c ~ ~m`Q ai ~ oE~ m4 ° E ~ ~ ~ LL c .ro E~ Ec Q , a ro m r ~ ;~ U D ro~ .~. c~ ,~ o v 0 s .n y.,c~ d , C~ (} d cn 7D~ OU ~mO c m ~ ~ C~ '~- .~ ~ O,C~ ~ o m~ UY U a~ t~ a -- oar o ~ .~:~ L ~, ~ .~ ~Em ©m o c ~. ~. ~ ~ m o c ~~c mo .~~' ~E~ i.~. c ~ v z o ~~ , ~ ~ o L ~,^.;~ .off ~ "D .~ ~ c ~ ° ~~ ~ -o -~~ ~.~. ~- ~ v, -o o m a ~ v ~ ~ N ~. c~a~ o a~ = a ro ~. E ~ ~, m ~, ~ a '> ar ~a m ~- ~ ~. m ~ c Y U c o ~. ~ > ~ a cn -a ~ v ~. ~ , ~~ a~ a~ro c o c ~ a D ~ a~ Uc s c r ~ w o ~'ro Q >YZ ©^ ~~W tSC~ Dcn UUa. UQ Oaf ^wrn Un.~ c~^rn ©~z U ~ Dt~W ii^ [i.~ ~ ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BU5INE55, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHwARZENEGGER Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P, 0. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5505 FAX ~S 10) 286-5559 TTY 711 February 25, 2008 _._ ,- ~` w '= ..r t t i7 ~Y r~' ~ 4i f ~ ~~ ~9 a Mr. Mike Lappen City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue P.~. fox 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Mr. Lappen: 213 E. GRAND AVENUE PROJECT -NOTICE OF PREPARATION ~~ ., r +~ y = FN p ,..~~- Flex your powers Be energy e~cient! SM101442 SM-101-22.14 SCH#2008022094 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the early stages of the environmental review process for the 213 E. Grand Avenue project. The following comments are based on the Notice of Preparation,: Traffic Impact Analysis Please include the information detailed below in the Traffic Stud to ensure that ro~ect-related Y pJ impacts to State roadway facilities are thoroughly assessed. we encourage the City to coordinate preparation of the study with our office, and we would appreciate the opportunity to review the scope of work. The Department's "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" should be reviewed prior to initiating any traffic analysis for the project; it is available at the following website: htt :l/www.dot.ca. ovlh /traffo sldevelo sere/o erationals stemslre ortsltis aide. df The Traffic Study should include: 1. Site plan clearly showing project access in relation to nearby state roadways. Ingress and egress for all project components should be clearly identified. State right-of-way BROW} should be clearly identified. 2. Project-related trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The assumptions and methodologies used to develop this information should be detailed in the study, and should be supported with appropriate documentation. 3. Average Daily Traffic, AM and PM peak hour volumes and levels of service LOS on all ( } significantly affected roadways, including crossroads and controlled intersections far 'existing, existing plus project, cumulative and cumulative plus project scenarios. Calculation "Caltrans improves mobility across California" _.~...~.~.~~~_ y...rr.,.. February 25, 2008 Page 2 of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating developments, both existing and future, that would affect study area roadways and intersections. The analysis should clearly identify the project's contribution to area tra, ffic and degradation to existing and cumulative levels of service. Lastly, the Department's LOS threshold, which is the transition between LOS C and D, and is explained in detail in the Guide for Traffic Studies, should be applied to all state facilities. 4. Schematic illustration of traffic conditions including the project site and study area roadways, trip distribution percentages and volumes as well as intersection geometries, i.e., lane configurations, for the scenarios described above. 5. The project site building potential as identified in the General Plan. The project's consistency with both the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency's Congestion Management Plan should be evaluated. b. Mitigation should be identified for any roadway mainline section or intersection with insufficient capacity to maintain an acceptable LOS with the addition of project-related and/or cumulative traffic. The project's fair share contributian, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should also be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. . 7. Special attention should be given to the following trip-reducing measures: • Encouraging mixed-use, • Maximizing density through offering bonuses and/or credits, • Coordinating with samTrans, Caltrain and BART to increase transit/rail use by expanding routes and emphasizing express service to regional rail stations, and by providing bus shelters with seating at any future bus pullouts, • Providing transit information to all future project employees and patrons, and • Encouraging bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly design. S. A discussion of any secondary impacts on pedestrians from traffic impact mitigation measures to be implemented at intersections in the project area. The discussion should include all feasible measures needed to alleviate or reduce the severity of the secondary impact so that pedestrian access between the South San Francisco ~altrain station- and the project can be maintained not enhanced. ~'ultural Resources The Draft Environmental Impact Report ~DEIR}must include documentation of a current archaeological record search from the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources information System if construction activities are proposed within State RCw. Current record searches must be no more than five years old. The Department requires the records search, and if warranted, a cultural resource study by a qualified, professional archaeologist, to ensure compliance with CEQA, Section 5024.5 of the California Public Resources Code and Volume 2 of the Department's Standard Environmental Reference (SER}. These requirements, including applicable mitigation, must be fulfilled before an encroachment permit can be issued for project- relatedwork in State ROw; these requirements also apply to NEPA documents when there is a "Caltrans improves mobility across California" ,~ru. l~ili~v ~urrvli February 25, 2008 Page 3 federal action on a project. Work subject to these requirements includes, but is not limited to: lane widening, channelization, auxiliary lanes, andlor modification of existing features such as slopes, drainage features, curbs, sidewalks and driveways within ar adj acent to State ROW. See the website link below to access the Department's SER. hltp.11w~ww.dat.ca.govlhglenvlindex.htm Encroachment Pemmtt Please be advised that work that encroaches onto the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5} sets of plans, clearly indicating State ROW, must be submitted to the address below. Traffic-related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more information: httpa/www.dot.ca.govlhgltraffops/developservlpermitsl Michael Condie, Chief Office of Permits California DOT, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Please forward a copy of the DE1R, along with the Traffic Study, including Technical Appendices, and staff report to the address below as soon as they are available. Sandra Finegan, Transportation Planner Community Planning Office, Mail Station 10D California DOT, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622-1644 or sandra_fineganC dot.ca.govwith any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, ~ 13 ~ ~~ ~ ,y~ x d7 ~{ 3 ~~ ~~J ~ Tll I lOTl i i~ C • S AJL/ .14../~ ~, District Branch Chief IGRICEQA c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse "Caltrans ilnpr-oves mobility across Carifornia" larch ~~, ~oo~ ~~ ...~. ~~ w Department of Toxic Substances Cantro~ M~ur~~n ~. ~flr~cn, Director ~~D Heinz Avenue Berkeley, ceiitornia 9~~~ 4-~72~ dlr. bike happen pity of youth fan Francisco Maple ~v~n~e ~.~. l~o~ ~~ `~ ~ou~h pan Francisco, ~alifor~lia ~~o$~ l~ea~ l~r. Lappen, ~+ . ~ ~~er~ 'r _,. .: ; C k c yl ~ ~~~~ Arno-r~ ~c~u~r~enegg~r Gav~rnar Thank you for the opportunity to cor~n~ent on the f~otice of ~reparationllnitial Study ~[~~~IIS~ for the ~~ro~ect}. The Project involves demolition of four existing 1-~-story buildings totaling ~ ~4,ooQ square feet and construction of one ~~sto~ officelr esearch end development building totaling ~g~,~~4 square feet and ~ ~-story parking garage in South fan Francisco. As you may k~e mare, the tali#ornia ~epartrnent of Topic Substances control ~~TS~} oversees the cleanup of sites v~here hazardous substances have been released pursuant to the ~aiifornia l--lealth and Safety bode, Division ~~, chapter 6,~. As ~ Responsible agency, QTS~ is submitting corr~rnents to ensure that the environmental documentation prepared for this project under the California Environmental duality pct ~~FQ~~ adequately addresses activities pertaining to releases of hazardous substances. The hazardous materials section does not specify that asbestos and lead ar lead-based paint surveys gill be completed prior to demolition of the e~cistinc~ buildings. The air quality section daes not identify dust control issues related to potentially hazardous materials during demclition~ based on the information contained the lS, it is nat clear Whether or not these issues have been considered.111lhere concerns are identified, sampling should be conducted to determine ~rhether this gs an issue that will need to be addressed in the GEC~~ complia~~c~ dQGument, If previously unidentified hazardous substances are encountered, they mill need to be addressed as part of this pro'ect, l=or e~arnple, if hazardous substances mere encountered, the project should include: ~~ ~ an assessment of air impacts and hoalth impacts associated pith the excavation activities; ~2~ identification of any applicably local standards v~hicl~ may ba exceeded by fihe e~cavaticn cr de~~liti4C~ acti~ities~ including dust levels and noise; ~~~ transportation impacts from the removal Qr remedial activities; and ~~~ ~is~ of public upset should be there an accident at the Site. ~ Printed on Recycled Paper 1~~. l~iko ~a~per~ ~aroh ~~, ~00~ Page ~ f r l~ ~~~ ~~~~ any quo~t~ons orv~ould like to ~chedufe a rneetir~~, please ~onta~~ T~r~ ~rie~ of ray ~ta~f at ~5~ ~~ 540-~~~ ~ . Thank you in ad~anee fer yQ~~ cooperation in this rnatte~. Sincerely, -~~~~ wren l~, Tath P.E., ~nlt Chief 1~~~~h~rn California Coastal cleanup ~~e~a~ians ~~an~h cc; ~o~ernor's office of Piannin~ and ~.~search state Clearin~ho~~e (~. ~, ~o~ 344 ~acran~ento~ CA ~~~~~-~~~44 u~nther i~~skat CE~~ Tracl~inc~ Center ~~~art~~nt of Topic ~u~~tano~~ Control P,~, ~o~ ~o~ ~aer~~nente, California ~~~~ ~-0~0~ This Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX B INITIAL STUDY This Page Intentionally Left Blank INITIAL STUDY STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: TO BE ASSIGNED 213 EAST G~uvn AvENUE OFFrcE/R&D PxoJECT PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PREPARED BY LAMPHIER -GREGORY 1944 EMBARCADERO OAKLAND, CA 94606 JANUARY 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INITIAL STUDY .....................................................................................................................................................1 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................................................................ .. 7 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION ............................................................................................................................................. .. 7 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ........................................................................................................................... ..8 AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... .. 9 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 13 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................................................... 15 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...................................................................................................................................... 19 HYDROLOGY AND ~XIATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................. 21 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24 NOISE ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 POPULATION AND HOUSING .......................................................................................................................................................... 26 PUBLIC SERVICES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 27 RECREATION ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 TRANSPORTATION~TRAFFIC ........................................................................................................................................................... 3O UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................................................. 32 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................................................. 34 INITIAL STUDY GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS As submitted, the Project would require a Use Permit, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan and Design Review in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code requirements. The Project also includes a Development Agreement. LEAD AGENCY City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development 315 Maple Avenue P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 CONTACT PERSON Michael Lappen, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco 650-877-8535 or mike.lappen@ss£net PROJECT SPONSOR Alexandria 1700 Owens Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94158 Contact: Terezia Nemeth, Vice President, Development, Mission Bay INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 1 y PROJECT LOCATION The 6.7 acre project site is located approximately 1/2 mile east of Highway 101, along East Grand Avenue between Forbes Boulevard and Roebling Road, in the City of South San Francisco, in the County of San Mateo. Assessor's parcel number (APN) 015-041-300 (see location map, Figure 1). GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Business and Technology Park ZONING P-I Planned Industrial District DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The application under review proposes the demolition of four existing 1 & 2 story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet, and the subsequent construction of one 9-story office/research and development (R&D) building totaling 291,634 square feet including tenant amenity (see site plan, Figure 2). A five-level parking garage containing 625 spaces would be attached to the new building. Significant landscape improvements are also proposed. At this time, the Project excludes the abutting property at the southeast corner of East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road. However, the applicant is negotiating its purchase and, as such, the EIR will address its inclusion as one of the Project alternatives. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The proposed project is located in the "East of 101" area, the traditional and continued core of South San Francisco's industrial and technological businesses, including Research and Development (R&D) offices. This area is separated from the majority of residential uses by U.S. 101 though some houseboats are permitted at the nearby Oyster Point. ~Ihile the East of 101 area is almost completely built out, redevelopment remains extremely active as existing facilities are upgraded to evolve as industry continues to evolve, toward high-technology and research and development uses. For example, the adjacent property at 249 East Grand Avenue is presently being redeveloped. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 2 y .ilk ..}.ti f.ti ~ .~ i t ti r. ~ .~ f. V.f.. .r• ~ ... ~. . ' f .~ ti .I ~. W ~ . INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 3 y This page intentionally left blank INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 4 y a; ~~ s ^~ r,' . ~~ ~ u C~ Q J ~.~ <r ,~ ;ar' a ~ ,: ; ,~ ~ iu f ~; w p Q Q~ r~ C rJ N ~n a~ s~ U N ~ ~ ~~ ~+ A .~ w ~ •~ c~ ~ 0 (~ ..~ ,. V ~ cN ~ ~ dam' ~ O ~ ~ O ~ c+1 U U U U U U U ~ G~ ~ O ~ G~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ N ~ cV ~ ~ ri G~ ~ ~ N ~ O N cr1 N c+~ ~ ~ N N c~ O ~ N N c~ N cr1 c~ c+~ c~ c~ cr1 G~ N ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ v N ~ O O O ~ ~ •~ ~, w (n 0 q ~ ~? ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ U ~ s~ ~ w .~ N en b ~ .a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ O p ~ p ~ ~ O 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ tC ~ '~ G O 0 ~ p '/~ 'b ~ p ~ p a p ~ p ~ ~ ~ r~ pp ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~, p 0 p ~, '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ w ~, ~ ~~ w Z F w r~ w ~ ~ H ~° c~ o ~ ~'i . ~ ~. r ~i: f Gk !! `f ~~ .. ~; c~ Q~ N /) +~ ~ .~ w ~, w p Q 0 J Q z ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Environmental factors which may be affected by the Project, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filled in block (^) were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that has been identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact", as indicated in the Environmental Evaluation Form Checklist and related discussion that follows. Unmarked factors (D) were determined to not be significantly affected by the Project, based on discussion provided in the Checklist. ^ Aesthetics D Agriculture Resources ^ Air Quality D Biological Resources D Cultural Resources ^ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^ Hydrology and Water Quality ^ Land Use and Planning D Mineral Resources ^ Noise D Population and Housing D Public Services D Recreation ^ Transportation and Circulation ^ Utilities and Service Systems ^ Geology and Soils LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~/ I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, an EIR Addendum is required. Michael Lappen, Senior Planner Date INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 7 y INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each CEQA issue topic. A "no impact' response indicates that no action that would have an adverse effect on the environment would occur due to the Project. A "less than significant" response indicates that while there may be potential for an environmental impact, there are standard procedures or regulations in place, or other features of the Project as proposed, which would limit the extent of this impact to a level of "less than significant." Responses that indicate that the impact of the Project would be "less than significant ~vith mitigation" indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be required as a condition of Project approval in order to effectively reduce potential Project- related environmental effects to a level of "less than significant." A `potentially significant impact" response indicates that further analysis is required to determine the extent of the potential impact and identify any appropriate mitigation. Topics with a `potentially significant impact" response will be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report to be subsequently prepared for the Project. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 8 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS -Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ~ ~/ vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or ~ ~/ glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Scenic Vistas. The Project site is not located within a scenic vista. However, the Project's proposed buildings may block views of San Bruno Mountains as seen from areas east of the site. The Project may also block views of Mind Harp Knoll as seen from areas west of the site. The EIR will evaluate the extent of this potential impact. b) Scenic Highways. The Project site is not located near a designated scenic highway. c) Visual Character. The proposed Project would involve the demolition of four older 1- and 2- story buildings, and replacement with one significantly taller at 9-stories including an attached 5-level parking garage. Significant pedestrian/landscape improvements are also proposed. The proposed Project would not result in development incongruous to existing and proposed development in the surrounding East 101 area. The development would, therefore, enhance the visual character of the site. d) Light and Glare. The proposed Project, with its new building, parking structure and associated site improvements, would result in additional light emanating from structures, parking areas and other sources. New lighting would, however, be required to conform to standards that limit the amount of light that can spill over to other properties, through the use of downcast lighting fixtures. The EIR will evaluate this potential impact and will recommend mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 9 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept, of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agriculturaluse? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? a) Prime Farmland. No designated agricultural land is located on the Project site. b) Williamson Act Contracts. Noland on the Project site is under a ~lilliamson Act contract. c) Farmland Conversion. No land on the Project site is used for agricultural purposes. