Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 88-2008 RESOLUTION NO. 88-2008 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING THE 2008 ADDENDUM TO THE 2005 SEIRAND 2006 ADDENDUM, AND ADOPTING THE RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the TelTabay lands have an extensive planning history dating to the early 1980s; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco, pursuant to the California Envirolunental Quality Act (CEQA), adopted the 2006 Addenduln and certified the 2005 Supplelnental EnviromnentallInpact Repoli (SEIR), which build upon the certified 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 Envirolunental Ilnpact Report, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prograln (MMRP) for TelTabay Phase III by Resolution 81-2006, all of which relnain in effect; and, WHEREAS, the City Council approved the 2006 Plan Anlendlnent to the 2006 Final Terrabay Specific Plan, in October of 2006 by Resolution 82-2006; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to adoption of the 2006 Addenduln and certification of the 2005 SEIR, for those impacts of the 2006 Plan Amendnlent and Final TelTabay Specific Plan that would relnain significant and unavoidable, the City adopted a Statenlent of OvelTiding Considerations, included as Exhibit B to this resolution and incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the applicant now requests an mnendlnent to the 2006 Final TelTabay Specific Plan, precise plan, and a zoning text anlendnlent, to allow as a pennitted use, a Product Design Studio ("Studio") as a support use to the approved office use on the site, and to be located above the approved ground floor retail concourse attached to the site's North Tower ("2008 Project"); and, WHEREAS, an IIlitial Study, included as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated by reference, was prepared to determine if additional environmental review was required for the 2008 Project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Based on the IIlitial Study, the City detenllined that the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the previous CEQA doclunents, including the 2006 Addenduln, the 2005 SEIR, the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR. The project remains subject to all previously adopted nlitigation nleasures applicable to the project and project site; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the 2008 Proj ect, as no substantial changes have been proposed to the proj ect or the conditions under which the project will be calTied out that require nlajor revisions to the previous EIRs. No new significant envirOlunental inlpacts have been identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified inlpacts has been discovered. The project relnains subject to all previously adopted Initigation nleasures, as applicable; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendunl, included as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated by reference ("2008 Addendllln"), was prepared for the 2008 Project, which identifies the project changes and their relationship to the analysis in the previous Addendllln, SEIRs, and EIR; and WHEREAS, the Plmuling Conlnlission held a properly noticed public hearing on July 17, 2008, at which tinle interested parties had the oppoliunity to be heard, to review the IIlitial Study and draft 2008 Addendllln, as well as supporting doculnents, prior to making a recolnlnendation on the 2008 Project; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated July 23,2008, was subnlitted to the City Council analyzing the 2008 Project and recOlnlnending approval of the 2008 Addendllln and the project applications; and WHEREAS, the City Council used its independentjudgjnent and allalysis, and considered all repolis, recolnlnendations and testilnony before taking action on the 2008 Addendmn and the 2008 Proj ect. NOW THEREFORE, based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without linlitation, (1) the South San Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Enviromnental IInpact Report; (2) The Final TelTabay Specific Plan, as anlended in 2000, 2006 and proposed in 2008; (3) The 2005 Certified Supplelnental EnvirOlunental IInpact Report and 2006 Addendllln and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progranl, 1998-99 Certified Terrabay Supplelnental EnvirolunentallInpact Report, which includes the 1982 Certified TelTabay EnvirOlullentallInpact Repoli, the Certified 1996 TelTabay Supplemental EnvirOlunentallIllpact Report and Addendunl to the 1998-1999 Certified TelTabay Supplenlental Environ111entallInpact Report and Addendunl; (4) All public hearings on the project, including minutes and repolis prepared for such hearings, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, does hereby RESOLVE as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are hue and COlTect and Inade a part of this resolution. 2. The City Council finds that the proposed 2008 Project will not result in any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 because the addition of a Product Design Studio will not create any new significant iInpacts or substantially more severe impacts as conlpared to those identified and analyzed in the 2006 Addendum and 2005 SEIR, which build upon the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR. Nor is there in any new infonnation of substantial ilnportance that demonstrates new or substantially Inore severe significant effects, as compared to those identified in the prior CEQA documents. Nor are any new or additionallnitigation measures required to nlitigate any impacts of the 2008 Project. 3. The City Council finds that SOlne of the significant and unavoidable inlpacts identified in the Statelnent of OvelTiding Considerations would apply to the 2008 Project, but as detailed in the Statenlent, the benefits of the project continue to outweigh the adverse impacts. 