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 10 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district maybe relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ~ /~ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ~ /~ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ substantial number of people? a) Air Quality Plan Conflict. The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The District enforces rules and regulations regarding air pollution sources and is the primary agency preparing the regional air quality plans mandated under state and federal law. The San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan is the current ozone air quality plan required under the Federal Clean Air Act. The state mandated regional air quality plan is the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan. A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment or regional growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled. The amount of development associated with the proposed Project maybe found consistent with the intensity of development for the Project site foreseen in the South San Francisco General Plan, which was published in 1999. The site is located in an area designated as Business and Technology Park in the General Plan. The South San Francisco General Plan expects an average Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 for the Business and Technology Park land use designation. At 1.0, the Project would be on the high side of the intended area-wide FAR. However, based upon existing and foreseeable new buildings, the Project could be found within the expected range to reach an average FAR of 0.5 across the Business and Technology Park land use designation. The Project site's proposed use is also consistent with the city's Zoning Ordinance. The city's General Plan designations, and future land use types and intensities, would have been taken into account during INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 11 y preparation of the BAAQMD's most recent Clean Air Plan, released in 2000. The Project would therefore be consistent with and have a less than signi fi~dnt im~d~t on the Clean Air Plan. b), c) Air Quality Standards and Criteria Pollutants. Air quality impacts due to construction activity could be significant, due to airborne particulate matter and construction vehicle emissions. The EIR will evaluate this impact and will recommend mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Concerning potential long-term impacts, although office and R&D uses would not emit significant amounts of air pollutants directly, the project would attract motor vehicles generating emissions. Mobile emissions, such as those associated with vehicles, would incrementally increase regional vehicular emissions. The EIR will determine whether project related stationary and mobile emissions would exceed significance thresholds and, if so, recommend mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. d) Sensitive Receptors. For CEQA purposes, the BAAQMD defines a sensitive receptor as a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons are located and where there is reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure. Three sensitive receptors are located nearby the Project site. These include: (1) The Early Years Children's Center (a child care center) located approximately 0.50 miles east of the Project site at 371 Allerton Avenue; (2) the Gateway Child Care Center located approximately 0.80 miles northwest from the Project site at 559 Gateway Boulevard; and (3) the Genentech Childcare Center located approximately 0.7 miles east of the Project site at 444 Allerton Avenue. The EIR will evaluate the Project's potential impacts on these sensitive receptors including, for example, temporary increases in diesel particulate emissions due to operation of heavy equipment during construction. e) Objectionable Odors. During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the Project site's boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore less than signi fi~dnt. Because at this time it is not known exactly what type of business activity (beyond what has been identified as research and development) would take place at the Project site if the proposed Project is implemented, it is not possible to determine what level of impact, if any, the Project would have. However, the Project would be expected to conform to any applicable air quality regulations, in order to ensure that it produces a less than signi fi~ant amount of offensive odors. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 12 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ~ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) - b) Special Status Species and Habitat. The project site does not contain special status species habitat. The site has been developed and is in an urbanized state. The project has no impact on special status species and habitat. c) - d) Wetlands and Wildlife Corridors. The proposed project site does not contain wetland areas. It is an area that is currently developed with urban land uses. The project has no impact on wetlands and wildlife corridors. e) - ~ Tree Preservation Ordinance. The project site is predominantly covered with asphalt and large buildings. The existing vegetation consists of residual areas within parking lots and along the site's perimeter. However, no on-site trees are large enough to qualify under the City of South San INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 13 y Francisco Tree Protection Ordinance. The project has no impact on the Tree Protection Ordinance or other policies, ordinances or plans protecting biological resources. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 14 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) Historical Resources. The project site contains four industrial buildings constructed between 1956 and 1972. Each is proposed for demolition. Only the building at 213 East Grand Avenue would meet the minimum criteria to consider eligibility for designation on a Register of historic buildings.1 However, it is not located on the City's list of potentially eligible historic resources.2 Remaining buildings on the site are less than 50 years old. The project, therefore, has no impact on historical resources. b) Archaeological Resources. According to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, South San Francisco's coastal location, and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the existence of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources likely. It is possible that buried prehistoric resources may be found in the City, although currently there is insufficient data to predict that they may be found at the project site, especially because the site has been previously disturbed. If archaeological resources are discovered on site, these resources shall be handled according to CEQA Section 15064.5 (c), which calls on lead agencies to refer to the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 21084.1 if the archaeological site is determined to be a historical resource. This would be a standard condition of any project approval so the impact is considered less than signi ficdnt. c) Geologic/Paleontological Features. There are no unique geologic or paleontological features associated with the project site. The project has no impact on paleontological resources or geologic features. d) Human Remains. There are no known human remains that would be disturbed by the proposed project. As mentioned under b) above, most of the project site has already been disturbed i City of South San Francisco, Municipal Code Section 2.58.020(8). 2 City of South San Francisco, Historic Marker Program (http://ssf.net/depts/ecd/historic/marker_program.asp). INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 15 y by urban development. No formal cemeteries have been located on the project site. If human remains are found within the project site, they will be handled according to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native American, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code as per CEQA Section 15064.5(d). This would be a standard condition of any project approval so the impact is considered less than signi fi~dnt. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 16 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact UI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving; i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ~ ~/ delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ~ ~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ~ ~/ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ~ ~/ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ~ ~/ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of roadway improvements, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ~ ~/ Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a) Seismic Impacts. The Project site is located in a seismically active area and may be subject to strong ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project, similar to all development in the region. Seismic shaking could induce settlement of loose, unconsolidated sediments, and differential seismic settlement could occur on the site. Since the Project site and nearby area is nearly level, the risk from slope instability may be assumed to be less than significant. The EIR will identify potential seismic impacts that would affect the Project, and will recommend mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. b) Erosion. The Project site is predominantly urbanized, with only a portion of the area's soils exposed, including small areas used for landscaping. However, impacts could occur due to INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 17 y construction activity that disturbs the soil and is not properly protected from wind and rain erosion. Best Management Practices (BMPs) could be used to mitigate the potential impacts of soil erosion on the site. The EIR will evaluate these impacts and provide mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. c) Unstable Soils. The Project would result in development that would require grading, excavation, or other modifications to the soil or geology which could increase the potential for soil instability on the site. The EIR will provide additional description of the geologic and soils condition of the site and recommend mitigation measures for any potential impacts. d) Expansive Soils. A large portion of the city, primarily east of U.S. 101, is underlain by deposits of Bay mud up to 80 feet deep in some places. A preliminary soils investigation indicates Bay mud fill may be located south of the Project site. Development hazards associated with Bay mud fill typically include shrink-swell, settlement, and corrosivity. Seismic hazards include earthquake wave amplification and liquefaction. Development in the City's lowland zone where the project site is located often requires engineering solutions to address soil constraints and the increased risk of geologic and seismic hazard in this area. The EIR will evaluate in more detail the potential impacts associated with expansive soils at the project site, and will recommend measures to mitigate these impacts. e) Septic Tanks. The proposed Project would not involve the use of septic tanks. Proposed Project buildings would be connected to sanitary sewer infrastructure. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 18 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact UII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Wo uldthe Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ~ ~/ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ~ ~/ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ~ ~/ or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list ~ ~/ of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use ~ ~/ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? ~ For a Project within the vicinity of a private ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere ~ ~/ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacentto urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a) Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials. Land uses at the site under the proposed Project would involve office/R&D related activities, which may be expected to involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The EIR will evaluate the extent of this potential impact and, if identified, advance mitigation measure(s). b) Hazardous Materials Release. Land uses proposed for the Project site may involve activities that would potentially lead to hazardous materials upset or accident conditions. In terms of past uses INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 19 y on the site, a records search investigation will be performed for the site to determine whether hazardous materials releases have occurred there and what that would portend for redevelopment of the site. The EIR will evaluate the extent of this potential impact and recommend mitigation measures. c) Hazardous Materials Near Schools. The proposed Project site is located near two pre-schools, though each is over 1/4 mile away. The EIR will confirm the distance and identify any potential hazardous materials impacts on these pre-schools including recommended mitigation measures. d) Hazardous Materials List. The Project site was the location of industrial activities including, for example, manufacturers of automobile part, hydraulic lifts, air compressors, and metal grates; and more recently, biotechnical research firms. Documentation related to site investigations indicates site contamination is presently limited a small area adjacent to the northwest corner of the building at 213 East Grand Avenue. The EIR will review past and current uses of the site including, in particular, the aforementioned contamination area. The use and storage of hazardous materials at the site will also be reviewed and, all of which, will culminate in the evaluation of potential impacts and recommend measures to mitigate such impacts. e) Airport Land Use Plan. The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport. Compliance with this plan and potential impacts will be analyzed in the EIR. ~ Private Airstrips. No private airstrips are located in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would have no Zmpdct related to private airstrips. g) Emergency Response Plan. Operations and/or construction activity could interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Potential impacts and mitigation measures will be identified in the EIR. h) Wildland Fires. The Project site is already developed with urban land uses in an urbanized area. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact related to wildland fire danger. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 20 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ~ ~/ discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level ~e.g., the production rate ofpre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ~ ~/ of the site orarea, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion orsiltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ~ ~/ of the site orarea, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ~ ~/ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ~ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ~ ~/ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a resultof the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 21 y a) Water Quality Standards. Demolition of the existing building, grading, and Project construction activities would increase sedimentation and increase water quality concerns for stormwater runoff. The EIR will evaluate the extent to which water quality would be affected, and would recommend measures to reduce the Project's impact. b) Groundwater Supply. The Project's impact on groundwater recharge rates at the Project site would be less than significant, since a majority of the site's surface area is currently impervious, paved over with concrete, asphalt, or covered with building structures. c) - ~ Alteration of Drainage Patterns. Some localized changes in drainage patterns could occur as a result of the Project, as a result of grading and excavation activities undertaken during construction. These drainage pattern changes would be considered minor in the context of drainage patterns in the area. However, the Project may cause site runoff changes within the Colma Creek watershed, a flood prone area. The EIR will evaluate the extent of this potential impact and recommend mitigation measures. g) - j) Flood Hazards, Seiche, Tsunami. The majority of the Project site is considered to have no flood risk though a very limited portion is identified by the FEMA Flood Zone Map to have a low to moderate flood risk. However, the low to moderate risk area is located outside a 10o year flood zone and, therefore, would not be susceptible to flood hazard, a seiche or tsunami. There is no 2mpact under this criterion. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 22 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ~ ~/ policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ~ ~/ plan or natural community conservation plan? a) Divide Established Community. The Project would involve construction of an office/R&D facility located on an already urbanized site. The Project would not divide an established community so would have no 2mpact. b), c) Conflict with Policies or Plans. The Project would require a Use Permit, and Transportation Demand Management (TD1V1) Plan as well as Design Review. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is expected to have no impact related to a conflict with policies and plans. However, this will be further evaluated in the EIR. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 23 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a), b) Mineral Resources. No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified at the Project site. The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan, therefore the Project would have no impact on mineral resources. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 24 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XI. NO ISE -Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ~ ~/ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ~ ~/ excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ~ ~/ noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ~ ~/ ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use ~ ~/ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? ~ For a Project within the vicinity of a private ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? a), b) Excessive Noise or Vibration. During construction, noise levels at the Project site would exceed current levels, due to the operation of construction equipment. The EIR will recommend noise attenuation measures to be implemented during construction, in order to reduce construction noise/vibration impacts. c), d) Ambient Noise Levels. Current ambient noise perceived at the Project site comes mainly from nearby automobile traffic. Ambient noise levels would increase during the Project's operation period, due to the increase in automobile traffic traveling to and away from the site. The EIR will analyze impacts to ambient noise levels. e) Airport Land Use Plan. The Project site is located about 1.5 miles north of the San Francisco International Airport. Flights leaving from and arriving at the airport can occasionally be heard at the Project site. The EIR will analyze noise impacts related to airport land use. ~ Private Airstrip. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the Project site and, therefore, no impact would result. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 25 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XII, POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Substantial Population Growth. The project would not lead to substantial population growth. Though the Project could result in an incremental increase in the number of employees at the Project site and it would be expected that some of these future employees would decide to live within the City of South San Francisco, their numbers would be considered to result in a less than signi ficant impact. b), c) Displace People and Housing. The project would not displace any residents or housing units since none exist at the site. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 26 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XIII, PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ ii) Police protection? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/~ iii) Schools? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/~ iv) Parks? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ v) Other public facilities? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~ a)i) Fire Protection. The Fire Department is staffed by 79 sworn and 15 non-sworn personnel. The department provides residents and local businesses with protection from fire, natural disasters, hazardous materials and emergency medical incidents through direct response, public education, code development and enforcement. The Fire Department is the only department in San Mateo County presently providing emergency medical care via its own fire rescue ambulances. Minimum on duty staffing is 20 persons.3 Station #62 is the closest station to the Project site, less then one mile away at 249 Harbor ~Iay, and would provide all first response services to the Project. Based upon the 250-270 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project FEIR, response times to the Project site would be between 1 to 2 minutes. Moreover, a project of this nature and size would not be expected to impact response times or staffing needs.4 The Project site is not located in any of the city's fire hazard management unit areas5, and adequate access would be possible via East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road. The Project's design would be required to comply with the City's Fire Code (Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code) and the city Fire Marshall's code requirements regarding on site access for emergency vehicles as is a standard condition for any project approval. Therefore, the Project would have a less t~dn signi fi~~nt impact on the city's fire protection services. 3 City of South San Francisco web site 4 Communication with Dave Quasney, Battalion Chief, South San Francisco Fire Department, November 2, 2006. 