4. Accordingly, the City Council finds that CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not require any further CEQA review, and that an addendunl, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, is the appropriate envirolunental doclllnent for approval of the 2008 Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby: 1. Adopt the 2008 Addendunl, including the related Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described in Exhibit A [included as Attaclunent IV to the Staff Report] and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Adopt the Statelnent of OvelTiding Considerations, attached as Exhibit Band incorporated herein by reference. * * * * * I hereby celiify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular lneeting held on the 23rd day of July 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Councihnelnbers Mark N. Addiego, Richard A. Garbarino and K.evin Mullin, Mayor Pro Tem Karyl Matsunloto and Mayor Pedro Gonzalez NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: -4- 4 [Included as a separate bound doc:ument - to the July 23, 2008 City Council Staff Report] Exhibit A 2008 Addendum, Initial Study and MMRP [ L L L L L L TERRABA Y PHASE III ONLY 2008 PROJECT 'l INITIAL STUDY L AND L ADDENDUM TO THE 2005 SEIR AND 2006 ADDENDUM JULY 17,2008 - PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 23, 2008 - CITY COUNCIL , L L L r L TERRABA Y PHASE III ONLY 2008 PROJECT INITIAL STUDY AND ADDENDUM TO THE 2005 SEIR and 2006 ADDENDUM July 17,2008 INTRODUCTION The attached Initial Study (IS) evaluates the proposed modification (2008 Project) to the approved Terrabay Phase III Project (2006 Project) environmental impacts and mitigation measures. The IS then compares the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 2005 Terrabay Phase III Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR) as restated in the 2006 Addendum to those potential impacts associated with the 2008 Project. The 2005 SEIR and its 2006 Addendum supplements, as permitted by law, the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR. The 2005 SEIR was prepared for a Terrabay Phase III (only) application received by the City of South San Francisco in the same year. The 2005 SEIR is tiered upon and supplements the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1998/99 SEIR). The original Terrabay Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified in 1982 (1982 EIR) and a supplemental to that document was prepared and certified in 1996 (1996 SEIR). Approved 2006 Project The 2006 Project, approved by City Council Resolution 82-2006 on October 11, 2006 is the construction of 665,000 square feet of office in two towers. Additionally, 24,000 square feet of commercial retail use and at a minimum one quality restaurant is approved along with, a shared use 200-seat performing arts center, a laO-child day care facility, and a public art program. Parking is provided in an eight level garage which includes 1,896 spaces and 56 additional surface parking spaces for a total of 1,952 spaces. A Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) is approved for the project. The TDM Program targets a 30% mode shift. Table 1 identifies the land use by square footage of the approved 2006 Project. The 2006 Addendum did analyze 25,000 square feet of retail and 665,028 square feet of office and what were approved are approximately 24,009 square feet of retail and 664,042 square feet of office. Therefore, the 2006 Addendum is a conservative environmental analysis as it analyzes both office and retail land uses (the trip generators) at higher numbers that what was finally approved. Building permits have been issued and construction is underway for the approved 2006 Project. Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR/2006 Addendum July 17,2008 Pqel -1- -2- Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR/2006 Addendum July 17,2008 Page 2 TABLE 2 2008AMENDMENT-PROPOSED PRO.JECT Land Use Gross Square Feet Office 662,528 Commercial 24,009 Child Care 5,644 Performing Arts 4,433 Product Design Studio 15,007 Enhanced Lobby on 2nd Floor 2,500 Total 714,121 Total Parking 1,952 spaces The Applicant has requested an amendment to the 2006 entitlements to permit the construction of a 15,007 square foot Product Design Studio (Studio) serving as an ancillary use to the office towers. The addition is proposed to be constructed on top of the approved retail concourse connected to the North Tower thereby creating a second floor in this area. In order to facilitate access to the Studio, 2,500 square feet of office use in the North Tower on the second floor would be converted to circulation area to connect the Studio with the second floor office. Table 2~1 below, identifies the 2008 Project that is analyzed in the attached IS. The total office is 986 square feet larger than the actual Project in order to remain consistent with the 2006 Addendum. Proposed 2008 Amendment-Project Description TABLE 1 APPROVED 2006 TERRABA Y PROJECT ANALYZED IN THE 2006 ADDENDUM Gross Square Feet SOUTH TOWER Office 313,002 Commercial 11,544 Child Care 5,644 Performing Arts 4,433 Sub Total 334,623 Parking 962 spaces NORTH TOWER Office 352,026 Commercial 12,465 Sub Total 364,482 Parking 990 spaces TOTALS Office 665,028 Commercial 24.009 Child Care 5,644 Performing Arts 4,433 Total 699,114 Total Parking 1,952 spaces BACKGROUND Previous Environmental Analy'sis The Terrabay project was first envisioned in 1980 and the land was within the County of San Mateo's jurisdiction. The project required annexation to the City of South San Francisco, the formation of a Habitat Conservation Plan and the evaluation of Project impacts on the three proposed phases of construction. The phasing is identified as: Phase I Village and Park residential, Phase II Woods, Pointe and Commons East and West residential and Phase III commercial. 1982 Environmental Analysis The following table outlines the development proposal analyzed in the 1982 EIR. TABLE 2 1982 TERRABA Y Em ANALYSIS Residential Phase I Approved 1982 As-Built 2005 Village 181 161 units Park 136 125 units Phase n Woods 200 135 units Commons East 57 O(Recreation Parcel for City) Commons West 77 182 units (Commons West Point 99 and Point merged into one area in 2000 referred to as "The Pointe") Commercial Phase III 663,000 Sq. ft. office, 0 health club, restaurants, hotel, seminar and high technology center The alternatives analyzed in the 1982 EIR include: . No project/no developm(:nt of the site. . Mixed use consisting of '745 dwelling units, 200 room hotel inclusive of a 150 seat restaurant/bar, two additional restaurants consisting of 300 seats and 150 seats and a 210,000 square foot office. . 1,036 residential units and a 10.4 acre shopping center of undefined square footage. . 985 dwelling units including 30% for seniors and 20% for low and moderate income households. Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIRJ2006 Addendum July 17, 2008 Page 3 -3- -4- Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR/2006 Addendum July 17,2008 Page 4 · A 2.9 acre development pad with up to a 150 room hotel. · A 1.8 acre development pad with a hotel, 7,500 square foot restaurant or office use and surface parking; and · A 4.9 acre development pad with 340,000 square feet of office and a five level parking garage (situated in front of the office tower); In response to City of South San Francisco direction, the Final 1998/99 SEIR analyzed a "Mitigated Plan Alternative". The Mitigated Plan Alternative concentrated development on three "pads" (avoiding disturbance of a 5,000 year old archaeological site entirely), avoided some wetlands, special species habitat and consisted of the following: TABLE 3 1998/99 SEIR ANALYSIS Residential Phase II Number ofUnits/Typ(~ of Units or Square Footage Woods 135 single family (detached) Commons 32 duplex (attached) Pointe 181 duplex and triplex (attached) TOTAL PHASE II 348 units Phase III Commercial Hotel 235,000-280,000 sq. ft. Restaurant 12,000-18,000 sq. ft. Retail 6,000-10,000 sq. ft. Mixed Use 30,000-35,000 sq. ft. TOTAL PHASE III 283,000-343,000 sq. ft. The 1998/99 SEIR was prepared in response to an application from Sunchase, G.A.. The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed the following development proposal. 1998/99 Terrabay Environmental Analysis The 1996 SEIR analyzed the impacts associated with extending the terms of the development agreement for the Terrabay Project. Phase I Terrabay was under construction at the time which includes the Village and Park residential subdivisions, the Terrabay Fire Station, Terrabay Recreation Center, Sister Cities Boulevard (completed), the Terrabay water tank (potable), linear park, grading improvements to Hillside School and construction of South San Francisco Drive. The 1996 SEIR analyzed Terrabay Phases II and III as shown in Table 2, above. The 1996 SEIR noted, but did not analyze the impacts to wetlands present on the Phase III site and noted but did not analyze the impacts to special species habitat and an historic resource (archaeological) on the Phase III lands. 1996 Terrabay Environmental Analysis The project analyzed would have disturbed approximately 12 acres of the 37 acre phase III site. Additionally the following alternatives were analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. . No Development - Analyzes the impacts of no development on the Terrabay Phase III and II sites. . Existing 1996 Specific Plan - Analyzes 432 residential units, 669,300 square feet commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant. . Reduced Residential - Analyzes 316 residential units and no commercial. . Reduced Commercial- Analyzes 293,000 square feet of commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant and no residential. . Permanent Open Space -- Analyzes the impacts associated with dedicating Phase II and III parcels as permanent open space. The 1998/99 SEIR (State Clf:aringhouse #97-82077) was certified by South San Francisco City Council Resolution # 19-99. The 1998/99 SEIR analyzes geology, soils and seismicity, hydrology and drainage, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services (police and fire) and hazards as well as the wetlands, biological and archaeological resources that were not analyzed previously. 2000 Environmental Analysis (Addendum) In 2000, Myers Development submitted an application to the City requesting entitlements and legislative approvals to deve:lop a 665,000 square foot office in a single tower, 7,500 square feet support retail and 100 child day care center on the Phase III parcel. The application also included a reqUi:;lst for a 96 unit condominium tower (later approved for 112 units) and 70 paired units on a portion of the Phase II site. A request for lot line reconfigurations and a change in the land use designation of the "Commons Parcel" to Open Space/Recreation and approximately 26 acres of the Phase III site to Open Space for conveyance to the County of San Mateo was also a part of the application. The conveyance to the County stipulates that the 26 acres shall be incorporated into San Bruno County and State Park. The open space request implemented biological and archaeological mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR given that wetlands, special species habitat and an archaeological resource would be protected in perpetuity with the dedication of the property as permanent open space coupled with its conveyance to the County for inclusion in the Park. Specifically the mitigation measures are: . Biology Mitigation Measure 4.3.2 avoidance of take of callippee silverspot butterfly habitat. Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR/2006 Addendum July 17,2008 Page 5 -5- -6- Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR/2006 Addendum July 17,2008 Page 6 · 357,500 gross square feet of retail and 531 residential units. · 357,500 gross square feet of retail, a 300-room hotel and 351 residential units. In 2005 Myers Development submitted an application to the City for a mixed-use development on the Phase III lands only. Phase II was built out in 2005 with a 1 12-unit condominium tower and 70 paired units. The 2005 Project application requested entitlements for 357,500 gross square feet of retail, a 295,500 gross square feet office building and 351 residential units. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR) was prepared for the project. The 2005 SEIR analyzed two alternatives intended to build upon the alternatives analyzed in the previous environmental documents. The two alternatives analyzed are: 2005 Environmental Analysis TABLE 4 2000 ADDENDUM PARCEL LAND USE ACRES Preservation Parcel Open Space Preserve 25.73 Buffer Parcel Surface Parking 2.69 Office Parcel 665,0001 Office (child care and performing arts 18.08 theatre) Residential Parcel 96Condominiuml Apartments 14.96 70 single family attached Recreation Parcel 25,000-30,000 6.48 Recreation Center TOTAL 67.94 PORTION DEVELOP ABLE 35.73 PORTION OPEN SPACE 32.21 The IS analyzed the following Project and found that an addendum to the 1998/99SEIR was the appropriate environmental documentation. An addendum (2000 Addendum) was adopted by Resolution 147-2000. The 2000 Project had fewer impacts that those associated with the proj ect analyzed in 1998/99, as proposed implemented mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and minor technical changes were all that was needed to the previously certified SEIR (Section 15164, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3). · Archaeology Mitigation Measure 4.9.2 avoidance of impacts to CA-SMA-92. · Archaeology Mitigation Measure 4.9.1 avoidance of impacts to CA-SMA-40. · Biology Mitigation Measure 4.3.3 avoidance of take of wetlands. The 2005 SEIR (State Clearinghouse #1997082077) was certified by City Council by Resolution 81-2006. The Applicant, prior to the hearing before the City Council, withdrew the application stating that the project was too expensive to build. 