5 City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p.265 INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 27 y a)11) Police Protection. The South San Francisco Police Department's jurisdictional area includes the entire city. The Department currently has a total of 79 sworn officers and 35 civilian employees covering a city of approximately 65,500 residents with a daytime population around 100,000 people.6 That's a ratio of 1.2 sworn officers for every one thousand residents. The Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes. These times are within the Department's response time goals. The Department typically works afour-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by a one officer unit with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units available for backup and overlap.' Though the Project would bring more people to the city, it is expected that the proposed office/R&D land use would lead to a less thin signi ficdnt increase in service calls to the Police Department. It is not expected that the Project would lead to an increase in Police Department service call response times. x)111) Schools. The City of South San Francisco is served by the South San Francisco Unified School District. It is possible that some users of the project site would relocate to the City, thereby generating a small student population increase. However, because the project would not involve construction of new residences, it is not expected that the school district would experience a significant growth in student population. Therefore, the impact on the South San Francisco Unified School District would be less than signi ficdnt. a)iv) Parks. The proposed project would not place a significant demand on the City's public parks. Though some users of the project site would use the City's parks, this use would be considered less than signi ficdnt. ~ CalOpps.org website, California public agency employment opportunities service ~ City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p.268 INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 28 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact XIU, RECREATION - a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact /~ /~ a), b) Recreational Facilities. The proposed project would not place a significant demand on the City's public parks. Though some users of the project site could be expected to use the City's parks, this use would not significantly increase demand for or use of recreational facilities and would be considered less than signi fi~~nt. In addition, Project implementation would include establishment of a landscape plaza and pedestrian mall for the enjoyment of those working in the business complex, resulting in a beneficial impact. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 29 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XU. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC -Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial ~ ~/ in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a ~ ~/ level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ~ ~/ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ~ ~/ ~ Result in inadequate parking capacity? ~ ~/ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ~ ~/ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? a) Traffic Increase. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a traffic increase corresponding to an increase in the amount of building floor area. The level of traffic associated with the Project could be considered significant. The EIR will further evaluate this impact. b) Congestion Management Agency LOS Standards. Project related traffic could lead to a decrease in Level of Service standards for the area. The EIR will further evaluate potential Levels of Service impacts in the project area. c) Air Traffic Patterns. The project would have no impact on air traffic patterns in the area since the maximum building height is below that established by the San Francisco International Airport - Airport Land Use Plan. d) Design Hazards. The EIR will evaluate whether the project would lead to any hazards resulting from project design features. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 30 y e) Inadequate Emergency Access. The proposed project would have to be designed in a manner that allows free and clear circulation for emergency vehicles that would respond to an emergency on site. Proposed circulation patterns for the site will be evaluated in the EIR, in the context of the need for emergency access. f) Parking Capacity. Though the project appears compliant with South San Francisco Municipal Code parking requirements, he EIR will evaluate whether the proposed project includes parking capacity commensurate with its demand. g) Policy, Plan Conflicts. The traffic analysis for the EIR will determine whether the proposed Project would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 31 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XVI, UTI LITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ~ ~/ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new ~ ~/ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ~ ~/ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ~ ~/ the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ~ ~/ treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ~ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ~ ~/ capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ~ ~/ and regulations related to solid waste? a), b) Wastewater. The proposed project would contribute both domestic sewage and industrial wastewater to the City of South San Francisco's municipal sewer system. The EIR will evaluate the project's impact on South San Francisco's wastewater facilities. c) Storm Drainage. Periodic flooding occurs in South San Francisco, but is confined to certain areas along Colma Creek. Colma Creek handles much of the urban runoff generated in the city; since South San Francisco is highly urbanized, runoff levels are high and there is increased potential for flood conditions during periods of heavy rainfall. ~Xlhile the project site is not located in the vicinity of the creek and would not be susceptible to flooding during a 10o-year storm, site runoff may be within the Colma Creek watershed. The EIR will evaluate the project's impact on South San Francisco's storm water drainage facilities. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 32 y d) Water Supply. The proposed Project would lead to an increase in demand for potable water. The EIR will evaluate the project's impact on South San Francisco's water supply. e) Wastewater Capacity. Though not expected to occur, the EIR will evaluate whether the project would cause the wastewater treatment plant to exceed its capacity. ~, g) Solid Waste. The City of South San Francisco's solid waste is transported to the Ox Mountain Landfill Facility. The EIR will evaluate the project's impact on solid waste service capacity. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 33 y Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the Project have impacts that are ~ ~/ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.) c) Does the Project have environmental effects, ~ ~/ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Environmental Quality. Project implementation could lead to development that adversely affects the environment in terms of impacts to various CEQA issue topics, as discussed in this Initial Study. These potential impacts will be described in the EIR, and mitigated to the extent feasible. b) Cumulative Impacts. It is possible that the Project could have cumulative impacts related to air quality and traffic. These potential impacts will be described in the EIR, and mitigated to the extent feasible. c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings. Human beings could be affected by a variety of impacts described above. The expectation is that most, but perhaps not all impacts will be mitigated through the implementation of mitigation measures and adherence to applicable policies and plans. Policy makers and decision makers will have to balance the potential benefits of the Project against potential impacts as they consider whether to approve, modify, or reject the Project, following EIR preparation and full public disclosure of impacts. INITIAL STUDY ~ PAGE 34 y APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS This Page Intentionally Left Blank 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ U ~ U o U o ~i ~i N ~ N ~ N ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O O O L ~ O ~ ('~ ~ ('~ (~ ~ O ~ In ~ In N ~ ~ ~ N C 0 ~ N O N c'~ N M N C (n O O (n O O (n O O N p O N ~ O 'cn j ~ o N W ~ ~ ~ O o o N ~ ° U Cfl o ° U ~ °~ ~ ° U ~ ~ ~ O N C Q 0 ~ ~ L L L p Z N > O X Z ~ O X Z C4 ~n W ~ Q X Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q M c 00 °o N N N ~ (n ~ ~ z N IL > ~ ~ ~ Ur j ~ r N ~ ~ Z ~ a 0 ~ N ~ Q ~ p ~ Q ~ ~ m ~ O U J ~ a O ~ O (6 W ' ' 0 ~ ~ c O ~ ~ cn ~ 0 ~ ~ ~~ W V ~ N ~ c~ ~ ~ O ° ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ N ~ O N N ~~ W V ~ N ~ c~ ~ ~ O w ~ Q ~ ~ W Z ° - ~ - ~ W U ~ ~ a ~ Q ~ ch O ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ N cn C ~ Q ° ~ ~ W Q ~ ~ W _0 ~ ~ W W J U _ W > Q z ~ ~ a ° ~ o0 ~ ~ ~ O c ~ N in C ~ Q ° ~ Z ~ ~ J Z 0 ~ ~ a p Z Q ~ ~ O W Q ~ ° ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ N cn C ~ a ° ~ N ~ N I~ N ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 n! U ~ U ~ U ~ w o rn ~ ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ,~ O O O N O N ~, ~ O ~ In r In ~ ~ O ~ N ~ N N C 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 N N (n O (n O (n O N C dj 0 'gin ~ c0 UI ~ UI `~ UI N ~ I~ W ~ N ~ N ° ~ N ~ N O O N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 . ~ L Z X ~ X o0 X O ~ ~ Q ~ N 0 Z O 0 Z c~ ~ ~ W 0 Z . ~ ~ N ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ N N N L O ^ L.L L (~ ~ ~ O ~ Z N_ IL > Q ~ C ~ W c~ N O ~ ~ z ~ o ~ N ~ ~ Q ~ O Q ~ m ~ ~ U O ~.., ~ o ~ /~ 0 N ~ W ~ ~ ~ N ~ c O ~ ~ m cn C .0 ~ ~ ~ V ~ O > (6 ~ ~ 0 i p ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ m N ~ O N ~ ~ V ~ N > t~ ~ ~ 0 W ~ Q ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ W W ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ E ~ ~ (a ~ ~ .. (n Q 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W _0 ~ ~ ~ W J _ W ~ J z ~ Q ~ a 0 ~ ~ ~ N . N O ~ ~ ~ t6 ~ ~ .. (n Q 0 ~ ~ W Z ~ ~ W Q Z 0 ~ ~ a 0 ~ Z W ~ ~ (~ Q ~ Q ~ 0 ~ (n ~ ~ ~ N . N O ~ ~ ~ (a ~ ~ .. (n Q 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ U~ U N U N C~ ~ 00 O N ~ ~ O ~ ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W W j, ~ Q O ~ ~ O O O O ~ ~ N In O O r ~ N In O N a W N a N C 0 ~ N O N I` N I` N C 0 (~ O O (n ~ O (n ~ O O ~~ ~ N ~ ~ o O N ~ W L ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ N ~ ~ 0 Q UI N N Q UI ~ c'~ N Q UI N . c~ N ~ ~ Z X c~ X I~ X O ~ N ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ N N N ~ j O ~ 0 ~ O ~ L (~ ~ ~ O ~ Z N_ IL > Q ~ C ~ W ~ N O ~ ~ z ~ o ~ N ~ ~ Q ~ O Q ~ m ~ ~ U O ~.., ~ o ~ ; O N ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ O .~ N ~ c O ~ ~ m cn C .0 ~ ~ ~ V ~ O > (6 ~ ~ O ~ ~ N Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ m N ~ O N ~ ~ V ~ N > t~ ~ ~ O W ~ Q ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ W W ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q Z -' O ~ O p ~ ~ N ~ E ~ ~ (a ~ ~ .. (n Q 0 ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ W _0 ~ ~ ~ W J _ W ~ J z Q Q ~ a 0 Z Q O ~ ~ N D ~ N . N O ~ ~ ~ t6 ~ ~ .. (n Q 0 ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ W Z Q (n ~ W Q Z 0 ~ ~ a 0 ~ Z W ~ ~ (~ Q ~ Q ~ Q ~ (~ Z Q O ~ In N n ni N . N O ~ ~ ~ (a ~ ~ .. (n Q 0 ~ .° + ~ ~~ ~ ~~ r ~ ~ ° ri ~ ~a ~ o C, N O o U ~ ~, ~ ~o ~ U ~a M ~ N 0 x 00 ~ ~ ~ w ~ 0 .° + ~ ~~ ~ ~~ r ~ ~ ° vi ~ ~a ~ o C, N O o U ~ ~, ~ ~o ~ V ~ ~ 'r' ~ ~ N o C ~" x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ o ~ ~ p v Lr U N .Q '~ + ~ ~ ~' y ~ .~ ~ ~ V1 ~ ~ o Q ~ ~ a ~ ~ o ~ N N ~ U ~ U ~ y .--~ O ~ N O W o ~ U ~, ~ ~ Nz o x O '~ ~ '~ W N O .~ U N ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ Pa ~ ''" o ~ ~ a ~ o O ~ N N ~ ~ v ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ as o ~a a a ~ Nz x 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ w ad V1 V1 C*1 ~ ~ O O O V'1 V'1 Nl ~+ '"+ O O O o v-, ~ v~ N O O O 00 O 10 ~ M c+1 O d\ ~ c+1 00 ~D 00 c*1 O ~ M O 10 ~ M c*1 O d1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o, ~n o ~~ ~,~ ~~ ~N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U U ~ `~ 0 0 G~ ~ ~z ~, N N ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~w ~A ~-~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ G a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ W O ~, ~, ~ ~ O O Q ~ ~ w w ~~ M ~ ~ ~ N U ~ a oa~v-~o~ l~c~oo ~ ~ ~ a~ cv o cri ri cv ~n W 4~ 4~ O O ~+ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~l ~-1 ~l ~ '~ ~ N ~ lfl O .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d1 O N V~ ~D l~ O ~ I~M~N ~~~~ o ~ o ~, 0000 ~ NNNN 0 c~ ~ N N O ~ ~~ v ~ ~~~~ w ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ w ~~NN ~~~~ wwww 0 0 0 0 ~ W W W W w ~~~~ ~ 0000 o ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ W crt O ~ N N O x crt ~ crt N 0 Ww 0 w ~~ ~~ a~ 0 0~ ~~ 0 .° + ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ -, ~ ~,~ M y o C, N O o U ~ ~, O ~ o N U ~a M ~ N 0 x ~ Y ~ ~ w ~ 0 .° + ~ ~~ ~ ~~ o ~ ., ~ `^ a ~ y o C, N O o U ~ ~, ~ ~s 0 V ~ ~ 'r' ~ ~ N o C ~" x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ o ~ ~ p v Lr U N .Q '~ + ~ ~ ~' y ~ .~ ~ ~ V1 ~ ~ o o ~ ~ a ~ ~ o ~ N N ~ U ~ U ~ y .--~ o ~ N O W o ~ U ~, ~ ~ Nz o x ~ ' ~ O '~ ~ '~ W N O .~ U N ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ Pa ~ ''" o ~ ~ a ~ o O ~ N N ~ ~ v ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ as o '~ P~ a a ~ Nz x 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ w ad O c*1 c+1 ~ ~ O O O O c+1 c+'i ^--+ '"+ O O O N m ~O ~ ~ O O O N N 10 ~ 00 ~ O d\ N N o0 ~D M ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [~ ~ O d1 N N o0 ~0 l~ ~ v~ o ~~ ~,~ o ~ ~ 0 0 a a ~, ~ ~ ~ U U . ~ .~ ad ad O ° c c ~ N ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ z ~~ 0 0 as o~ ~ w ~ A ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a .~ .~ z ~ ~ ~ o ~ a~ ~ ~ ~, ' .~ a W ~ ~~~ ww ~ ~~ N U ~ a oa~v-~o~ l~c~oo ~ ~ ~ a~ cv o cri ri cv ~n W 4~ 4~ O O ~+ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~l ~-1 ~l ~ '~ ~ N ~ lfl O .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d1 O N V~ ~D l~ O ~ I~M~N ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~, o000 ~ NNNN 0 c~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~~ v ~ ~~~~ w ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ w ~~NN ~~~~ wwww o 0 0 0 ~ W W W W w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o000 .s ~~~a .~ W crt O ~ N N O x crt ~ crt N 0 Ww 0 w ~~ ~~ a~ 0 o~ ~ ~ 0 This Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX D TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This Page Intentionally Left Blank 0 Q Z W V c/1 W Q J L U ~--~ U N ~O Table 5-1 from the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan EIR (City of South San Francisco, December 2006), relating to Figure 5-1 on the previous page: at 1 1 ! ~~,~~ its Pint ~~~~ ~~~,~ ~Y Y I V~ ~ ~~~T~4f~ f ~~,~ T~'ra B~ ~~T~ ~ ~~~,M~ ~ 1~ ~,1 ~~ ,4 ~ a~ ~~ f~~~~~ ~ ~~ R ~r~ ~~~~ ~R~; ~ En~t~e~rlr~ ~6~ ~~m~i~+d ~s ~ maer ~D~ ~ R~ #~ Lend ~n Fr~~ ~ 5-~ fir ~dp~#i~~n ~f p~r~~l~ ~r~~ spe~~l~ ~r~]~c~, Modified as follows to remove the proposed Project and include the Genentech Master Plan development for use as the cumulative scenario and 2015 base case in this EIR for the 250-270 East Grand Avenue Project: Removed 177,633 square feet of Office R&D from Neighborhood Y (the Project site analyzed in this EIR). Added in the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan proposal, a total of 2,422,357 square feet, largely for Office and R&D uses. Not To Scale /~ ~~~ NORTH ~~ r° ~~~ 101 ~ Sister Cities % ~ =Project Site 0 stet Point Blvd ,~ P~~ _ ~ P ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~e~ ~a ~~ ~~~ ~ 0 v c ~ o ~i+~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ o . ~ ~ Q ~~~~G~ vd ~ra~agV e ~ ~ ~~ o ~~~ Dr ~ ~ E Grand ast a ~ .` o~ o~ e~ ~ ~~~~ a~,dJ ~,~ ~ ~,~ P m `~ ~ ~ P ~ -9 ~e ~~ C ~~e a Mitchell Ave Q a ~~' a~ a~ Q 0 ~ ., ~I ~ tah Pve U ~ o 101 N ~. .~ 0 380 -_ 213 EastGrand EIR Figure 1 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Area Map ~ SB On/off I y Ramps A :. ~o :a ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~1~~ ~ r Sister ~O ster Cities,, Point ~,~ r'r' ,~ ~- v ,-U~Nvv - e,'r r ~. r v fi v ~ ~ `~ US 101 ~ Wonder- NB Ramps ~ Color ~~ w... o ~ ~ '~~~. ~ Drivewa '`Utah ~~~T Q~ 0 a T E Grand =Stop Sign C) =Signal ~~~~~~ SB 101 ~ sTP ~ ~ O ramp ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ L 0 E Grand ~' r m ,:: -: 213 East Grand EIR Figure 2 Existing CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP intersection Lane Geometrics and Control SB On/off 3 80 484 ~ ~ Ramps '~ 9 - - ~ 163 ~ ~ 164 1 '~ 35 55 50 ~ ~ 155 Forbes 110 ~` 547 -- 206 ~ '~ 13 ~. ~ ~ '~ 267 95 242 0 x-120 ~ x-106 l- ~ ~ 68 ~ 268 ~ Sister 0 ster 0 ster Cities 69 ~' Point ~ r- oint o 353 ~' a ~ ~ 833 -- 16 239 517 --~ 15612 727 28 ~, 83 494 ~, m rr ~ i r ii s l Not To Scale NORTH ,a ~~ QJ ~~ ~~ ~• E 0 Mitchell Av ~= 263 ~ '~ 30 1275 10 ~ ~- 571 ~' ,` 92 Mitchell 65 ,' cn ~ r- 87 -- ~ 481 106 358 ~, 0 243 298 '~ 9 138 21 ~ 9 10 ~ US 101 Wonder- 1 NB Ramps ~ Color 907,` ~ ~ 8 ~ 8 0144 385 ~, 228 260 '~ 115 3 435 ~ 2 200 ~ Drivewa Utah 18 ,' ~ ~ 4 ~ 560 ~~27 16 ~, 219 ~ ~. r _ 64896 13 ~ 4 ~- 0 S8101 ,` 0 Onram 856,` o O~ a5 0 43 ~, 69 N8101 m Offramp 0 0 o.~s f f1 0 ~rA ~, '~ ~0 400 0 ~ ,` 50 718 y 526 ~- ysfer Pt ~ ~' °Je518~ F~~ ~ 200 103 0 ~ 381 ~ ~ 295 ,~ 10 Oyster oin ~ ~ 1800 -- ~ 75 20 215, ~ 327 '~ 0 62 ~ x-160 o ,` 480 ~ 'filler SB 101 , ' Offramp 128 ~, 47 104 381 ~ ~ 83 70 480 ~~~133 o ,` 259 Grand 227` ~ ~- 130 -- 14 194 69 ~, 322 83 'L 64 27 181 ~- 308 ~ ~ 4 E G and 189 ~ ~ ~ 1285 -- m 50 226 45 ~. a, ~ 15 ~ ~ 250 L o ~ 30 E Grand 875 ~ 50 ~ ~ 35 320 c~ 0 a '~ 37 16 30 ~ ~- 490 l- Grand 1 46 ~ Overcross 788 ~ 213 EastGrand EIR Figure 3 Existing CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP AM Peak Hour Volumes fi v 101 '~ 16 x E Grand 949 p 624 ondercolor' `Ln Ptah PJ ~- 358 ,` 7 Grand Overcross 689--~ ~~ 29 ~' ~ ~ 150 765 w 63 0 20 112 29 ~ ~ m ~- 252 E Grand '` 20 643 ~' ~~ ~ 1255 -- ~ 64 121 196 ~, 0 135 ~ ~ 17 a~0 2 3 ~- 275 ~ ~- Grand 36 ,` 1350 -- e r s !c i SB On/off ~ 42 595 Ramps '~ 3 ~- ~- ~ 380 ~ ~ a 226 8 '~ 75 105 30 ~ ~ 445 Forbes 35 ,` 143 ~ 1003 ~ '~ 327 67 111 0 x-154 ~ 677 , ~ Air ort 100 ,' ~ 171 -- o 200 ~, ~ 88 24171 `~ ~ 252 ~ '~ 15 525 7 ~ ~ 296 ,` 92 Mitchell 61 J'' ~ 85 ~ ~ 466 61 338 ~, 0 159 ~. 556 '~ 15 169 14 ~ 6 22 ~ US 101 Wonder- 1 NB Ramps ~ Color 399,` ~ ~ ~ 8 -- 16 0 323 212 ~, 317 575 '~ 220 13 220 ~ 10 830 Drivewa ~ Utah 12 ~' ~ 0 ~ a~ 15 100 12 ~, ° 394 fi v 101 333 ~'~25 ~. ~ ~ '~ 914 320 169 0 ~ 642 ~ ~ 464 ~. ,` 184 ~ 977 ~ Sister 0 ster 0 ster Cities 79 ~' Point ~ ~- oint o 271 ~' ~ ~1 342 -- 30 225 190 ~~ 385 150 50 24 ~, 130 257 ~ rr aye Forbes Bev ondercolor' `Ln Ptah PJ '~ 15 E Grand 59 504 0 ~ ~ 1170 ,` 16 Grand Overcross 210--~ ~~ (• 14 ~, ~ ~ 242 171 w 120 0 '~ 22 349 6 ~ ~ 975 ~~ E Grand '` 84 215 ~' ~~ 232 ~ ~ 181 22 78 ~, 0 49 108 '~ 173 81 50 ~- 1103 ~ ~ 4 E Grand 82 ~ ~ ~ (~ 266 -- m 36 54 58 ~, ~ 59 ~ ~ 820 o ,~ 250 213 ~ ~ ~ ~ 26 ~, c~ 40 30 101 ,~ 2 25 1103 ~0 SB 101 ~ 0 Onram 505` o ~ (~ 0 -- a 10 3 75 ~, 83 N8101 m 0 0 '~ O.~s f ~ 0 ~0 ~rA ~, 1344 0 ~ ,` 42 231 y yster Pt 78 ~, ~~ oJe55 ~ m 978 40 F~~ ~ ~ 0 45 x-1490 ,` 20 Oyster o!n ~ ~ 315 -- ~ 235 15 55 ~, ~ 314 '~ 0 77 ~ ~- 254 o ,` 354 Miller , ~ S8101 ' Offramp 100 ~, ~ 118 218 ~ ~ 460 ~ ~ 157 141 100 ~~~ 240 o ,` 634 Grand 172,` ~ ~- 45 ~ 57 99 106 ~, 384 0 ~''~79 42 19 ~ ~-1294 ~- `° ~ Grand 28 ~ Overcross 203 ~ 213 EastGrand EIR Figure 4 Existing CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP PM Peak Hour Volumes 39 a ~ 0 0 ~ X1042 ~- Grand 8 ~` 262 ~ Not To Scale NORTH 213 E Grand Ave Driveways 10 ~' 22 ._ 8 328 Roebling Rd Driveways 12 Other Property 1 ~ 0 .~ ,~ 0 17 2 ,J 1, 5 '~ 3 0 ~ ,~ ~ 0 ~ East Grand Ave ~ 0 36 ,, 3 AM Peak Hour 213 E GrandAve D i r veways 25 ~' 4 .` 10 328 Roebling Rd Driveways 2 '' Other Property 4 ~ 0 ~. ®c ~ 0 39 0 2 '~ 0 3 e~ ~ ~ 0 East Grand Ave ,- 0 ~` 8 ~, 0 PM Peak Hour 213 East Grand EIR Figure 5 Existing Driveway CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes 213 East Grand EIR Figure 6 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP BuslShuttlelTransit Routes 532 SB On/off 500 Ramps '~ 15 i ~ 490 ~1 61 50 err m 70 165 \ ~ 55 ~~-256 Forbes 270 ,` 1056 ~ ~ '~ 27 284 88 30 m ~ 151 ,` 26 Mitchell 78 ,' ~ ~ 219 -- ~ 433 621 367 ~, 0 712 317 '~ 9 143 21 ~ 9 16 ~ US 101 Wonder- 1 NB Ramps ~ Color 1586 ,` ~ 8 -- 8 144 486 ~, ~ 248 295 L 518 120 ~ ~3 ,` 231 Drivewa Utah 20 ~' n ~ 1 ~ 5 -- -a' 30 629 17 ~, ~ 230 Not To Scale NORTH i r ii s l ~~~a P~~ ~ r s !c i ~ ~ ~• E r L ~, Mitchell Av ~= E Grand E 1372 p 717 ~ ~'~251 290 132 356 0 ~ 258 ~. ,` 98 Sister 0 ster Cities Point 172 ~' ~ r- 1052 -- 31 293 70 ~, 154 ~- 503 ,` 7 Grand Overcross 1482 ~ ~ 29 ~' ~ ~ 150 1188 w 85 ~ 1 200 21 0 '~ 5 ~- 515 E Grand ~ 41 9so ~ _~ ~' 2196 -- a 63 253 180 ~, 0 331 o '~ 398 ~~-145 ~ ,` 408 0 ster Point o 423~'a ~1 670 --~ 463 851198 607 ~, cu 78122113 ,~ 4 ~- 0 SB 101 ,` 0 Onram 1572,` o O~a35 0 102 ~, 170 N8101 ~ 51 1 O y 1 '~ 0 . s~~rA fJ ~, ~- 614 159 ~ ,` 58 1152 y 555 ~- ysfer Pt ~~ oJe~ ~ F~`l 1167 ~ ~ 286 116 ~ 2 ~ 511 ~ ~ 480 ,` 15 Oyster oin ~ ~ 2520 -- ~ 115 25 345 ~, ~ 457 '~ 0 62 ~ •-160 o ,` 995 Miller , ~ SB 101 ' Offramp 129 ~, 47 228 388 a '~ 104 ~11~ ~~178 ~ ,` 265 Grand 318 •~ f ~- 331 -- ~4 ~ 217 69 ~, 338 96 'L 66 29 208 ~- 451 ~ ~ 4 E Grand 195 ~ ~ (~ 2495 -- m 50 658 45 ~, a, 147 22 2 a ~ 6 ~~-549 ~ ~- Grand 151 ,` 2293 -- ro 2 ~ 0 9 0 ~ ~- 450 0 ,` 45 E Grand 35 ,' ~ ~ (~ 1670 -- m 68 460 70 `~ 5 ~ ~ 0 a '~ 48 46 41 ~ ~- 625 l- Grand 1 85 ,, Overcross 1574 213 East Grand EIR Figure 7 Year 2015 Base Case CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP AM Peak Hour Volumes ~16 SB On/off Ramps 650 ~- ~- '~ 10 ~ 560 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 566 420 ~ ~ m 290 70 , ~ 220 ~ ~- 890 Forbes 65 ,` 204 -- 1003 ~ '~ 342 77 131 0 ~ 170 "~ 1696 Air ort 108 ,' ~ 176-- o~ 200 ~, ~ 88 24171 tD ~ 435 ~ t 202 ~ '~ 1622 ~. 511 493 0 ~-1073 ~ ~ ~ 620 ~- ~ ,` 237 ~ 1577 ~ Sister 0 ster 0 ster Cities Point oint 245 ~' ~ r- o 569 ~' c 533 ~ 111 245 259 ~~ 893 230 66 ~, 228 443 ~, m 160 rr i r ii s l Not To Scale NORTH ~~~a P~~ 263 ~ '~ 30 1275 10 ~ ~ 571 ~' ,` 92 Mitchell 65 ,` ~ ~ ~ 87 ~ ~ 481 106 358 ~, 0 243 587 '~ 15 169 14 ~ 6 22 US 101 ~Wonder- 1 NB Ramps ~ Color 520 ~` ~~ 8 ~ ~ 323 33816 228 ~, 590 L 235 245 ~ ~ 5 ,` 1168 Drivewa Utah 15 ,' ~ ~ 1 (~ 0 ~ 0 15 397141 15 ~, ~ 296 0 14 868 11 ~ ~ ~ 1942 E Grand ~ 170 181 ~ _~ ~' 437 ~ a151 55 60 ~, 0 74 153 '~ 198 89 56 ~- 1777 ~ ~ ~ E Grand 87 ,` ~~ ~ 481 -- m 36 144 58 ~, m 87 21 ~ 2 1674 25 ~- 0 SB 101 ~ 0 Onram 932,' o ~ (~ 0 -- X119 3 182, 349 N8101 ~ m Ifframp ~ 234 2 1 L '~ 0 S~~~A~ ~, ~ 2292 26 ~ ,` 56 354 y yster Pt 110 ~- ~ ~ ~ aJe~ ~ ~ ~1~ 151 ,- 1292 49 0 ~~ 129 ~- 2395 ,` 40 Oyster oint ~ 480 ~ ~ 435 25 90 ~, 2 ~ 493 '~ 0 77 ~ ~ 254 o ,` 465 Miller ~ S8101 Offramp 100 ~, 118 401 534 a ~ 247 24 ~ ~- 419 ~ ~ ,` 649 Grand 251 ~ • ~ I ~- 115 -- 57 112 106 ~, 407 ~ '~ 0 30 11 1 ; 1370 ., ~- o ~ 502 E Grand 5 ~ ~ .~ ~- 381 ~ ~ g0 110 70 ~- ~ 1 97 0 a ~ 0 ~- 2033 ~ ~- Grand 30 486 -- 213 East Grand EIR Figure 8 Year 2015 Base Case CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP PM Peak Hour Volumes 0 a '~ 103 131 28 ~ ~ 1962 l- `° ~ Grand 92 ,, Overcross 350 -- ~ SB On/off Ramps A :. ~o ~~ a n~ ~~~ Sister O ste Cities,, Point ~,-,Tr~r a, v ,-U~Nvv - e,'r i ~. r v fi v ~ ~ `~ US 1 D 1 ~ Wonder- IB Ramps ~ Color ~~ ,~,, ~' ~' ~ ~ ~ '~~~. ~ Drivewa '`Utah ~~~T Q~ 0 a T E Grand =Stop Sign C) =Signal a .~ ~ L 0 E Grand ~' r m ,:: -: 213 East Grand EIR Figure 9 ' Year 2015 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP intersection Lane Geometries and Control ~ 24 SB On/off Ramps i ~~ 0 m !~ Forbes 8 16 0 ~- 3 ~- Sister 0 ster Cities Point 20 -- ~1 7 ~- 1 ~• E J r _ L ~, Mitchell Av l/ondercolor Ln t 2 ~ x-14 Mitchell 2 ,- ~ ~- 10 -- ~ 10 70 US 101 ~ Wonder- NB Ramps Color 80 ~ 8 ~, ~ 8 ~3 Drivewa Utah 27 fi v 101 a x E Grand (~(}~ ;V 57 ~ 11 Grand Overcross 71 ~~ c ~ ~ 57 0 1 2 ~ ~ m ~- 22 E Grand ~ 17 216 ~ T ~' 110 a 0 ~ ~ 0 c~ a 40 ~ 9 'J Grand 328 ~ S8101 Onrama o a N8101 ~ Offramp ~ ~~s ~~r A~ 36 ~ yster Pt ~ ~~ o`~e 40 ~ ~ 8 F~~ ~ Oyster o~n m 65 ~~ ~ 1 ~- ° ~ 1 Grand 6 -- ''~ 8 76 x-11 ,` 2 E Grand 128 -- m 12 r 0 a ~ x-11 ~ Grand Overcross 71 ~ 213 East Grand EIR Figure 10 " AM Peak Hour CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Project Distribution ~ ~ r' S SB On/off Ramps i ~~ 0 9 m !~ Forbes 17 ~ ~- 90 Mitchell 1 ,- ~ ~- 4 -- ~ 1 10 US 101 ~ Wonder- NB Ramps Color 11 ~ ~ 47 Drivewa Utal ~ 4 0 S8101 Onrama o a N8101 ~ Offramp ~ ~~s ~~r A~ 8 ~ ysfer Pf ~ ~ 1~oJe 7 ~ m 71 F Oyster o~n m 9 ~. '~ 5 ~- ° ~- 7 Grand 2 -- '~ 71 15 ~- 72 ,` 17 E Grand 27 -- m 2 r 0 a ~ ~- 72 ~ Grand Overcross 11 ~ 213 East Grand EIR Figure 11 " PM Peak Hour CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Project Distribution ~ ~ J r _ L ~, Mitchell Av > Wondercolor ~ Ln v t 101 x E Grand (~(}~ ;V 16 0 2 m x-160 E Grand ~ 140 44 ~ T ~' 18 a 0 1 ~ ~g 4 ~- 22 Sister 0 ster Cities Point 4 -- ~ 1 ~- 3 ~ 72 Grand Overcross 11 ~~ c ~~ 16 ~ ~ 0 c~ 302 ~ '~ 1 'J Grand 62 ~ SB On/off ~ 56 500 Ramps '~ 15 ~- ~- ~ 490 ~ ~ a 62 50 '~ 55 70 165 ~ ~ 258 ~- Forbes 270 ,` 1056 -- a '~ 252 298 2 3 260 0 ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ 98 Sister O ster Cities Point 172 ~' ~ 1072 -- 2 3 31 77 ~, 154 err aye Forbes Bev 629 ~ '~ 171 64 147 0 ~ 209 426 Air ort 50 ~` ~ 153-- o~ 116 ~, ~ 15323 356 m ~ ~ '~ 27 286 88 30 m ~ 165 •J ~ ,` 26 ,Mitchell 80 ,` ~ ~ (• 229 -- ~ 433 691 367 ~, 0 722 ~. 317 '~ 9 143 21 ~ 9 16 ~ US 101 Wonder- 1 NB Ramps ~ Color 1646 ,' ~ 8 -- 8 144 494 ~, ~ 248 ~ 295 'L 120 526 ~ 3 ,` 234 Drivewa Utah 5 ~ 0 30 230656 17 ~, ~ ~- 514 ,` 7 Grand Overcross 1553 -- ~ 29 ~' ~ ~ 150 1245 w 200 85 23 0 '~ 16 ~- 537 E Grand '` 58 9so ~ z~ ~' 2412 ~ ~ 63 363 180 ~, 0 331 42 2 a ~ 12 r 552 ~ ~ Grand 479 ~` 2290 -- ~ '~ 403 X148 ~ ,` 408 0 ster oint o 423~'~, ~1 706 -~~ 463 85 1 1 98 607 ~, m 221 781 13 ,~ 4 ~0 S8101 ,~ 0 Onram 1572,` p 0-- a35 0 102 ~, 170 N8101 ~ Offramp 51 1 O.~s~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~0 614 ,.A , 159 ~ ,` 58 1152 y ysfer Pt 591 ~, ~~ ~' oJe~ ~ F~~1167~ ~ 294 116 ~ 2 ~' 551 ~ ~ 480 ,` 15 Oyster oin ~ ~ 2520 ~ ~ 115 25 345 ~, ~ 472 '~ 0 62 ~ x-160 o ,` 1043 Miller , ~ S8101 ' Offramp 131 ~, 47 229 ~ ~ 388 ~ ~ 105 97 1171 ~~ ~ 179 o ,` 265 Grand 318,` ~ ~- 337 -- 14 217 69 ~, 338 ~ t ~a 29 96 284 ~- 462 ,~ j ~. ,~ 262 E Grand 195 ~ ~ (i 2623 -- m 50 670 45 ~, m 147 ro 2 ~ 0 9 0 .; ~- 453 0 ,` 45 E Grand 35 ~' r 1670 ~ m 74 460 70 `~ 5 ~ ~ 213 EastGrand EIR Figure 12 Year 2015 Base Case + Project CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP AM Peak Hour Volumes ~ 0 a '~ 48 46 41 ~ ~ 636 l- Grand I 85 ,, Overcross 1645 -- 621 SB On/off 650 Ramps ~- '~ 10 ~ 560 ~ 1 ~ 575 420 '~ 220 290 70 ~ ~ 890 Forbes 65 206 -- 1003 ~ '~ 342 77 131 0 ~ 172 "~ 1801 _ __ A A_i_ _ ~ n.u.r~n 108 ,` ~ 177-- o~ 200 ~, ~ 88 24171 m J 263 ~ '~ 30 1292 10 ~ ~- 661 ~' ,` 92 Mitchell 66 ,' ~ ~ 91 -- ~ 481 116 358 ~, 0 244 587 '~ 15 169 14 ~ 6 22 ~ US 101 Wonder- 1 NB Ramps ~ Color 531 ~` ~ 8 -- 16 0 323 228 ~, 338 fi v 436 ~ '~ 211 511 497 0 ~- 1095 ~.1 1 l~ ~ ,~ 237 Sister O ster Cities Point 245,' 537 -- ~ ~ 2 5 66 ~, 22g oho 0 '~ 1662 ~ 651 ~ ,` 1577 0 ster oint o 569 ~' a ~ (• 267 -~~ 893 230 443 ~, m 160 321 ,~ 2 1674 25 ~0 SB 101 ,` 0 Onram 932` o ~ 0 -- a119 3 182, ~ 349 N8101 c~ 0 234 2 1 ~ '~ 0 Sf~rA~ ~, ~ 2292 26 ~ ,~ 56 354 y yster Pt 118 ~- ~ ~ ~' oJe~ ~ ~ F1`~ 151 1363 49 0 ~~ 136 = Project Slte i~l ~ r i ~ 296 ~ 868 11 0 '~ 16 m ~- 2102 E Grand ~ 310 181 ,' ~~ 481 ~ ~ 151 73 60 ~, 0 74 239 0 a ~ 0 ~ 2029 ~ ~- Grand 93 ,` 488 ~ ~- 2395 ,` 40 Oyster oint ~ 480 ~ ~ 435 25 90 ~, ~ 495 '~ 0 77 ~ ~- 254 o „~ 472 ~ Miller SB 101 , ' Offramp 100 ~, 119 ~ 405 ~ ~ 534 ~ ~ 252 287 245 ~~~ 426 o ,` 649 Grand 251,` ~ r- 117 -- 57 112 106 ~, 407 11 ~ '~ 0 30 1 .~ ~ 1371 l• 0 502 E Grand 5 ~ ~'1 ~- 381-- ~ g0 110 70 ~ cn 1 213 EastGrand EIR Figure 13 Year 2015 Base Case + Project CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP PM Peak Hour 0 a '~ 103 131 28 ~ ~ 2034 ~- `° ~ Grand 92 ~ Overcross 361 Not To Scale NORTH 213 East Grand EIR AM Peak Hour 213 E Grand Ave Driveways 167 ~- 68 328 Roebling Rd Driveways 7d PM Peak Hour Figure 14 Year 2015 Base Case + Project Driveway CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes Last vrana Hve 479,, 0 ~ Last ~rana,vve 93 ~ 0 ,, 2015 Assumed base ~ =Stop Sign lane geometrics Not To scale C~> =Signal ~~ = 2015 Mitigated NORTH lane geometrics y E Grand ~~ ~~ m 101 E Mitchell Widen westbound Mitchell Avenueand add a second westbound through lane ~, v ~ Mitchell ~~~ ~J ~~~~s ~' Mitchell ~ y~l`lt t(~ n '~ o / \~~ =Project Site v '~ 213 East Grand EIR Figure 15 Year 2015 Base Case + Project Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Not To Scale NORTH Widen the eastbound Grand Avenue approach to Airport Blvd and provide a left turn lane, a combined throughl left turn lane and a combined throughl right turn lane. 2015 Assumed base ramp lane geometrics 2015 Mitigated ramp lane geometrics * =Added or restriped lanes W~on~dercolor Ln Restripe the eastbound Oyster Point Blvd approach from one left turn, two through lanes and a combined through/right turn lane to one left, two throughs and an exclusive right turn lane. 213E Grand EIR Figure 16 Year 2015 Base Case + Project CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Mitigations to Improve Freeway Offramp Operation APPENDIX E TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PLAN This Page Intentionally Left Blank I~ F' .r March 10, 2008 Prepared by ~~ 916.448.2440 TABLE OF CONTENTS E E UTIVE UMM R ............................................................................................................. i .. UMM R F TDM ME URE ............................................................................................11 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .................................................................................1 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT GOALS .......................................1 3.0 EMPLOYEE MODE SPLIT EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 .................................................. 3 Ta e 1- Compara e Transportation Mo e-Use Rates ....................................... 3 Table 2 -Estimated Off ice Use Alternative Transportation Modes .................... 4 Table 3 -Estimated RB~D Use Alternative Transportation Modes ..................... 5 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 5 Project Location Map .......................................................................................................... 7 TDM Site Plan - 213 East Grand Avenue ........................................................................ 8 5.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................. 9 5.1 Parking Supply ........................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Free Parking for Car and Vanpools and Clean Fuel Vehicles ............................. 9 5.3 Preferential Car and Vanpool Parking .................................................................... 9 5.4 Passenger Loading Zones ....................................................................................... 10 6.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL RIDEMATCHING SERVICE ...................................... 10 7.0 TRANSIT ............................................................................................................................ 11 7.1 Shuttle Funding ........................................................................................................ 11 7.2 Direct Route to Transit ............................................................................................ 11 7.3 Shuttle Services to 213 East Grand Avenue ......................................................... 11 Table 4 -Shuttle Service to 213 East Grand Avenue ........................................... 12 Shuttle Service Maps (Caltrain and BART) .......................................................... 13 7.4 Shuttle/ Bus Stops .................................................................................................... 14 7.5 Caltrain ...................................................................................................................... 14 7.6 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART} ............................................................................. 14 7.7 SamTrans ................................................................................................................... 15 7.8 Downtown Dasher Taxi Service ............................................................................ 15 7.9 Ferry Service ............................................................................................................. 15 8.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES ................................................................16 8.1 Pedestrian Connections ...........................................................................................16 8.2 Bicycle Parking -Long-Term and Short-Term ....................................................16 Table 5 -Bicycle Parking Recommendation .........................................................16 8.3 Bicycle Connections .................................................................................................17 8.4 Bicycle Resources .....................................................................................................17 San Mateo County Bicycle Map .............................................................................18 Bay Trails Bicycle Map ............................................................................................19 8.5 Shower and Clothes Lockers .................................................................................. 20 Table 6 -Proposed Shower and Locker Facilities ................................................ 20 9.0 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR ........................................................................ 20 10.0 COMMUTE INCENTIVES AND PROMOTIONS ....................................................... 22 10.1 Commuter Choice .................................................................................................... 22 10.2 Carpool Incentive Programs ................................................................................... 22 10.3 Vanpool Incentive Programs .................................................................................. 23 10.4 Free Bridge Toll ........................................................................................................ 24 10.5 Try Transit Program ................................................................................................ 24 10.6 Trip Planner .............................................................................................................. 24 10.7 Commute Allowances ............................................................................................. 25 11.0 GUARANTEED EMERGENCY RIDE HOME PROGRAM ........................................ 25 12.0 ALT ERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULE INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................... 26 12.1 Flextime ..................................................................................................................... 26 12.2 Teleworking Infrastructure .................................................................................... 27 12.3 Compressed work week ........................................................................................ 27 13.0 TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE INFORMATION .................................................. 28 13.1 Transportation Kiosk ............................................................................................... 28 13.2 Emp ogee Transportation F yer ............................................................................. 29 Sample Transportation Information Board .......................................................... 29 13.3 Designated Employer/ Tenant Contact ................................................................. 29 Emp ogee Transportation F yer ............................................................................. 30 13.4 Promotional Programs ............................................................................................ 31 13.5 Tenant Training and Developer-Provided Resource Representative .............. 31 14.0 PROJECT AMENITIES ..................................................................................................... 32 14.1 Recreational and Bicycle Facilities ......................................................................... 32 15.0 KICK-OFF EVENT ............................................................................................................ 33 16.0 ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION FAIR AND SPECIAL PROMOTIONS ................. 33 17.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION ........................................... 34 18.0 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT ........................................... 35 18.1 Annual Employee Commute Survey .................................................................... 35 18.2 Annual Summary Report ........................................................................................ 36 18.3 Triennial Report ....................................................................................................... 36 18.4 Penalty f or Noncompliance .................................................................................... 37 18.5 Tenant Performance and Lease Language ........................................................... 37 19.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 38 EXHIBIT A -Accounting of C/CAG Trip Credits, 213 East Grand Avenue EXHIBIT B -Sample Draft Lease Language, 213 East Grand Avenue ATTACHMENTS: Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Flyer Carpool Incentive Flyer Emergency Ride Home Program -Employee Focus Emergency Ride Home Program -Employer Focus Employer Shuttle Rider Pass Program Flyer Free Downtown Dasher -Midday Taxi Service Flyer Free Transit Ticket Distribution Program -Try Transit Registration Vanpool Program Flyer 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Traffic congestion and air pollution are critical concerns in maintaining a healthy economy and lifestyle within the City of South San Francisco. Traffic congestion results in time lost to residents and commuters, and increased demand on City fiscal resources for roadway construction and maintenance. Mobile sources, such as automobiles, account for 50% of all air pollution in South San Francisco. The developer of the 213 East Grand Avenue project has prepared a Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan in compliance with the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. This plan is designed to achieve a 35% alternative mode-use that addresses both traffic and air quality concerns in South San Francisco. The plan assumes occupancy based on a speculative tenant, one nine- storybuilding totaling 291,634 square feet with a 1.0 floor area ratio (FAR). Total garage and surface parking is estimated at 963 spaces. The proposed office parking ratio for the development is 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet or 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet for research and development (RB~D) uses with total spaces at 828. This plan includes City ordinance-required TDM measures, additional TDM measures and elements, annual shuttle funding, annual survey monitoring and triennial reporting. The plan has a variety of infrastructure and incentive-based measures, which encourage all forms of alternative mode-use such as car and vanpool, transit and shuttles, bicycling, walking, and telecommuting. The developer is committed to encouraging tenant participation and will strongly recommend and support tenant- developedemployee commute programs. This plan is performance based. The project is required to achieve a 35% alternative mode-use by tenant-employees. The mode-use will be monitored annually with the first employee commute survey to be conducted one year after occupancy. An alternative mode-use summary report will be submitted to the City's Chief Planner, Planning Division after the annual employee commute survey has been conducted. Every three years thereafter, a triennial report will be conducted by the City, at the owner's expense, to document and audit the mode-use rate of the project. Efforts to reduce drive-alone commuting and expand the mode options available to commuters can take many years to develop and mature. The current commute environment to San Mateo County and the City of South San Francisco will offer project commuters lower levels of roadway congestion and higher highway travel speeds according to recent regional surveys. Correspondingly, the transportation alternatives ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page i 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 available to commuters may be less attractive when compared with the ease and convenience of driving alone. Reduced traffic congestion contributes toward single- occupant vehicle (SOV) usage. Tenant-employers, who provide their employees with free parking, may further encourage drive-alone usage. The measures and elements contained in this plan are consistent with other South San Francisco employee commute programs. This plan will meet the 35% alternative mode- use goal. This TDM plan reflects the appropriate measures required by the City. A summary of office-use measures is provided below. SUMMARY OF TDM MEASURES Transportation Demand Management Measures 2008 213 E. Grand Ave. 35%TDM Plan 2001 City Ordinance Required Measures A. Bicycle parking (14 long-term, Class I) included B. Bicycle parking (5 short-term, Class II) included C. Carpool and vanpool ridematching assistance included D. Designated Employer/Tenant Point of Contact included E. Direct route to transit (well-lit path or sidewalk to shuttles) included F. Free parking for carpool and vanpools included G. Guaranteed/Emergency Ride Home program included H. Information Boards included I. Passenger drop off and loading zone included J. Pedestrian connections included K. 10% preferential Carpool &vanpool parking - 96 spaces included L. Promotional programs (Bike to Work, Spare the Air, Rideshare Thursdays, etc.) included M. Showers - (total of 4; two for each gender) included M. Clothes lockers - 32 included N. Utah-Grand Area Shuttle System included - South San Francisco Caltrain Station included - South San Francisco BART Station included -Downtown Dasher -free midday services included 0. Transportation Management Association participation included Annual Employee Survey (100%, non response = SOV) included Annual TDM Report to City Council & Planning Commission & Triennial Reporting included TDM Site Plan included ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page ii 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 SUMMARY OF TDM MEASURES -CONTINUED Additional Measures in TDM Plan F. On-site/Nearby amenities included - Cafe, vending services included - On-site recreational (relaxation area) included -Links to recreational (Bay Trails) included J. ter ensures - to e eeme onsistent y ie Planner Project Transportation Coordinator (TC) included Kick-off Transportation Fair included Commute Incentives and Promotions included - Commuter Choice ($115 per month per tax) included - Carpool Incentives -Alliance $60 & $80 gas cards, 511 Safeway cards and $1,000 prize cards, etc. included - Vanpool Incentives -Alliance $80 per person per month & $500 rebates, 511 $900 newly formed incentive and $100 vanpool seat subisdy included - Free Bridge Toll included - Alliance Try Transit free pass program included - 511 TakeTransit Trip Planner included - Commute Allowances included Transportation Resource Information included - Transportation Kiosk (building lobby and garage structure) included - Employee Transportation Flyer included - Developer-provided tenant training and assistance included Bicycle resources (www.511.org and Alliance) included Lease language -tenant TDM performance requirements included Include transportation link for future Bay Ferry Service included ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page iii 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The 213 East Grand Avenue project supports the City of South San Francisco's policy of focusing clustered development along major transportation corridors. This project is located near to and is served by U.S. Highway 101 and Interstate 280, a Caltrain station, and a BART station. The comprehensive plan of trip reduction measures identified in this report is essential to realizing the trip reduction potential of the project. The combination of these critical factors will provide the momentum to maintain a 35% alternative mode-use rate for this project. Through monitoring efforts, such as the annual survey of employees to determine transportation mode split, the project will be able to better focus transportation coordination efforts and encourage tenant-employees to use alternative transportation. The first mode-use survey report will be submitted to the City of South San Francisco after one year of occupancy. 