2006 Environmental Analysis 2006 (Addendum) A 2006 IS evaluated the Project identified in Table 1, above. As a result a 2006 Addendum was adopted by City Council on October 11, 2006 (Resolution 81-2006) along with the certification of tht: 2005 SEIR. The 2006 Addendum took into account the changes in the environment identified below when evaluating the Project in the IS. Changes in Environment since the Preparation of the 1998/99 SEIR Environmental conditions as well as models used to predict project impacts have changed since the preparation of the 1998/99 SEIR. The changes include: . Hook ramps and Oyster Point Flyover are constructed and are in operation for 2005 analysis and were not for 1998 analysis. . Hickey Boulevard extension was completed in 2002 and its affect is analyzed in 2005 SEIR and not 1998 SEIR. . BART is in and included in analysis for 2005 SEIR and not for 1998 SEIR. . Hillside Boulevard and Chestnut Avenue signal was not in place in 1997 when the 1998 SEIR documentation was established and was in operational for the 2005 traffic analysis. . Home Depot and Lowes were not included in the cumulative assumptions in the 1998/99 SEIR and are included in the 2005 SEIR. . East of 101 cumulative traffic impact study was not complete or included in the background analysis for the 1998/99 SEIR and was complete, in place and used for the cumulative analysis in the 2005 SEIR. The 1998/99 SEIR analysis is dated using older traffic models and counts to identify project impacts. . The 1998 SEIR used 1994 Highway Capacity Manual for the traffic analysis . The 2005 SEIR used 2000 Highway Capacity Manual for the traffic analysis . The 1998 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 1997 . The 2005 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 2004 2008 Environmental Review The attached IS analyzes the proposed 2008 Project which is the conversion of 2,500 square feet of office to circulation area and the addition of a 15,007 square foot ancillary office use consisting of a product design studio. An IS was prepared because there were Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR/2006 Addendum July 17, 2008 Page 7 -7- -8- Terrabay Addendum to 2005 SEIR/2006 Addendum July 17, 2008 Page 8 1120875.1 SB 97 directs the state Office of Planning and Research to develop and draft CEQA Guidelines for the "mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions" by July 1,2009. SB 97 also directs state R€~sources Agency to certify and adopt the CEQA Guidelines by January 1, 2010. Therefc)re, in light of the regulatory framework and the increase in 2008 Project size (1.8%) an IS has been prepared and is attached. An updated traffic and air quality analysis has been prepared and is discussed and analyzed in those sections of the attached IS, along with a more detailed discussion of greenhouse gas. The result of the analysis indicate:s that an Addendum is the appropriate environmental documentation for the 2008 Project. The 2008 Project will not result in any of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, as the 2008 Project will not create any new impacts or any impacts that are substantially more severe than those identified and fully analyzed in previous CEQA documents. Nor is there new information of substantial importance to indicate that the 2008 Project will result in new or substantially more severe impacts, or require analysis of new mitigation measures or alternatives. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) require the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. AB 32 establishes a state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emission (GHG) levels to 1990 levels by 2020. This amounts to a reduction of approximately 25 percent from forecasted levels with further reductions to fc)llow. AB 32 requires the Air Resources Board to establish a program to track and report GHG emissions; approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologicallly feasible and cost effective reductions from sources of GHG emissions; adopt early reduction measures to begin moving forward; and adopt and implement enforcement regulations. AB 32 did not amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) however, SB 97 does require amendments to CEQA top be adopted by January 1,2010. changes to the regulatory environment since the adoption of the 2006 Addendum, and because of the addition of ancillary square footage. Regulatorv Changes INIQ4L S'TUDY -9- Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 1 ENVIRONME~~TAL REVIEW - INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title: Terrabay Phase III Only Specific, Precise Plan and Zoning Text Amendment-2008 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development Planning Division City Hall Annex - 315 Maple Street South San Francisco, California 94080 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting Planner 650. 877.8535 4. Project Location: Approximately 21 acres fronting Airport Boulevard beginning at Sister Cities Boulevard and ending at the boundary of the Preservation Parcel. The site is bounded by San Bruno State and County Park to the west and north (which includes the Preservation Parcel) and Terrabay Phases I and II to west. Highway 101 is located 150 feet east of the site. The approved 2006 Project is under construction on the site. APN: 007-650-100,007-650-110,007-650-120, 007-650-140, 007-650-150 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Myers Development Company 101 Second Street - Suite 555 San Francisco, California 94105 6. General Plan Designation: Business Commercial 7. Zoning Designation: Terrabay Specific Plan District 8. Description of Project: 2008 Project This Initial Study (IS) evaluates the difference between the approved Terrabay Phase III Project (2006 Project) which is now under construction and the proposed addition to the project (2008 - 11 - -12- 1 The child care and perfonning arts (shared use facility) were and are treated as ancillary uses to the office and commercial uses, and not as trip generators during peak periods and these uses were enlarged through the entitlement process. 