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT GOALS The basic premise of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the maximum utilization of existing transportation resources. The City of South San Francisco, as is typical of other urban areas in the United States, has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in roadway infrastructure and public transit infrastructure. The goal of TDM is to more efficiently and economically take advantage of these major capital investments. The following are three basic goals that can be achieved through effective utilization of TDM measures: 1) Convert trips to an alternative mode of transportation (e.g., transit, carpools or vanpools, bicycling or walking) 2) Provide technological solutions (e.g., compressed natural gas, electric/hybrid vehicles, or other zero emission vehicles) 3) Eliminate trips (e.g., compressed work weeks, or telecommute) Until recently in the United States, the answer to relieving congestion on roads, and in parking structures, was to build more roads and parking structures (similar in concept to building another manufacturing plant to expand productivity on levels). Current economics and limited resources affect the ability to build and maintain more roads or parking structures. This reality necessitates better utilization of the existing ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 1 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 transportation infrastructure (similar to adding a second shift at an existing plant). To this end, TDM measures support the transition to a greater use of existing alternative transportation options. The measures and programs outlined in this plan support and meet the 35% trip reduction goal as identified by the City of South San Francisco's TDM Ordinance 1300- 2001. Using the City of South San Francisco's TDM Ordinance guidelines, the estimated number of assumed office use peak trips needed to meet a 35% reduction for the number of employees is estimated at 357 trips. The number of office employees is based on occupancy of 3.5 persons per 1,000 square feet. Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. 3.5 Estimated Total Employees 1,021 Trip Reduction Requirement 35% Peak Trip Credits Required 357 This TDM Plan also meets many requirements of the Revised C/CAG Guidelines for the Implementation of the Land Use Program approved by the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County in September 2004. C/CAG credits identified in this Preliminary TDM Plan for the project total more than 658 trips. The estimated number of assumed RB~D use peak trips needed to meet a 35% reduction for the number of employees is estimated at 255 trips. The number of RB~D employees is based on occupancy of 2.5 persons per 1,000 square feet. Employees per 1,000 sq. ft. 2.5 Estimated Total Employees 729 Trip Reduction Requirement 35% Peak Trip Credits Required 255 C/CAG credits identified in this Preliminary TDM Plan f or and RB~D project total more than 546 trips. The C/CAG accounting of all office and RB~D trip credits applicable in this Preliminary TDM Plan are provided in Exhibit A. ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 2 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 3.0 EMPLOYEE MODE SPLIT EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 According to the Commute Profile 2005 Regional Report, prepared by RIDES Associates, the San Mateo County alternative mode-use rate is approximately 29% with the Bay Area regional rate comprising approximately 34% alternative modes. The larger Bay Area alternative mode-use rate is indicative of paid parking in more urban core areas, whereas parking is free or much less expensive in many areas of San Mateo County (e.g. the City of South San Francisco). The 2005 Employee Transportation Survey conducted by the Alliance identified the San Mateo County alternative mode-use rate at 29.9%. The overall alternative mode-use rate for the City of South San Francisco was identified at 30.2%. In f all 2007, an employee commute survey was conducted at a similar employment site in South San Francisco at Britannia Oyster Point. Results from the survey indicated an alternative commute mode-use range of 31.2% to 43.1%. However, it should be noted that various tenants in this nearby employment site offer their employees commute subsidies and financial incentives that enhance the alternative mode-use performance. It is unknown if future employers at the 213 East Grand Avenue project will offer subsidies to their employees. Table 1 shows the comparison of alternative mode-use rates for the Bay Area Region, County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco and a similar employer site. Table 1 Comparable Transportation Mode-Use Rates Commute 2005 2007 Profile 2005 Employee Transportation Regional Transporatio Survey TDM Report - n Survey - Report - HDR~The Commute Survey Locations RIDES Alliance Hoyt Company San Mateo County 29.0% 29.9% Bay Area Region 34.0% City of South San Francisco 30.2% South San Francisco -Britannia Oyster Point 31.2% to 43.1 ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 3 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 Based on current and historical alternative mode-use data for South San Francisco and East of Highway 101 business areas, an example of estimated employee alternative mode-use distribution was calculated. This estimate reflects the TDM measures described in this plan but does not assume that commute subsidies are provided. Table 2 shows the various alternative transportation modes estimated for an office tenant at the project using an employee population assumption based on occupancy estimate of three and a half employees per thousand. Table 2 Estimated Office Use Alternative Transportation Modes T pical Transportation Modes Mode Rate Office Employees 3.5/1,000 Total Emplo ees Assumed 1,021 Drive alone to work site 61.00 % 623 Carpool 16.54% 169 Transit 12.00 % 122 Other (motorcycle, telecommute, compressed workweek, hybrid) 3.70 % 38 Bic cle 1.50 % 15 Vanpool 0.58 % 6 Walk 0.65% 7 Non-commutin (sick, vacation, business travel) 4.03 % 41 100.00% Alternative Mode Use Rate 35.0% 357 The implementation of TDM measures identified in this plan will result in an estimated 35% alternative mode-use rate representing approximately 357 employees from a total of 1,021. This sample scenario provides a distribution example of employee alternative transportation choices, depicting a typical workweek day for the project. The actual distribution of transportation modes could vary and will be clarified in the survey results. Table 3 demonstrates a sample 35% distribution scenario for an R&D project and shows that 255 of employee from a total of 729 would use some form of alternative transportation option. ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 4 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 Table 3 Estimated R&D Use Alternative Transportation Modes T ical Trans ortation Modes Mode Rate R&D Employees 2.5/1,000 Total Emplo ees Assumed 729 Drive alone to work site 61.00 % 445 Carpool 16.54% 121 Transit 12.00 % 87 Other (motorcycle, telecommute, compressed workweek, hybrid) 3.70 % 27 Bic cle 1.50 % 11 Vanpool 0.58 % 4 Walk 0.65% 5 Non-commutin (sick, vacation, business travel) 4.03 % 29 100.00% Alternative Mode Use Rate 35.0% 255 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a 6.695-acre project owned by Alexandria Real Estate Equities (Alexandria) in the City of South San Francisco located south of the U.S. Highway 101 in South San Francisco in an area that is known as the birthplace of the biotechnology industry. The proposed project is a nine-story Class-A office/laboratory building totaling 291,634 square-feet. The proposed office construction includes afive-story parking structure accommodating 760 vehicles and surface parking for 203 vehicles. Should the project accommodate life science and office tenants, the parking will be reduced to a four-story structure for 625 parking spaces and surface parking for 203 vehicles. The project is designed to maximize opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle, carpool, transit and shuttle connectivity. As an office project ninety-four (94) carpool parking spaces are planned with two spaces designated for a vanpool. Fourteen (14) Class I bicycle lockers and five (5) bicycle racks will be provided at the building for bicycle commuters at no charge to employees. Showers and lockers will also be provided for bicycle, pedestrian and other alternative commuters. Shuttle services to BART and Caltrain are located one block from the site on East Grand Avenue, near the address ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 5 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 230 East Grand Avenue. On-site cafeteria and vending food service and possible tenant- provided valet services (e.g. hair cuts, dentistry, dry cleaning, etc.) will help to create a self-sufficient development reducing the number of trips made daily to and from the project. The project FAR is 1.0. This increased or bonus FAR requires the need for more stringent employee surveys and triennial reporting to the City. Parking for this office project will be provided at a ratio of 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Approximately 963 vehicle parking spaces are planned for the site. If designed for RB~D uses, the project will provide a reduced parking ratio of 2.83 parking spaces per 1, 000 square feet. Carpool and vanpool parking, and bicycle storage will be slightly reduced in the event the project is designated R&D. A project location map is provided on page 7. The TDM site plan is provided on page 8. This site plan shows the location of preferential parking, bicycle facilities, pedestrian connections and direct routes to transit. It also depicts the location of showers and lockers, and information kiosks. A summary of expected office and RB~D specifics is provided below: Project Information 2008 Application Office Use 100% Employees (3.5/1,000) 1,021 Square Feet 291,634 Parking Ratio required 3.3/1,000 Parking Spaces Provided 963 FAR 1.00 TDM Goal 35% Employee TDM Use Goal 357 Project Information 2008 Application RB~D Use 100% Employees (2.5/1,000) 729 Square Feet 291,634 Parking Ratio required 2.83/1,000 Parking Spaces Provided 828 FAR 1.00 TDM Goal 35% Employee TDM Use Goal 255 ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 6 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 TxE xoYr CoMpArrY Page 7 ~ ~ U ~ ~- ~ ~ o ~ ~ N .w v u Y~ ~ y. C >, sn {n ~ ~ u ro~ ~ q i~ ~ 0~ ~ ~ C ~ ~_ cs ~ J 0 ~ ~ C ~- .~ ~ ~ u QJ Y ~ tl1 a.+ t4 0 u e tld L 4 u N 'u " m a J a ra ~ in °~ a u a ~'~ c Q v~ m U m ~' ~ ~ ~ ~, o ~ v o - +~ c ~ ~ c J ~ v ~ ~' ~ t7 ~ m w p.~ O bG 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 5.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT 5.1 Parking Supply As an office project, there will be a total of 963 surface and garage parking spaces. The ability and willingness to rideshare is directly linked to parking cost and parking availability. By not providing an overabundance of parking spaces at full build out, the project is laying the groundwork for successful promotion of alternative transportation. Preferential parking spaces placed near the building entrances (within 100 feet of building entrances or near elevators in the garages) are an excellent incentive that sends a clear visual message to employees and the community that alternative transportation is important. The City parking code for this type of project is one space for each 250 square-feet for the first 50,000 square feet and 3/1,000 square feet thereafter for the remaining 75,000 square feet. The 213 East Grand Avenue project is proposing a 3.3/1,000 square feet parking ratio. However, should tenant-employers provide their employees with free parking it may encourage drive alone usage and reduced the incentive for commuters to use alternative transportation. As an RB~D project, the parking ratio would be reduced to 2.83 parking spaces per 1,000 square f eet. 5.2 Free Parking for Car and Vanpools and Clean Fuel Vehicles Parking will be free for all carpool, vanpool and clean-fuel vehicle participants. 5.3 Preferential Car and vanpool Parking One effective means of encouraging employees to rideshare and/or use aclean-fuel vehicle is to reserve the most preferred parking spaces for the exclusive use of car and vanpools. These preferred parking spaces will be designated Wlth signage and pavement striping. Upon completion of this project, a minimum of 10% of employee parking or 96 spaces will be designated for carpool, vanpool, and clean-fuel vehicles. The office project will provide 94 carpool parking spaces and two vanpool spaces in premium, convenient locations (i.e., close to buildings, in the shade, etc.) within 100 feet of building entrances ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 9 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 or near the elevators in the garage. These preferential parking spaces will be specially signed and/or striped and may require employee registration and permitting. As an R&D project, 83 carpool parking spaces will be provided. 5.4 Passenger Loading Zones In order to facilitate disembarking and embarking of rdeshare passengers, passenger loading/unloading area will be provided. A passenger loading zone for carpool and vanpool drop off will be located close to the entrance of the buildings. 6.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL RIDEMATCHING SERVICE The Regional 511 Rideshare Ridematch Service, via 511.org and the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance) provide free car and vanpool matching services. On-site employer contacts will promote the on-line 511 service directly to employees on a regular basis, and allow the Alliance to solicit carpool sign-up at on-site employer events; such as annual Transportation Fairs, Wellness or Benefits events, etc. Tenant/employer contacts can also research employee ZIP code data from Human Resource records and offer to match up employees who live near each other. Car and vanpooling will be strongly encouraged at the project. An Employee Transportation Flyer will be designed promote the free personalized matching assistance through the 511 Rideshare and Alliance programs. This car and vanpool ridematching service provides individuals with a computerized list of other commuters near their employment or residential ZIP code, along with the closest cross street, phone number, and hours they are available to commute to and from work. Individuals are then able to select and contact others with whom they wish to car or vanpool. They will also be given a list of existing car and vanpools in their residential area that they maybe able to join if vacancies exist. The 511 system gives commuters the information they need to make more informed choices when planning trips. By calling in or logging on, commuters can get up-to-the- minute information about traffic conditions, public transportation options, ridesharing, and bicycling anytime, anywhere throughout the greater Bay Area Region and Northern California. ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 10 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 The 511 system offers one-stop shopping for traffic, transit, rideshare and bicycle information in the region. The nine-county system is the first 511 service to go online in California. It provides links to 511 systems in Sacramento, Oregon and Nevada, and is available from any phone provided the carrier supports 511. Most counties in the region have wireless and landline access to the service through major carriers. 7.0 TRANSIT Caltrain, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and SamTrans provide transit service to South San Francisco in proximity to the project site. Shuttle services, managed by the Alliance, are provided from the South San Francisco BART and South San Francisco Caltrain Stations providing links for transit riders near to the project site. 7.1 Shuttle Funding Tenant/employers at the 213 East Grand Avenue will contribute funding each quarter to the Alliance for shuttle programs and operational support. 7.2 Direct Route to Transit A well-lit pedestrian path will be provided from the buildings, utilizing the most direct route, to the nearest shuttle stop. 213 East Grand Avenue project transit riders will connect with shuttles within one block of the project site at 230 East Grand Avenue. 7.3 Shuttle Services to 213 East Grand Avenue The project will participate in the Alliance's shuttle system with both peak-period and lunchtime service (via the Free Downtown Dasher). Shuttle services are provided near the project site at 230 East Grand Avenue. The Utah-Grand Caltrain and BART shuttles offer 18 peak-morning trips and 17 peak-evening trips for employees. Daily shuttle service totals 35 trips. The Utah-Grand BART shuttle circulates between the South San Francisco BART station and the project at 15, 20, and 30-minute frequencies. There are currently a total of 18 BART shuttle trips to and from the project site. ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 11 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 The Utah-Grand Caltrain shuttle service circulates between the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and the project during the morning and evening peaks at 20, 25 and 35- minute frequencies. Seventeen (17) Caltrain shuttle trips provide connecting service to and from the project site. Table 4 shows the number of shuttle trips provided to the project site for connectivity to the South San Francisco BART and Caltrain stations. Table 4 Shuttle Service to 213 East Grand Avenue Shuttle Service Morning Trips Afternoon Trips Total Trips Utah-Grand Area Caltrain Shuttle 9 8 17 Utah-Grand Area BART Shuttle 9 9 18 Total Shuttle Trips 18 17 35 The South San Francisco Employer Shuttles, including the Utah-Grand shuttles, operate using an employee pass program. Participating projects and developments, tenants or employers who contribute funding for the shuttles are provided with free passes for their employees. An Employer Shuttle Rider Pass Program flyer is provided as an attachment. Shuttle route maps are provided on the following page. ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 12 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 THE HoYT CaMPeNY Page 13 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 7.4 Shuttle/Bus Stops Shuttle drop-off and pick-up locations for BART and Caltrain commuter service are located off-site, within one block at 230 East Grand Avenue. Should the Alliance pursue additional shuttle stops at or near the project site, the developer would be amenable to providing designated street side space for the Alliance shuttle stop. 7.5 Caltrain Caltrain operates a frequent fixed-route commuter rail service seven days a week between San Francisco and San Jose, as well as limited service to and from Gilroy on weekdays. Caltrain operates on 15 to 30-minute frequencies during the peak periods in the morning and evening. Midday service operates approximately every hour. Service is less frequent during weekends, and holidays. Caltrain service is available approximately 0.55 miles (half mile) from the project at the South San Francisco station located at 590 Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue. The Gateway Area Caltrain Shuttle provides connecting service to the project site. Caltrain services were enhanced in 2004 to add express trains during peak hours. However, this new service does not provide an express stop to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and hence will not benefit employees in the South San Francisco's East of 101 Area. 7.6 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) BART is a 92.7-mile, 43-station automated rapid transit system located along five lines of double track. Trains traveling up to 80 mph connect San Francisco to Colma and other East Bay communities -north to Richmond, east to Pittsburg/Bay Point, west to Dublin/Pleasanton, and south to Fremont. Service is scheduled every 15 minutes during peak periods. Service during Holidays, and weekends are modified. BART-to-the-Airport expanded the system by 8.7 miles along the peninsula from Colma to a new intermodal station in Millbrae. Four new stations were created including the South San Francisco Station located between El Camino Real and Mission Road to the south of Hickey Boulevard. The project is approximately 2.65 miles from the South San Francisco BART Station. ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 14 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 7.7 SamTrans SamTrans provides bus service throughout San Mateo County, with connections to the Colma, Daly City, and South San Francisco BART stations, San Francisco International Airport, peninsula Caltrain stations and downtown San Francisco. The system connects with San Francisco Muni, AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit at San Francisco's Transbay Terminal, with the Dumbarton Express and with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority in Menlo Park and Palo Alto. However, there is no direct SamTrans service east of Highway 101 area. SamTrans service does connect at the South San Francisco BART Station and subsequently the Oyster Point Area Shuttle Service that drops off and picks up within one block at Allerton Avenue and Forbes Boulevard. SamTrans does not provide a direct connection to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, however; Routes 130, 292,133, and 132 are within approximately 1/4-mile walking distance from this station and the connecting shuttle services near the project site. 7.8 Downtown Dasher Taxi Service This free taxi service provides an 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. demand-driven pick-up service throughout the East Highway 101 business parks in South San Francisco. Using existing shuttle stops, taxis drop off riders at locations in the downtown retail area. The Downtown Dasher, operated by the Peninsula Yellow Cab of South San Francisco and managed by the Alliance, requires anemployer-provided voucher and an employee trip reservation before 10:00 a.m. This midday service is currently free to participating employers and employees. This service is not a fixed route or fixed schedule service. A detailed Downtown Dasher flyer is provided as an attachment. 7.9 Ferry Service Currently, no scheduled water transit service exists in the South San Francisco area. Water transit service to South San Francisco is anticipated by late 2009. Prior to this service becoming operational, employees will be given a link to this resource. ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 15 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 8.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES 8.1 Pedestrian Connections A safe, convenient and well-lit pedestrian path is provided, utilizing the most direct route, to the nearest shuttle stop close to the project. Lighting, landscaping and building orientation is designed to enhance pedestrian safety. 8.2 Bicycle Parking -Long-Term and Short-Term Free Class I and Class II bicycle parking facilities will be provided on-site as follows: • Commercial, R&D, and office uses: one bicycle space for every 50 spaces required for vehicles • Restaurants, retail: one bicycle space for every 50 spaces required for vehicles. Fourteen Class I (long-term) bicycle lockers or a covered, enclosed, secure area will be provided to enhance the viability for bicycle commuters. These Class I bicycle lockers and five Class II (short-term) bicycle racks will be placed at the building sites. Table 5 shows the recommended and total number of bicycle facilities for the proposed project. Note; The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance provides a 50% match for the costs of purchasing and installing any bicycle parking, from basic racks to high security lockers, up to a maximum of $500 per unit. Table 5 Bicycle Parking Recommendation Estimated Number Parking Spaces 963 Bicycle Parking Ratio 1:50 Bicycle Parking Needed 19 Bicycle Parking Distribution 19 Class I -long-term 14 Class II -short-term 5 Total Bicycle Parking 19 In the event the project is built to accommodate an RB~D use, the Class I parking requirement would change to 12 spaces with the Class II counts remaining the same. All bicycle parking facilities will be located in convenient, safe and well-lit areas with maximum space for the ingress and egress of bicycles. ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 16 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 8.3 Bicycle Connections The project has bicycle connections to regional bicycle facilities along East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue, and the San Francisco Bay Trails via the San Bruno Point area. The Bay Trail is a network of multi-use pathways circling San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The ultimate route is planned to be a 400-mile route through nine Bay Area counties and 42 shoreline cities. The trail provides commuters an exceptional pathway to bicycle or walk to work in the South San Francisco Area. A map of surrounding bikeways is provided on page 18. A map of the Bay Trails is provided on page 19. 8.4 Bicycle Resources Free Bike Buddy matching, bicycle maps and resources are provided via the 511 system. Bicycle commuters looking to find a riding partner can log-on to bicycling.511.org for more information. The Alliance provides a free one-hour, on-site Bike and Pedestrian Safety Program for employees. This workshop teaches commuters about bicycling and walking as a safe, stress-relieving commute mode, traffic laws for bicyclists and pedestrians, bicycle maintenance tips, and offers a drawing for free bicycle-related prizes. A copy of the Alliance Safety Program flyer is provided as an attachment. ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 17 _ _ ~ THE xoYr CoMpArrY Page 18 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 TxE xoYr CoMpArrY Page 19 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 8.5 Shower and Clothes Lockers Showers and clothing lockers will be installed for the use of employees walking and bicycling to work, as well as for others who wish to change after commuting via an alternative mode of transportation. Four showers (two for each gender) and 32 locker facilities are recommended for installation between the buildings. Shower and locker facilities will be provided free of charge for all employees. Table 6 shows the number of proposed shower and locker facilities planned for the project for both off ice and RB~D uses. Table 6 Proposed Shower and Locker Facilities 213 East Grand Avenue Showers Lockers Male 2 16 Female 2 16 Total Shower and Locker Facilities 4 32 9.0 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR The 213 East Grand Avenue project will provide a Transportation Coordinator (TC) who will have the primary responsibility for implementing this Plan. The TC may be a part time or outsourced coordinator who manages the TDM Program. The TC will be responsible for providing employee commute program assistance to tenants and employees, producing on-site transportation fairs and promotional events, collaborating with the Alliance to maximize employer resources, conducting the annual survey and producing the triennial report. TDM industry data supports that having a TC has a very positive impact on increasing alternative mode use. Thls posltlon Wlll be filled by: Name: Ms. Bernadette Soubirou Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. Address: 2929 Campus Drive, Suite 400A San Mateo, CA 94403 Phone: (650) 286-1200 ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 20 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 The TC will provide the f ollowing services: • Promote trip reduction and air quality strategies to employees at the project site. • Be the main point of contact for employer contacts and employees wanting to commute using an alternative. • Conduct annual employee surveys and provide reports to the City of South San Francisco, which will include commute patterns, mode splits, and TDM program success (process includes: annual surveying of employees, tabulation of data, and provision of results in report format). • Evaluate survey results for alternative transportation potential and/or changes to current program. • Catalog all existing incentives that encourage employees to utilize alternative transportation programs. • Work with local agencies such as Caltrain, SamTrans, BART, the Alliance, 511 and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and post informational materials on transportation kiosks in employee common areas, as well as disperse alternative program information to employees via designated employer contacts, posters, flyers, banners, campus newsletter, new employee orientation, etc. • Participate in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Spare the Air program. Spare the Air day notices will be forwarded to employees to encourage not driving to work alone. • Coordinate and manage various aspects of the plan that require periodic updating or monitoring; such as the guaranteed ride home (GRH) program, car and vanpool registration, parking enforcement, locker assignment and enforcement. ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 21 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 10.0 COMMUTE INCENTIVES AND PROMOTIONS Tenants at the 213 East Grand Avenue project will be encouraged to offer their employees some form of alternative commute incentive. Incentives may include a pre- tax, payroll deduction (Commuter Choice) for transit and vanpool users, transit subsidies and/or commute allowances. Other carpool, vanpool and transit incentives are available to encourage employees to try and use alternative transportation options. 10.1 Commuter Choice The Commuter Choice option is a tax-free salary payroll deduction of up to $115 per month per employee, f or vanpool and rail transit pass fares through a voucher program (Commuter Check). An employee can deduct up to $1,380 a year from their salary as a pretax payroll deduction. This program encourages non-drive alone commute trips. Employers also receive a tax savings as a benefit of this program. Direct transit or commute subsidies can be a set dollar amount or a percentage of the monthly costs of transportation. Employment sites that offer transit or commute subsidies generally tend to have higher levels of alternative mode-use. Subsidies can be provided in tandem with the pre-tax option. 10.2 Carpool Incentive Programs • You Pool, We Pay -Employees at the 213 East Grand Avenue project can participate in the "You Pool, We Pay!" program offered by the Alliance. Employees who are currently driving alone, and are commuting to, from or through San Mateo County, are encouraged to try carpooling. When employees form a new carpool with two or more people over the age of 18, or add a new member to an existing carpool, all carpool participants will each receive a $60 gas card incentive.1 A carpool incentive flyer is provided as an attachment. • Hybrid and Clean Air Vehicle -Employees who participate in the "You Pool, We Pay" program with a hybrid or clean air vehicle will receive an $80 gas card incentive. 1 http://www.commute.org/programs.htm#carpool ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 22 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 • Carpool Rideshare Reward$ -Employees at the project can participate in the 511 Rideshare Reward$ program for carpoolers. Eligible carpoolers can earn $10 in gas or Safeway gift cards for every five days carpooled, up to $100 over three months. As an added bonus, a lucky commuter who carpools 40 or more days during the program can enter ayear-end drawing for $1,000 in gift cards. Rideshare Reward$ for carpoolers are available from 511 for a limited period each year and are provided on afirst-come, first-served basis until funds are depleted. 10.3 Vanpool Incentive Programs • New Vanpool Participant Rebates - As an incentive for vanpooling, the Alliance will pay half of the cost for the first three months of vanpooling, up to $80 per month per employee. New vanpool groups (or the driver), that stay on the road for at least six months, can receive aone-time rebate of $500. This one time incentive is provided for those who join a new vanpool in the last six months and have not vanpooled for athree-month period before joining a new van. A vanpool program flyer is provided as an attachment. • New Vanpool Formation Incentive -Newly formed vanpools are eligible to receive up to $900 for starting a vanpool. Vanpooling is an inexpensive, relaxing way to get to work, and the 511 Rideshare program offers the perfect excuse to start avanpool -cash! The vanpool reward provides $300 to $900 in gas cards to new vans that meet all eligibility requirements and successfully complete three to nine consecutive months of operation. The gas cards will be offered on a first-come, first-served basis, until the funds are exhausted. Employers and individual commuters who start a new vanpool may be eligible to receive the gas cards, which are awarded to the party designated to handle the vanpool's finances. The gas cards will also be offered on a first-come, first-served basis, until the funds are exhausted. Employers and/or individuals who start a new vanpool may be eligible to receive the gas cards, which will be awarded to the party designated to handle the vanpool's finances.2 • Vanpool Seat Subsidy -The 511 Regional Rideshare Program will offer a vanpool seat subsidy in the form of gas cards. The seat subsidy will provide $100 per month, with a limit of three months per van during the program year, to help cover the fare of a lost participant. The gas cards will be offered to eligible vans on a first-come, first-served basis, until the funds are exhausted. 2 http:/ / rideshare.511.org/ rideshare_rewards/ rewards.asp ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 23 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 10.4 Free Bridge Toll Commuters can save time and commute toll free by carpooling, vanpooling or taking transit over one of the Bay Area's eight bridges during peak commute hours. Specific Bay Area bridge toll information can be found at 511.org (e.g. minimum requirements for 2-person or 3-person carpools). Free toll passes are also available to vans with 10 or more passengers during non-commute hours on all bridges except the Golden Gate Bridge. 10.5 Try Transit Program The Alliance offers a Try Transit Program that provides free transit tickets to people who are interested in trying public transit to get to work. These tickets are meant for people who are new to transit. Commuters requesting tickets must work, live in or drive through San Mateo County. A copy of the Try Transit Program is provided as an attachment. Transit ticket options include: • One BART ticket • Three round-trip Caltrain tickets • Six one-way SamTrans tickets • Six Dumbarton tickets • Three round-trip VTA tickets 10.6 Trip Planner • 511 TakeTransitsM The greater San Francisco Bay Area is currently serviced by the 511 TakeTransitsM Trip planner. TakeTransitsM is a useful tool for planning public transit trips. 511 TakeTransitsM Trip Planner can build an itinerary that suits the need of the transit user. An itinerary can be built that can identify the fastest, with least number of transfers or with least amount of fares. 511 TakeTransitsM Trip Planner by default will try to generate the fastest itinerary between the origin and the destination. ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 24 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 Google Transit Google has partnered with the Bay Area Transit agencies to provide a public transit planner for riders of BART, Caltrain and vTA. This free service can be found on-line at http://www.~oo~le.com/transit. 10.7 Commute Allowances Owners or tenant/employers of the project will be encouraged to offer their employees commute allowance to encourage them to use alternative transportation options and reduce the demand for parking at the site. Commute allowances can be a set amount, usually taxable, for employees who use any type of transportation option (except drive alone) including those who walk, bicycle or carpool. Allowances can be cash, gift cards, gift certificates, cafeteria/cafe vouchers, movie tickets or other employee desired item. 11.0 GUARANTEED EMERGENCY RIDE HOME PROGRAM Tenants of the project will be required to participate in the GRH program managed by the Alliance. Lease agreements will identify the process for the employer to register for this program with the Alliance. The Alliance covers 75% of the cost for GRH services. The employer pays the remaining 25% cost. A sample Alliance GRH program flyer is provided as an attachment. All employees who commute to work using transit, bicycle, or by carpool or vanpool, will be guaranteed a ride home in the case of a personal emergency, or when they unexpectedly have to work late thereby missing the last bus or their normal carpool home. The GRH program has proven very successful as it removes one of the major objections employees have to giving up their private automobile, especially those with young families. The GRH program provides employees with a security blanket, a feeling of reassurance that if a child becomes ill or injured during the day the employee can get to them quickly. If employees need to work late and miss their bus or carpool, or if their vanpool breaks down, they are guaranteed a ride home. ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 25 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 12.0 ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULE INFRASTRUCTURE An alternative work schedule (flextime, compressed work week or telework programs) can be beneficial in a number of ways. It can provide versatility, enabling employees to more conveniently use rideshare options, and avoid traffic congestion and transit crowding. It can also be an attractive employee recruitment tool that allows employees to work around childcare or school schedules. Employees may view alternative work schedule programs as a highly desirable benef it. The following issues need to be considered for implementation of flextime work schedules: Can heating, cooling, and ventilation systems be adjusted for longer hours? Can security hours be adjusted? • Will parking policies need to be changed to ensure parking for all shifts? • Is building access flexible? To maximize alternative mode-use, the project tenants/employer can offer or give preference for alternative work schedules to employees who use or will use an alternative transportation mode. The TC will provide information to tenants regarding alternative work schedule options and implementation f ormats. 12.1 Flextime In order to use alternative modes of transportation, employees may need special consideration regarding start and finish times of work. For example, if an employee's workplace opens at 8:00 a.m. The carpool drops the employee off at 7:45 a.m., and he/she must wait until the building opens. Many employees would drive alone given those conditions. Flextime allows the employer to adjust business open and close times to facilitate the use of alternative commute modes. A flextime program permits employees to set or modify their arrival and departure times. Flextime policies usually state that the flexibility in scheduling must not conflict with workflow. Most flextime programs establish a core period of time during which all employees must be present. Employees can then adjust their start and finish times around this period. Supervisors usually retain a significant degree of control over scheduling. The project tenants/employers could offer flextime to employees wishing to commute via alternative transportation rather than SOV. Project buildings will be open and accessible in the early morning and early evening hours to support an active flextime ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 26 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 program. Flextime can positively influence travel behavior by allowing employees to adjust their work schedules to meet their transportation needs (i.e., adjust to match a bus, car or vanpool schedule). The TC will provide information to tenants regarding flextime work schedules and implementation formats. 12.2 Teleworking Infrastructure The 213 East Grand Avenue will provide the infrastructure necessary to support teleworking options. Teleworking can be promoted by the project tenants/employers. If the owner or tenant chooses to connect to the fiber optics network, the infrastructure allows multiple data transmissions. Provision of this equipment is part of ensuring that teleworkers enjoy fast, smooth data transmission between their workplace and telework office. The TC will provide information to tenants regarding teleworking and implementation f ormats. 