2 For consistency with the 2006 analysis, this document analyzes a reduction of only 2,500 Square feet. 3 The parking was reduced by 100 spaces as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measure. The TDM Program was approved by the City in 2007. The Terrabay/Mandalay/Centennial Towers Project has been analyzed in previous environmental documents beginning in 1982. Environmental Background- Documents Incorporated by Rekrence TABLE 2 Approved 2006/Proposed 2008 PROJECT COPMPARISON/Gross Square Feet Land Use 2006 Project 2008 Project Difference Office 665,028 661,542 -2,5002 Commercial 25,000 24,009 -991 Child Care 5,000 5,644 +644 Performing Arts Studio 3,100 4.,433 +1,333 Product Design Studio 0 1.51,007 +15,007 Enhanced Lobbv 0 2,,500 +2,500 Total 698,128 713,135 +2.14% Parking 2.80/1,000 gsf3 2.74/1,000 gsf -0.07/1,000 gsf TABLEt TERRABA Y PROJECT ANALYZED IN THE 2006 ADDENDUM Land Use Gross Square Feet Office 665,028 Commercial 25,000 Child Care 5,000T Performing Arts 3,100 Total 698,128 Total Parking 2,052 spaces 2.6811,000 gsf The approved 2006 Project is the construction of 665,028 square feet of office in two towers, 24,009 square feet of commercial retail use and at a minimum one quality restaurant, a shared use 200-seat performing arts center, a 100-child day care facility and a public art program. See Figure 011 Current li7ew Looking West. Therefore, the 2008 Project is the evaluation of the conversion of 2,500 square feet of office to circulation area and the addition of 15,007 square feet of a Studio use above the North Tower retail concourse. See Figure 012 VIew Looking West with Product Design Studio. The following Initial Study evaluates the diffe:rence between the 2006 Project and that proposed in 2008, and in many cases includes an extensive summary from the 2006 Addendum as it provides the context within which the 2008 Project is reviewed. Project). The 2008 Project is the amendment of the approved Final Terrabay Phase III Specific Plan, Precise Plan and Zoning Text Amendment to allow the construction of a 15,007 square foot product design studio (Studio) above the approved (in 2006) retail concourse connected to the North Tower. The 2008 Project also includes the conversion of 2,500 square feet of office space in the North Tower to circulation area to connect the second floor of1ice with the Studio over the retail concourse. Table 1 identifies the square footage and land use approved by the 2006 Project entitlements and Table 2 compares the entitled 2006 Project to the proposed 2008 Project. Initial Study - 2 Terrabay Phase III Project T errabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 3 1. The flrst Terrabqy DeveloJ)ment Projett Environmental Impact Report (1982 EIR) was prepared and certifled by the City of South San Francisco (City) in 1982. The 1982 EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of the Terrabay Project as proposed in the 1982 Speciflc Plan. 2. The second environmental document the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabqy Spedfit' Plan and Development Agreement (1996 SEIR) was prepared and certifled by the City in 1996. The 1996 SEIR to the 1982 EIR studied the environmental impacts of the development of the Terrabay Project with a proposed ten year extension of the expiration date for the 1982 Speciflc Plan and Development Agreement to February 2007. 3. The third environmental document the 1998/99, the Terrabqy Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Final SEIR (1998/99 SEIR) was prepared and the document was certifled by the City in 1999. The 1998/99 SEIR evaluated adjustments to the land areas of Phase II and Phase III and the construction of the hook ramps and Bayshore Boulevard realignment. 4. The fourth environmental document was prepared and adopted in 2000 that being the 2000 Addendum to the 1998/99 SEIR. 5. The flfth environmental document the 2005 Phase III Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft and Fina~ (2005 SEIR) was prepared for a mixed use project on the Phase III site and certifled October 2006. 6. The sixth environmental document was prepared and adopted in 2006 that being the 2006 Addendum to the 1998/99 and 2005 SEIRs These documents and all the background documents referenced and cited therein are incorporated herein by referel1lce. Updated Conditions since 1998/99 SEIR Certification 1. Approximately 25.6 acres of the Phase III site (preservation Parcel) were dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. The conveyance of the Preservation Parcel took place on August 11, 2004 pursuant to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, Terrabay Speciflc Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement. 2. The modified Phase III site includes a "Buffer Parcel" and "Development Parcel". The Buffer Parcel comprises about 2.7 acres, which would be used for a roadway for emergency vehicle access which is a permitted use by the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement and the General Plan, Terrabay Speciflc Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed re- -13- -14- The Project site comprises approximately 21.2 acres. Site grading, emplacement of retaining walls, and construction of the South Tower and garage have commenced pursuant to 2006 Project entitlements and grading and building permits. Project Conditions of Approval (COA's) and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMIZP) are being enforced by the City. Project Site Characteristics 1. Regulatory Changes which include the adoption of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) which require the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions more fully discussed in the Air Quality Section of this IS. Updated Conditions since 2005 SEIR Certification and Adoption of2006 Addendum 6. The 2006 Project Applicant has paid the City a fair share amount for the review of the storm drain and sanitary sewer lines in Airport Boulevard O\1itigation Measure 3.4-8 2005 SEIR). The Engineering Division completed the study and has found that there is adequate capacity to serve the 2006 Project and cumulative development (Ray Razavi, City Engineer). 5. The City completed the Oyster Point Interchange including the hook ramp construction in front of the Project site. 4. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) issued permits to conduct streambed alterations and wetlands take and mitigation. The permit authorization from the Corps, CDFG and RWQCB remain in effect. 3. A Wetland Mitigation Plan (WMP) was prepared by 'Wetland Research Associates (WRA) in 2000 (WRA 2000) to address the impacts of the City's Oyster Point Hook Ramp Project and development of the Terrabay Phase III Project site. The WMP serves to address the filling of 0.68 acres of wetlands to accommodate the \videning of Airport (then Bayshore) Boulevard at the Hook Ramps (the City's Oyster Point Flyover Transportation Improvement Project) and anticipated filling of 0.10 acres of unvegetated other waters to accommodate development of the 2006 Project site. As defined in the WMP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters were to be mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wetlands and portions of two drainage channels in the northern portion of the original Phase III site (now the Preservation Parcel). entitlement of the Phase III site would affect the Development Parcel and the Buffer Parcels only consisting of approximately 20.7 acres of what was once a 47-acre site. Terrabay Phases I and II are completely built out and occupied. Initial Study - 4 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 5 City inspectors and consulting inspectors on the site on a daily basis overseeing the COA's and :MMRP. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Residential development comprising Phases I and II of Terrabay are located to the southwest of the Project site. The San Bruno Mountain County Park is located west of the Project site. The City of Brisbane is to the north and Airport Boulevard and U.S. Highway 101 are to the east. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. -15- L CENTENNIAL TOWERS South San Francisco, California Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP San Francisco, California 94111 I ~ 0'\ I I I CURRENT VIEW LOOKING WEST Job No. File Name 204000 Drawn By DAF Date 2008.06.30 Scale Sheet No. NTS 011 ~ I - VIEW LOOKING WEST WITH PRODUCT DESIGN STUDIO Job No. File Name 204000 Drawn By OAF Dale 2008.06.30 Scale Sheet No. NTS 012 Ref. Sheet ~ I I ~ 'I I CENTENNIAL TOWERS South San Francisco, California Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP San Francisco, California 94111 L -18- [gJ I find that the proposed 2008 Project will not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum and the 1998/99 SEIR and 2000 Addendum as described in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (2006) shall be restated and re-adopted along with this 2008 Initial Study as an Addendum to the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum. This fInding is based upon the requirements of Section 15164, California Code ojR.egulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 wherein an Addendum o 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 or NEGATIVE DECL-\RATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. o 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. o I find that the proposed project MAY have a signifIcant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required o 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 the revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signifIcant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. On the basis of this initial evaluation: DETERMINATION: o Agricultural Resources o Air Quality o Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils o Hydrology/Water Quality o Land Use/Planning o Noise o Population/Housing o Recreation o Transportation/Traffic o Mandatory Findings of Significance o Utilities/Service Systems o Public Services o Biological Resources o Hazards/Hazardous Materials o Mineral Resources o Aesthetics The 2008 Project impacts would result in new or substantially more severe impacts (as compared to the 2006 SEIR and 2006 Addendum) for the environmental factors checked below. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Initial Study - 8 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 9 may be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary to a previously certified EIR and none of the conditions identified in Section 15162 have occurred. I find that pursuant to Section 15162 there are no: (1) Substantial changes in the project that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. And that there is no: (3) New information of substantial importance that has become available and was not known at the time of the previous EIR's that would result in one or more significant effects not identified previously, significant effects that would be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not feasible or considerably different from ones identified before and would substantially reduce the effects of the project are declined by the project applicant. ~~ \ ./ JJ; 1,2tJOcr , Date Susy Kalkin Chief Planner Printed Name -19- -20- The 2008 Project would add a second story above the approved North Tower retail concourse. The second story addition would eliminate the view of a retaining wall and provide a stronger connection to the two towers. The Design Review Board reviewed the 2008 Project in June 2008 and found that the addition above the retail improved the aesthetic of the site. a and c) The 2008 Project would not impact scenic vistas. The 2006 Project was found not to negatively affect scenic vistas. The San Bruno Mountain County/State Park forms a backdrop to the Project site. The 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel, previously part of the Phase III property, but dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park on August 11, 2004, combined with the 2.7 Buffer Parcel, used only for roadways, maintains unobstructed views of San Bruno Mountain along the majority of the Phase III Airport Boulevard frontage. Additionally 50 percent less of the site was developed with the 2006 Project than what was proposed and analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR. The 2008 Project would add 15,000 square feet to the 2006 Project above the North Tower retail concourse located in-between the two approved office towers. Analysis o [gI o o d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [gI o o o c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [gI o o o b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [gI o o o a) Have a substantial adverse effect On a scenic vista? 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: No Impact Less Than Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potenll,.)Jy Signifit:ant Impact ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The following IS evaluates the 2008 Project in comparison to the impacts identified in the 2005 SEIR and as reconsidered in the 2006 Addendum for the Terrabay Project. The 2005 SEIR augments, enhances and supplements the 1998/99 SEIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR as permitted by law where newer information is available and relevant. The 2005 SEIR contains an updated traffic and circulation analysis based on new build out and development assumptions. The 2005 SEIR also updates air quality and noise, aesthetics, hydrology and public services and utilities. Ibis 2008 IS contains an updated traffic and air quality analysis. The 1998/99 SEIR remains the governing document with respect to issues such as archaeology, biology and geology and soils. Where appropriate and needed these distinctions are identified in the appropriate environmental sections of this IS. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Initial Study - 10 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study.. 11 b) The site is not adjacent to a scenic highway. The approved 2006 Project is clustered on approximately eight acres leaving approximately 10 acres of land on the "Development Parcel" with a clear view of the mountain. The 2008 Project does not change these conditions. The Development Parcel is approximately 18 acres of ]land where development is permitted which in previous documents has been referred to as the "Office Parcel". The 2.6-acre ''Buffer Parcel" is developed with an emergency access roadway and will include a turn around which would consist of pervious turf crete paving materials. The "Pointe" area south of the development is being landscaped in order to minimize the scars of previous grading. The 26 acre Preservation Parcel north of the Buffer Parcel remains in open space. The majority of the rock outcropping on the Development and Buffer Parcels remain in place. The 2008 Project would not alter any of these approved conditions. u~L~I.i~~_~g w()~~?:. d~~!~:~!~,_t?~~008 ~r~ec~~t_~_the ~!l:IJ:l~~~~a"t.:p2rov"e~.Eor the}906 Project. The 2006 Project introduced building, pathway and parkiiig lighting that adcfIight to rlle-proje"ct area and given its design and location was not found to be an impact. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 3.5.1 from the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which restricts the use of reflective building materials and requires controlled and downcast lighting to reduce light spillage from the site. This mitigation measure also applies to the 2008 Project and is shown in the Project design materials. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: The unnumbered Mitigation Measures from the 1982 EIR generally addresses the residential development. The approved Phase III 2006 Project does incorporate the applicable mitigation measure which includes clustering development, maintaining view lines to the Mountain, restricting development generally to the swales and use landscaping for screening and use of open spaces to reduce visual impacts. The 2008 Project would not alter the approved clustering and view sheds of the Project. The 2006 site plan would not be altered by the 2008 Project: therefore this mitigation is and remains completed. Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 from the 2005 SEIR which addresses night lighting mitigations to protect residential uses on the Phase III site. The approved 2006 Project and the proposed 2008 Project does not include residential land uses. Finding: The 2008 Project would not alter the clustering of that approved in 2006. The 2008 Project would not introduce residential uses or a significant addition of lighting to the site. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Moreover, the following conditions continue to exist for the 2008 Project: Slightly reduced lighting impacts from those identified in the 2005 SEIR because there were no impacts associated with residential land uses; No conflict between night lighting and residential uses; and, the Project clustering leaving the majority of the site open with views of the Mountain. -21- -22- Finding: There are no agricultural resources on the Project site. There are no impacts to agricultural resources and no mitigation measures are required. None. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: None. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmentall Documents: c) There is no farmland or agricultural uses within the City of South San Francisco (City South San Francisco 1999). b) The Project site is currently zoned Terrabay Specific Plan District. The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. a) The Project site contains no lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Potentially Significant Potemwly Unless Less Than Significant Mitigotion Significant No Imp:oct Incotporated Impact Impact 2. AGRICULTURAL 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 0 ~ California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? CI 0 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 01 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ Analysis Initial Study - 12 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Slg>1ificant No Impact Incotporated Impact Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? t8J D D D b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? t8J D D D 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)? t8J D D D d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concen tra tions? D D [gI D e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? D D D t8J Background The Project is a part of the third and fInal phase of the Terrabay Development. The entirety of the Terrabay/Mandalay /Centennial Towers Project, including Phases I, II, and III, has been analyzed in previous environmental documents beginning in 1982. Adjustments to Phase III have been addressed in the Terrabay Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Final EIR (1998/99 SEIR), the 2000 Addendum to the 1998/99 SEIR, the 2005 Phase III Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and the 2006 Addendum. The 2006 Adde~ndum augments, enhances and supplements the 2005 SEIR, the 1998/99 SEIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR as permitted by law where newer information is available and relevant. The 2006 Addendum contains an updated trafflc and circulation analysis based on new build out and development assumptions. The 2006 Addendum also updates air quality. Table 1 shows the square footage of the 2008 Project compared to the 2006 Project. -23- -24- The formulas and emission factors from the 2008 California Climate Action Registry Report Protocol were used to analyze operation-related greenhouse gas emission levels from the proposed electricity use by the Project. When compared to the 2006 Project, results show that greenhouse gas emissions increase slightly as a result of the 2008 Project. 'W'hile there are no statewide guidelines for greenhouse gas emission impacts, the estimated C02e emissions from the Project do not pose any apparent conflict with the most recent list of the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) early action strategies for reducing C02e emissions. The Project is also not a type of project identified by the CARB that would be expected to have a significant impact on The 2008 Project would slightly increase operation-related criteria air pollutants from those identified in the 2006 Addendum but not by a substantial amount. No new or additional air quality-related mitigation measures for criteria pollutant emissions would be required for the 2008 Project. The URBEMIS2007 version 9.2.4 model was used to analyze operation-related criteria air pollutants and construction- and operation-related CO2 equivalent (C02e) emission levels. Construction-related calculations include emissions from numerous sources, including site grading, construction worker trips, stationary equipment, diesel and gas mobile equipment, off-site haul export of soil material, asphalt off-gassing, and painting. Operation-related calculations