12.3 Compressed Work Week Tenant/employers can allow compressed workweek options for employees as needed. A compressed workweek allows employees to work longer hours, but shorter weeks. The shortened workweek and shif ted hours may help employees avoid rush hour traffic and reduces the number of commute days. Employees also have an additional day for leisure activities, personal business and family time. Compressed workweek systems can include: • "9/80" schedule, in which employees work eight 9-hour days (72 hours) plus one 8-hour day, totaling 80 hours over two weeks. This program allows employees to have one day of f every two weeks. • "4/10" schedule, in which employees work four 10-hour days/per week. Employees typically are divided into two groups. One group works Monday through Thursday, the other group works Tuesday through Friday. "3/36" schedule, in which employees work three 12-hour days/per week. This plan allows for days off other than just Monday or Friday. Employees are divided into f ive groups and each group is assigned dif ferent days of f . The TC will provide information to tenants regarding compressed work week schedule options and implementation formats. ~'~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 27 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 13.0 TRANSPORTATION RESOURCE INFORMATION A supportive TC, property management and involved tenant/employers will generate positive impacts toward the success of the TDM goals and elements that are implemented. TDM commute programs and benefits must be presented to the employees in a comprehensive and proactive manner along with any other employee programs. This can be done via participation and support of employee orientation forums or transportation fairs, transportation kiosk posting, employee newsletters, management bulletins, emails, etc. From a practical standpoint management support must be twofold: 1) Upper and middle management will encourage alternative modes whenever possible. 2) Managers and supervisors need to be supportive of employees who try alternative modes, even if it means initial minor adjustments to their work schedule. TDM should be viewed as a big picture process. This includes explaining the area's air quality problems; how fighting air pollution ties in with being a good corporate citizen. It is important that the employees can see how both they and the community benefits (better air quality and less traffic congestion on the highways and the surrounding neighborhoods, less parking hassles, cost savings for employees, etc.). Synergistic measures that support these efforts include the transportation kiosk, employee flyers, resource Web sites, promotional programs and incentives, and employer training and employee outreach. 13.1 Transportation Kiosk An information board or kiosk will be located in the main building in a common gathering area (e.g. lobby, employee entrance, break or lunch room). The kiosk will contain transportation information, including Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) information, transit and shuttle schedules, SamTrans, Caltrain, BART, Downtown Dasher, 511 ridematching and other related information. Information will be updated periodically by the TC or designated employer contact. A second kiosk will be located in the parking structure near a highly traveled access point. The kiosks can be wall- mounted or freestanding, rotating units. Page 29 shows a sample of a wall mounted transportation information board. ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 28 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 13.2 Employee Transportation Flyer At the time of occupancy, all tenants and employees will be provided with an Employee Transportation Flyer. This flyer will include (but not be limited to) information about carpool parking, transit opportunities, shuttle services, bicycle routes and GRH information. A sample flyer is provided on page 30. Sample Transportation Information Board 13.3 Designated Employer/Tenant Contact The developer will require a designated contact to be identified for all future tenants/occupants. The designated tenant/employer contact will be the official contact for the 213 East Grand Avenue TDM program described in this plan. The designated employer contact will coordinate closely with the project TC and maintain on-site TDM programs and employee education and marketing, administrate the annual surveys and provide information continuity for the developer/landlord and the City of South San Francisco. ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 29 _, • • Transit services to South San Francisco areas are provided by Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans. Visit WWW.CaItraln.COm, WWW.bart.goV, and www.samtrans.com for updated schedule and service information. The Utah-Grand BART shuttle offers 18 daily trips from the BART Stations to 213 East Grand Avenue. The Utah-Grand Caltrain shuttle offers 12 trips per day from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. SamTrans routes 130, 132, 133, 35 and 36 connect with the Utah-Grand Area BART shuttles at the South San Francisco Station. 511 is the regional ridesharing service that will help you to find a vanpool or carpool partner. Please call 511 or log on to WWW.511.org for ridematching services and other alternative transportation options. FREE trial transit tickets (Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, and others), vanpool rebates, and bike locker subsidies. For more information, log on to www.commute.org or call (650) 588-8170. Regional bicycle route maps are available to bicycle commuters and recreational bicycle users. To view a map, log on to Www.511.org. Bicycles are allowed on SamTrans buses and Caltrain. Secure bicycle parking is available at stations and at the 213 East Grand Avenue site. Employees who work at 213 East Grand Avenue and primarily use alternative transportation (transit, vanpool, carpool, bicycle, or walk) for their monthly commute can obtain a FREE Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH). In the event of an emergency or illness, the GRH program provides a free taxi or rental car for your return trip home '. See your company representative for more information. 3/10/08 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 13.4 Promotional Programs If possible, prior to occupancy, the future tenant(s) will host apre-move Transportation Fair or conduct apre-move marketing campaign, with a heavy emphasis on carpooling, transit and shuttle resources. Throughout the year, tenants will be encouraged to maintain employee awareness by hosting other transportation f airs. As lunch-time events, these fairs will highlight transit and trip-planning services and rideshare matching and other commute opportunities at the new site. The Transportation Fairs will bring together transit and transportation providers (Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, and the Alliance), bicycle advocates, ridematching organizations (511), and the Employee Commute Program for a comprehensive presentation. Other events and promotions on-site at the project may include Bike-to-Work Week, Caltrain Day, Rideshare Thursday's or a comprehensive Transportation/Commute Fair. Various transit and rideshare organizations will be invited to set up a marketing booth during lunchtime at a central location at the building during the year to promote the alternative commute options available to employees. Free trial transit passes will be available for first time riders. Periodic on-site tabling would also be recommended throughout the year in concert with other employer events such as health f airs, benefits fair, etc. 13.5 Tenant Training and Developer-Provided Resource Representative Alexandria will provide tenant(s) with TDM program training and start-up assistance. A TDM resource representative will provide TDM support, training and planning assistance for the tenant's employee programs and annual survey compliance. The overarching goal of this implementation effort is to reduce commute trips for project employees, train tenants to formalize company commute programs, and assist in the first year's employee marketing and outreach. Implementation resource support will include targeted rideshare program development, establishment of the emergency ride home program, formalize the preferential carpool/vanpool parking program and integration assistance with the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief and San Francisco Bay Area 511.org regional rideshare programs. The TDM resource representative will assist tenants in the preparation of their new employee orientation materials, production of the kick-off event, commute articles, employee assistance and coordination of the annual transportation f air. ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 31 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 14.0 PROJECT AMENITIES Amenities provide employees with a full service work environment. Eliminating or reducing the need for an automobile to make midday trips increases non-drive alone rates. Many times, employees perceive that they are dependent upon the drive alone mode because of the number of errands and activities that must be carried out in different locations. By reducing this dependence through the provision of services and facilities at the work site, an increase in alternative mode usage for commute-based trips should be realized. The 213 East Grand Avenue will encourage tenants to offer their employees convenience amenities. A list of amenities for consideration includes: Tenant Driven Amenities • Food service, cafe, beverage and food vending machines • Postage and mail outlet • On-site credit union/ATM • wi-Fi access throughout campus 213 East Grand Avenue Amenities • Recreational greenbelt and picnic area • Showers and clothes lockers • Bicycle lockers • Transportation and commute kiosks • Free Downtown Dasher -11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (to the extent it is available) Potential Valet Amenities (tenant driven) • Massage • Dry Cleaning, shoe shine and repair, laundry, f ilm developing, eyeglass repair • Dentist • Hair and Nail Salon • Car Care (oil change, cleaning, etc.) 14.1 Recreational and Bicycle Facilities A relaxation area will be incorporated at the 213 East Grand Avenue site as part of the project construction. This area will offer project employees a recreational area for walking, meditation or picnicking. ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 32 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 The Bay Trails project provides bicycle connectivity directly to the south of the project, parallel with the property line, for commuters and recreational users. The Bay Trail is a planned recreational corridor that, when complete, will encircle San Francisco and San Pablo Bays with a continuous 400-mile network of bicycling and hiking trails. It will connect the shoreline of all nine Bay Area counties, link 47 cities, and cross the major toll bridges in the region. To date, approximately 240 miles of the alignment -over half the Bay Trail's ultimate length -have been completed.3 15.0 KICK-OFF EVENT Upon 75% occupancy, the developer will host a commute alternative kick-off event/celebration or employee marketing campaign. Transportation service providers, such as BART, SamTrans, Caltrain, and the Alliance, will be invited to set up exhibit booths/tables. To encourage employee participation in the event, the developer and tenant will provide food; such as popcorn, hot dogs and refreshments, and give-a-ways; such as commuter mugs, water bottles, t-shirts, etc. The tenant will help set the date for the event and advertise the event at least two weeks in advance. 16.0 ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION FAIR AND SPECIAL PROMOTIONS The 213 East Grand Avenue TC will host an annual commute alternative event or fair. Transportation service providers (BART, Caltrain, 511 Regional Rideshare and the Alliance) will be invited to setup exhibit booths/tables. To encourage employee participation in the event, the TC will provide food; such as popcorn, hot dogs, ice cream or other refreshments, and give-a-ways; such as commuter mugs, water bottles, t- shirts, etc. the TC will set the date for the event and advertise the event at least two weeks in advance. Periodic rideshare articles will be written by the TC for internal employee newsletter with ongoing highlights of alternative commuters and their successes. Internal company notices and incentive promotions about Spare the Air (June through October), Bike to Work (May) and Rideshare Thursdays should attract attention of commuters, generate excitement about the use of commute alternatives, and reward those who rideshare. These promotions are often sponsored in conjunction with 511, the Regional Rideshare Program or the Air District. 3 http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/baytrail/overview.html ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 33 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 The TC will register with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for the Spare the Air program so as to receive regional air quality forecast bulletins about poor and unhealthy air quality days. These direct email updates will be forwarded to all employees to encourage the use of alternative transit mode during peak advisory periods. 17.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) are typically private, nonprofit organizations run by a voluntary Board of Directors typically with a small staff . They help businesses, developers, building owners, local government representatives, and others work together to collectively establish policies, programs and services to address local transportation problems. The key to a successful TMA lies in the synergism of multiple groups banding together to address and accomplish more than any single employer, building operator, developer, or resident could do alone. In South San Francisco, the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance operates as a TMA organization. The Alliance provides: • Shuttle programs Transit advocacy • Carpool and vanpool matching Information on local issues • Parking management programs • Teleworking • Trial transit passes Training • Emergency ride home programs Marketing programs • Enhanced bicycle facilities Promotional assistance • Car and vanpool incentives Newsletter Project tenants will register in the Alliance GRH program for their employees and to use the resources and services available. Participating with the Alliance is a valuable asset for project tenants. The Alliance is a clearinghouse for information about alternative commute programs, incentives, and transportation projects affecting San Mateo County businesses. ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 34 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 18.0 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT The intent of the City of South San Francisco's TDM Ordinance is to reduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips, and in doing so lessen the resulting traffic congestion and mobile source related air pollution. It is important to ensure TDM measures are actually implemented and effective. Therefore a monitoring and enforcement program is necessary for each application. Because the City's TDM Program is performance based (i.e. project required percentage alternative mode usage and corresponding trip reduction at 35%), an annual evaluation program will allow the 213 East Grand Avenue project, Alexandria and the City to assess the effectiveness of the unique program designed for their project, and to make adjustments as necessary to consistently meet or exceed the requirement. Alexandria's 213 East Grand Avenue will establish and maintain a 35% trip reduction at the proposed project site that is subject to annual monitoring. Annual monitoring and penalty programs are consistent with previously approved methodologies implemented by the City of South San Francisco at other project sites in the east of Highway 101 area. Alexandria plans to voluntarily promote, encourage, and support alternative commute mode usage for employees at the 213 East Grand Avenue project. 18.1 Annual Employee Commute Survey An employee commute survey will be a critically important part of the monitoring process to determine the success or failure of TDM measures. This report, via results from an employee survey distributed and collected by the TC, will provide quantitative data (e.g., mode split) and qualitative data (e.g., employee perception of the alternative transportation programs). Employees who do not participate in commute survey will be counted as drive-alone or SOV commuters by default. The tenant will be strongly encouraged to support and participate in the promotion and marketing of the annual employee survey. Lease language will identif y this requirement. Survey data may then be used to focus TDM marketing and the efforts of the TC. The TDM program could be re-tooled, if necessary, to maintain the project's 35% peak hour alterative commute use rates and commitment at the site. A summary report based on results from the employee commute survey will be submitted to the City of South San Francisco and presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council. ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 35 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 18.2 Annual Summary Report Each year, Alexandria via tenant-employee survey data, will prepare an annual TDM summary report and submit the same to the City to document the effectiveness of their TDM Plan in achieving the goal of the alternative mode usage and 35% trip reduction by employees within the Project. The TDM summary report will be prepared by an independent consultant or TMA who will work in concert with the 213 East Grand Avenue TC. The TDM summary report will include a determination of historical employee commute methods provided by information obtained from a survey of all employees working in the building. If the trip reduction rates have not been achieved, the report will explain how and why the goal was not reached, and specifies additional measures and activities that will be implemented in the coming year to improve the modes use rate. The initial TDM summary report on the property will be submitted within one (1) year and each year thereafter following the granting of a certificate of occupancy with respect to the building. The survey reporting will be targeted for the 4th quarter of each year. 18.3 Triennial Report For projects with increased FAR, a triennial report may also be required and would be conducted by the City at the City's discretion. The triennial report will audit the project's TDM activities and state whether the development has or has not achieved the required percent alternative mode-use. If the development has not achieved the required mode-use, the applicant will be asked to: • Explain how and why the goals have not been reached • Describe additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to attain the required mode-use rate • Provide an implementation schedule by month of additional measures If desired by the City, the triennial report will also include a comparison of historical responses on the survey and identify if mode share has changed significantly and describe in detail as to why the mode share changed. The Chief Planner will review reports. Reports that indicate f allure will be submitted to the City Council. ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 36 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 18.4 Penalty for Noncompliance If after the initial triennial report, the subsequent triennial report indicates that, in spite of the changes in the Final TDM Plan, the required alternative mode-use is still not being achieved, or if the applicant fails to submit a triennial report, the City may assess a penalty. The penalty shall be established by City Council resolution on the basis of the project size and actual percentage alternative mode use as compared to the percent alternative mode use established in the TDM Plan.4 18.5 Tenant Performance and Lease Language The developer (and/or all future owners) will draft lease language or side agreements for all tenants that require the identification of a designated employer contact, compliance and implementation of the TDM program (including annual survey and reporting, and registration in the Alliance's GRH program). The agreement language may also identify the tenant's share of potential penalties for failure to achieve the 35% alternative mode-use rate, failure to participate in the annual employee commute survey, or failure to submit the annual report as identified by the City of South San Francisco. The developer will guarantee project-wide tenant performance. The lease language may be worded similarly to: Tenant hereby agrees to designate one of its employees to act as a liaison with Landlord to facilitate and coordinate such programs as may be required by governmental agencies to reduce the traf fic generated by the 213 East Grand Avenue project as required by the City of South San Francisco as part of conditions of approval and to encourage the use of public transportation and ridesharing. More detailed sample draf t lease language is attached as Exhibit B. 4 Ordinance No. 1300-2001, Chapter 20.120, Transportation Demand Management, South San Francisco Municipal Code, October 2001. ~~ THE HOYT COMPANY Page 3 / 213 East Grand Avenue Preliminary TDM Plan March 10, 2008 19.0 CONCLUSION The developer is committed to achieving and maintaining a 35% employee alternative mode-use at the proposed project for either an office or RB~D development. This TDM Plan provides the details of their commitment to the City of South San Francisco. The 213 East Grand Avenue project supports the policies of focusing clustered development along transportation corridors (Highway 101 and I-280), and transit corridors (Caltrain and BART). In order to be part of the transportation solution, this project contains the density and critical mass necessary to encourage the use of all alternative modes of transportation including bicycling, carpooling, vanpooling, and public transit. By balancing air quality with economic growth, the 213 East Grand Avenue project will help South San Francisco thrive as a community. It is projects like these that will contribute to South San Francisco's future livelihood. ~~ THE oYT CaMpANY Page 38 EXHIBIT A Accounting of C/CAG Trip Credits Office and R&D Scenarios 213 East Grand Avenue EXHIBIT A -Office Accounting of C/CAG Office Trip Credits 213 East Grand Avenue Required TDM Program Measures - SSF Ordinance Quantity Credit Ratio Credit Bicycle Parking -long-Term (Class I) (14) Bicycle Parking -Short-Term (Class II) (5) Total Bicycle Storage 19 0.33 6 Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Service 1 0 0 Designated Employer Contact -ETC 1 5 5 Direct Route to Transit 1 0 0 Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools 100% 0 0 Guaranteed Ride Home program 115 1 115 Information Boards/Kiosks 2 5 10 Passenger Loading Zone 1 0 0 Pedestrian Connections 1 5 5 Preferential Carpool Parking (94) 94 2 188 Preferential Vanpool Parking (2) 2 7 14 Promotional Programs 1 0 0 Showers (4)/Clothes Lockers (32) 4 10 40 Additional Credit for combination with bicycle lockers 1 5 5 Shuttle Program (assumes 122 ridership) 122 1 122 Additional Credit for Guaranteed Ride Home program 122 1 122 Transportation Management Association Participation 1 5 5 Annual Employee Commute Survey 1 1.5 1.5 Subtotal of C/CAG Trips Credited 639 Additional TDM Measures On-site and Nearby amenities 3 1 3 Additional Credit for combination of any 10 elements 1 5 5 ter easures - to e eeme onsistent y ie Planner TDM Plan/Transportation Action Plan 1 10 10 Downtown Dasher -free midday service 1 1 1 Subtotal of Additional and Other Measures 19 Total C/CAG Trips Credited 658 EXHIBIT A - RB~D Accounting of C/CAG RB~D Trip Credits 213 East Grand Avenue Required TDM Program Measures - SSF Ordinance Quantity Credit Ratio Credit Bicycle Parking -long-Term (Class I) (12) Bicycle Parking -Short-Term (Class II) (5) Total Bicycle Storage 17 0.33 6 Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Service 1 0 0 Designated Employer Contact -ETC 1 5 5 Direct Route to Transit 1 0 0 Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools 100% 0 0 Guaranteed Ride Home program 100 1 100 Information Boards/Kiosks 2 5 10 Passenger Loading Zone 1 0 0 Pedestrian Connections 1 5 5 Preferential Carpool Parking (81) 81 2 162 Preferential Vanpool Parking (2) 2 7 14 Promotional Programs 1 0 0 Showers (4)/Clothes Lockers (32) 4 10 40 Additional Credit for combination with bicycle lockers 1 5 5 Shuttle Program (assumes 87 ridership) 87 1 87 Additional Credit for Guaranteed Ride Home program 87 1 87 Transportation Management Association Participation 1 5 5 Annual Employee Commute Survey 1 1.5 1.5 Subtotal of C/CAG Trips Credited 527 Additional TDM Measures On-site and Nearby amenities 3 1 3 Additional Credit for combination of any 10 elements 1 5 5 Other Measures - to be Deemed Consistent by Chief Planner TDM Plan/Transportation Action Plan 1 10 10 Downtown Dasher -free midday service 1 1 1 Subtotal of Additional and Other Measures 19 Total C/CAG Trips Credited 546 EXHIBIT B Sample Draft Lease Language 213 East Grand Avenue EXHIBIT B Draft Tenant Lease Language Regarding Transportation Demand Management Plan Implementation and Requirements for 213 East Grand Avenue Parking and Traffic. (a} Landlord has advised Tenant that the approval of the 213 East Grand Avenue project by the City of South San Francisco conditioned upon, among other things, Landlord's development and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan (the "TDMP" pursuant to which Landlord is required to undertake various measures to try to reduce the volume of traffic generated by the Project. Landlord covenants with Tenant that Landlord will use reasonable efforts to try to reduce the volume of traffic generated by the Project, as contemplated by the TDMP, including (but not limited to) substantially complying with any specific measures required by the City of South San Francisco, Tenant hereby agrees (i) to designate one of its employees to act as a liaison with Landlord's designated transportation coordinator in facilitating and coordinating such programs as may be required from time to time by governmental agencies and/or by the terms of the TDMP to reduce the traffic generated by the Project (as required by the City of South San Francisco as part of the conditions of approval of this project} and to facilitate and encourage the use of public transportation, carpooling and bicycling, (11} to make reasonable efforts to encourage cooperation and participation by Tenant's employees in the programs implemented from time to time pursuant to the TDMP, including (but not limited to) programs described in this Section _.o, and (111) to cooperate with Landlord's designated transportation coordinator in identifying an appropriate area within each Building where an inf ormation kiosk can be maintained f or the dissemination of transportation-related inf ormation, to be updated from time to time by Landlord's designated transportation coordinator in coordination with the Tenant's designated liaison. (b) The Project is presently intended to contain a maximum of approximately 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square f eet of off ice development to be constructed on the Property, subject to approval by appropriate agencies of the City of South San Francisco. Consistent with the TDMP, a specified percentage (presently anticipated to be ten percent (10%} of these spaces would be designated for carpool, vanpool and clean fuel vehicles. Such designated carpool parking spaces will be located near building entrances and/ or in preferential locations at all surface lots and/ or garages. (c) On or about (or before} the date Tenant commences business in the respective Buildings, Landlord intends to provide Tenant, through Landlord's designated transportation coordinator, with an appropriate number of employee transportation inf ormation flyers or brochures, presently are expected to include (but not be limited to) inf ormation about: ^ guaranteed ride home program ^ schedules and maps for Caltrain and BART shuttles ^ commute allowance inf ormation (carpool, bike and walk subsidies} ^ carpool and vanpool parking ^ ridesharing and ride matching services ^ free Downtown Dasher service ^ www.511.or~ rideshare inf ormation ^ shuttle services operating to and from the Property ^ on-site bicycle lockers ^ on-site shower facilities ^ regional bicycle map ^ transportation information kiosks ^ 213 East Grand Avenue transportation coordinator contact inf ormation Landlord shall thereafter cause its designated transportation coordinator to provide updated copies of the employee transportation information flyer or brochure to Tenant f rom time to time, as appropriate, and to make additional copies of the flyer or brochure available to Tenant from time to time, upon request by Tenant, for new employees. Tenant shall distribute copies of the employee transportation inf ormation flyer or brochure to all employees commuting to the Property at the time Tenant commences business in the respective Buildings, shall thereafter distribute copies of the flyer or brochure to new employees from time to time and shall distribute updated packets to all employees from time to time when and as such updated f lyers or brochures are f urnished to Tenant by Landlord's designated transportation coordinator. (d) Landlord is required to conduct, pursuant to the TDMP, annual surveys of its tenants and their employees regarding both quantitative and qualitative aspects of commuting and transportation patterns at the Center. Landlord anticipates that these surveys will be prepared, administered and analyzed by an independent transportation consultant retained by the Landlord, and will be summarized by that consultant in an annual report to be submitted by that consultant to the City of South San Francisco, Planning and Community Development Department with respect to the Project. Tenant shall cooperate with Landlord, with Landlord's designated transportation coordinator and with any independent transportation consultant retained by the City, and shall use (e) reasonable efforts to cause Tenant's employees to so cooperate, in the completion and return of such surveys from time to time, when and as requested by Landlord or its designated transportation coordinator or the independent consultant. (f) Should the City of South San Francisco assess financial penalties to the Project for non attainment of the required 35% alternative mode use rate, the Tenant shall be subject to a pro rated assessment of the penalty assessed by the City to correspond to the level of their alternative mode use rate achievement. March 3, 2008 ATTACHMENTS Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Flyer Carpool Incentive Flyer Emergency Ride Home Program -Employee Focus Emergency Ride Home Program -Employer Focus Employer Shuttle Rider Pass Program Flyer Free Downtown Dasher -Midday Taxi Service Flyer Free Transit Ticket Distribution Program -Try Transit Registration Vanpool Program Flyer Safety Program Attention Bicycle Commuters Get A Free One Hour Bike And Pedestrian Safety Workshop At Your Jobsite This Fun, Energizing Workshop Includes: • Tips on including Bicycling as a safe, stress relieving commute mode • Coverage of Traffic Laws for Bicyclists, Pedestrians, and Motorists around Bicyclists and Pedestrians • Basic Bicycle Maintenance Tips • Free bicycle related Door Prizes Ask Your Employer To Give Us A Call, And The ALLIANCE Will Do The Rest!!! If you would like more information on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program, please call The ALLIANCE at 650-588-8170, visit our website at www.commute.orq ,ore-mail us at ALLIANCE ~,~commute.orq Rev 2 _ .:.~r ~ :~:~ ,. ,. '~ ` . ~,f ~., ~~~ .. ••~+:•:, .,.~ r?: ,G . - • =r - . • ,l,~ ...-.. . ~~:k ,Y_..~~ ~.:~ ~~ ' : ,.~ Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • E. Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay • Millbrae • Pacifica • Redwood Cit • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • S. San Francisco Bicycle and Pedestrian QuickLinks ~ ~~~Or/11rNY ~O11YlOI I11MIMI1b ~1R9m~ 4111~Ig4apU IIWIRn611YUY Alliance Programs You Pool, We Pay! If you currently drive alone, and you commute to, from or through San Mateo Coun carpooling to work. FREE Transit The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance is offering: Tickets gas cards worth $60.00 for commuters with standard cars Get an Emergency gas cards worth $80.00 for commuters with hybrid cars (Clean Air Vehicle dei Ride Home gift cards worth $80.00 for commuters with clean air vehicles (Clean Air Vehic Rebates for new to commuters who led a to car ool to work a minimum of two da s er week, for vanpool p g p y p participants of driving alone. Each member of the carpool is eligible for this offer! To find out if your vehicle qualifies for the Clean Air Vehicle decal, please visit the c Carpool Incentive (ARB) website at: www.arb.ca.gov Program Visit the www.dmv.ca.gov to find out how to apply for Clean Air Vehicle decal. Plea Bike Parking at FasTrak requirement carefully. Half Cost If ou need a car ool artner or want to find a new member for an existin car ool, Y P P 9 P Develop A website. Shuttle Program The Bike and Commute by carpool ... and we'll buy the gas Pedestrian Safety Program Now is the time to try carpooling! The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance i gas card incentive to help you. Start here: Form a NEW carpool with two or more people over the age of 18 or Add a NEW member to an existing two-person carpool. Then, register yourself (the carpool coordinator) and the names and emails of The carpool coordinator is the only person required to complete this form to st completing the carpools partners' information accurately on this one form. Select the type of vehicle from the drop-down box at the top of the applicatior Special requirements state that Hybrid and CAV carpoolers must drive througr Hybrid or CAV incentive applicants will need to mail or fax us a copy of the CIE Once your application is received and accepted, your carpool partners will receive must follow to fill out their information. The incentives are currently a one time only Acceptance of this application is subject to the Alliance's approval. (All questions are required.) Type of Carpool Carpool Coordinator's Salutation Carpool Coordinator's First Name Carpool Coordinator's Last Name Standard Mr Home Address Home City Home State Home Zip Home Phone (Format: 123-123-1234 ok) Work Phone Email address Company Company Address Company City Company State CA CA Company Zip H. R. Mgr./Supervisor's Name Work Start Time (format:l:3oor12:3o) - AM PM Prior to joining this carpool, did you drive to work ~: Yes No alone? What is the one-way mileage from your home to your worksite? How many days per week do you carpool? 5 ^ Our carpool started Month: ~d11 ^ Year: 2007 ^ How did you hear about this program? WWW,C0111111Ute.Or g Reference number/other details from ad Carpool Partner Information: Name: Email address: Name: Email address: Name: Email address: Name: Email address: Name: Email address: Carpool Release and Waiver of Liability I, the undersigned, request to register my participation in the Carpool Incentive Program benefit I receive as a participant in this Program, I hereby assume full responsibility for all which may result from my participation in this Program, I agree to hold harmless, release, covenant not to bring suit or claim against the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Allianc Transit District, City/County Assocation of Governments of San Mateo County, and their i employees (hereafter collectively "Releasees") from any and all claims and demands whc the Releasees by reason of an accident, illness, injury, or death, or damage to or loss or resulting from my participation in the Program whether or not such loss, injury, or death is part by the negligent acts or omissions of the Releasees. The terms of this release are bi administrators, and all of my family members as well as myself. I have read the foregoing release and fully understand the terms contained therein an inducement. I hereby verify the information submitted is true and correct. Please click only once to submit! Clear Fields Submit Application EMERGENCY RIDE HOME PROGRAM :::#" 1::::::::' i:::::::: ::: { ~n...... _ .nh. .~..n. ::. ..:: k :~~•.,is ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Don't Get Stranded At Work! Do you want to bike, walk, carpool, vanpool, or take public transit; but are worried about becoming stranded if an emergency arises while you are at work? The Emergency Ride Home gives you the peace of mind necessary to get out of traffic and save money, time and stress. When your Employer signs up for The Emergency Ride Home program, you have a reliable way to get home quickly in the event of an emergency. Most people choose to drive their own personal vehicle to work because they don't want to be faced with a dilemma should an emergency arise. Be certain that, in the case of an emergency, youremployerwill supportyou with a free taxi ride or a 24-hour car rental. You have the freedom to carpool, vanpool, bus, bike or walk to work without the fear of becoming stranded in an emergency. How do I get my employer involved? You can provide your employer with information about the program by printing out the Emergency Ride Home section of this website at www.commute.orq Otherwise, send us a contact name, number and address to alliance ,commute.orq or call us at 650-588-8170 and we'll be happy to contact them for you. EMERGENCY RIDE HOME PROGRAM Are you ready to improve recruitment and retention rates, reduce parking congestion, and attract employees from a wider area, while providing a subsidized, low cost benefit to your employees? Do it all with the Alliance's Emergency Ride Home Program Most employees choose to drive their own personal vehicle to work because they don't want to be stranded at work should an emergency arise. With the Emergency Ride Home program, employees are given the assurance that, in the case of an emergency, they will be provided with a free taxi ride or a 24-hour car rental. We pay 75% of the ride! The participating employer pays the remaining 25%. Historically, program costs remain very low because emergencies are infrequent. The Alliance can help you design easy administration policies that prevent program abuse. Employer cost of one Emergency Ride Home: average $12 Trusting your employer will be there for you in an emergency: Priceless The Alliance does all the work. If you have any questions or are unsure if your company could benefit from this orother no to low cost commute programs, contact us at 650-588-81 l0 or via email at alliance@commute.org. ... ~ F ~ ° .~ ~ ~ ~~ ._m x ~ `may ~t~tiaa_~. ~ r a '.' ~. ~" "`6 m3 y. r x -' . . ;.. . F ~ ~ a ASR ~1 ~ ~ _ + } ~` ~ `~ ~ ~~. a -y ~•' is ~ r•• F{ +. - '~ ~ } ~ • ~ ~ ~.' t ^ ~ ~ ~~ a Ems- t ~ t ~ + ~ ~ ~'~ ilk ~~ ~ ~ * ¢ { s ~ +.»~ ~ ~ v ¢ ~n ~ r w M r i ~' { ~ ! 1 4 ~ a .4 ~ ~ t ~ ~ r ~ ~ x LL _ i. ~ - :. ~rY ~ ,~,~ , f ~ a~ 5 ~.. a~ ~F ! Y a ~ ~ .. tip' £ r.:i .~ ~ I.' ':.'&~:. .. ,.. J< i ~ .. .r .. °~ .~ . .... .. '~ 4' i _ ~~. ,ti,r. .~ .. x. r._ .z': / ~ '~:.:: x::: :~~ w~, ."r.~r..xti _n Li."~~ ~ ~ s'.'r.... ~~. _.. ... .. .e .z:i_4'.~:.~ .. ~`... .. .;. .. '.j :.: :I i`i ~. J ~. .. ..}. .~ .... R i .':` ... r _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ~~ z'; ;: .. i ~. .. .: ;. ., ~ .... ~. ~. .`. ~ :: is R .. .. ' '' ~ 1 W.. ~....n. _ - = - - -.. ..~._ .:s ~.. ,S ... g .i .. i x 4 ~' ti 'r .: gp~! Sg ,y ~ i F m .~. ..,b,. ., , r, 6. ;.~ <. ~ - I .. - _ .., .; . ,. . «r ~:. ... .: J _- - 4 x:. ~:~ , ~ r .< <. ~. .., J..:: <. i .:: : . <: <.: ~ - $ Y y , .. - . 4 ... -~~ ,~~~~~ _ - ... _.. _ YR 'J :: ~~ k h s. s ar .r k. ,.. ~1. 1 ,. , _ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~~ am `~ .. -~ ~~ ~ =~ ~ ~ ~.... is ~qt~r .W r .. ~ .~` `FY'~'a ~ ~,i ~~ ~ ~ Y .. y .. ... , ~. -3H.~M ... ..... ...... .. 'SS i~' - QuickLinks - F~~ Tr~asitTicket Dist b~rtion Program Alliance Tired and frustrated with driving alone on your long commute to Programs work every day? Interested in public transportation options, but never taken the time to try it? Get an Emergency If you're over 18, live or work in San Mateo County and have not Ride Home used public transportation to commute to work, you could be eligible for a free ticket on BART, Rebates for new SamTrans, Caltrain, VTA, Dumbarton Express or M Line. Just vanpool complete the questionaire below and we'll mail you a free ticket participants from the transit agency of your choice. Carpool Incentive Despite what you might think, public transit is very convenient. Program When you try public transportation you can: Bike Parking at Half Cost .Save hundreds of dollars a year in auto expenses (gas, insurance, maintenance, tolls, etc.) Develop A .Work or relax during your commute and reduce the amount of Shuttle Program stress you feel The Bike and • Use the new found time you have to read, talk with friends, or Pedestrian get ahead at work Safety Program • Get to work and get home on time regardless of the weather, traffic accidents, breakdowns, etc. Help reduce environmental pollution and overcrowded roads • Use pre-tax dollars to pay for your public transportation expenses Be one of the first to complete the questionnaire below and we'll mail you free transit tickets from the transit agency of your choice as mentioned below. Please note that this offer is for one ticket request, per person, one time only. Try Transit Free Tickets Order Form First Name: Last Name: Home Address: City: State: Zip: Phone number: Email Address: Employer Name: Employer Address: City State Zip How do you usually get to work? Drive alone Carpool l vanpool Transit: BART Caltrain Dumbarton Express SamTrans VTA M Line Bike (walk Other: Description I would like a free ticket for: Caltrain (3 round-trip tickets) SamTrans (6 one-way tickets) BART (one $9 BART ticket) VTA (3 round-trip tickets) M Line (6 one-way tickets) Dumbarton Express (6 one-way tickets) ~ What is the one-way mileage from your home to your worksite? ~ How did you hear about this program? WWW.C011'll1'lUte.Org ~ If "Other", then please state how you heard about it: ~ How many days per week do you commute? I certify that I am over 18 years of age, live or work in San Mateo County, and r commute to work in the past. ~uaml Want To Save Money On A Long Commute And Get Paid For Doing It? Then vanpooling may be right for you. Picture this.... You meet your van in the morning at a prearranged place and time. Then, you settle into a comfortable seat for a relaxing ride. What a perfect time to read, snooze, or even catch upon some work, while around you, thousands fight traffic. And We'll Pay You To Try It... As an incentive to help you get started in a vanpool, the ALLIANCE will pay you half of the cost for your first 3 months of vanpooling, up to $80 per month. If you decide to be a driver for a new vanpool for at least 6 months, you can receive $500.00. This one time incentive is provided for those who have joined a new vanpool in the last six months and have not vanpooled for athree-month period before joining their new van. How Can I Get Involved In A Vanpool? If you would like us to contact your employer, give us a call at 650-588-8170, or e-mail us at ALLIANCE@commute.org or visit our website at www.commute.orq To Receive Your Rebate... If you are a new vanpool rider or driver, or are planning to be one, download and fill out the reimbursement form in the vanpool section at www.commute.orq Rev 2 f y~ I ... ? '! _.}1 k_ •"Yip r'. /'••s .-• `~ . 1 r r v _: ~ ~-~ •+. ~ ~}~ Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • E. Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay • ::~.' ,,y ,....~ :k Millbrae • Pacifica • Redwood City • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • S. San Francisco Vanpool Program