include emissions from numerous sources, including vehicle trips, landscape maintenance, use of natural gas for space heating, and consumer products. · URBEMIS2007 (version 9.2.4) See Appendix A · Formulas and Emission Factors from the California Climate Action Registry Report Protocol 2008 The following modeling program, formulas, and emission factors were used to analyze the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts. This updated air quality analysis focuses on air quality criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions for the 2008 Addendum to the 2006 Terrabay Phase III Only Specific and Precise Plan Amendment. The 2008 Project includes a slight increase to the total square footage compared to the 2006 Project. The 2008 Project includes the construction of office space in two towers, commercial retail use and restaurant, a performing arts center, a child day care facility, and a product design studio in South San Francisco. Updated traffic information was provided for the 2008 Project (Crane Transportation Group) and discussed in the Transportation section of this document. Traffic data were provided for the Project where the Product Design Studio was considered ancillary to the office space and therefore did not generate any additional vehicle trips, but resulted in a net loss of vehicle trips. The traffic analysis also modeled a Project where the Product Design Studio was considered as a research and development facility that generated additional vehicle trips. TABLE 1 COMPARISION OF 2006 TO 2008 TERRABAY PROJECT '20()6AdCiena'lim ,I '2008,AddendutIl Gross Square Feet Gross Square Feet 665,028 662,528 25,000 24,009 5,000 5,644 3,100 4,433 o 15,007 2,500 714,121 698,128 Office Commercial Child Care Performing Arts Product Design Studio Enhanced 2nd floor Lobb Total Phase I and II Initial Study - 14 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 15 global climate change (i.e., the project is not a cement plant, oil refinery, electric generating facility/provider, co-generation facility, hydrogen plant, or other large stationary combustion source). The Project would also reduce its carbon footprint by incorporating a Transportation Demand Management Program (fDM Program) and sustainable green building and development practices. Analysis a), b) and c) The 2008 Project would not alter the clustering of that approved in 2006. The 2008 Project would not introduce residential uses or a significant addition of lighting to the site. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Moreover, the following conditions continue to exist for the 2008 Project: Slightly reduced lighting impacts from those identified in the 2005 SEIR because there were no impacts associated with residential land uses; No conflict between night lighting and residential uses; and, the Project clustering leaving the majority of the site open with views of the Mountain. The 2005 SEIR and the 2006 Addendum found that short term construction impacts associated with dust without mitigation could exceed PM10 standards. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 of the 1998/99 SEIR which is restated in the 2005 SEIR as Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 and referenced in the 2006 Addendum would reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 shall be required of the 2008 Project and would reduce construction impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 addresses dust and erosion control and is identified by the Bay Area Air Quality District as effective. The 1998/99 SEIR identified that direct and indirect air emissions with full buildout of Phases I, n and III of Terrabay would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts with respect to ozone and PM10. The impact is somewhat lessened but is still unavoidable with a TDM Program in place. The City adopted a "Finding of Overriding Considerations" with respect to this air quality impact in 1999. The 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum also identified this impact as significant and unavoidable and readopted the fmdings of overriding considerations (Impact 4.5.2 from the 1998/99 SEIR Changes in Long Term Air Quality Impact 3.2.2 from the 2005 SEIR). The proposed 2008 Project would result in a slight increase in air emissions, given its slight increase in square footage. The BAAQ:MD sets the threshold for analysis of air quality impacts at 2,000 trips per day (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BA.A~2MD CEQA Guidelines Assessing the Air Quali(y Impacts ~f Prqjeds and Plans, December 1999) with respect to the operational phase of a project. Assuming the worst-case scenario for the 2008 Project where the Product Design Studio is treated as a research and development facility (R&D) and would generate additional vehicle trips, the net increase for the 2008 Project from the 2006 Project is 58 trips per day, well below the BAAQ:MJ:) threshold. However, for comparison purposes an analysis was conducted. As shown in Table 2, the 2008 Project would slightly increase air quality impacts of criteria air pollutants from those identified in the 2006 Addendum. However, the increase of 58 trips per day does not result in a substantial change in the criteria air pollutants. This impact would be less than significant. A TDM Program which is approved for the 2006 Project and shall apply (as a matter of law) to the 2008 Project (by ordinance and design) is also identified as Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 for the 2006 Project. The mitigation measure is included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (M:MRP) for the 2006 Project. The TDM Program will serve to reduce the severity of the impact; however, it will not eliminate it all together. Full buildout of Terrabay will continue to exceed air quality standards, which will interfere with the region's efforts to reduce exceedences of ambient air quality standards for ozone and PMlO. Therefore the same fmding will need to be re-adopted for the 2008 Project. -25- -26- Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 from the 2005 SEIR and referenced in the 2006 Addendum shall apply to the 2008 project which requires a TDM Program. Note that this mitigation is are-statement of Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR. This mitigation will reduce impacts but not mitigate to a level of insignificance as discussed in the fmding below. Mitigation Measure 3.2.1 from the 2005 SEIR and referem'ed in the 2006 Addendum shall apply to the 2008 Project which address dust and soil erosion. Note that this mitigation is a re-statement of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: e) Objectionable odors are typically associated with industrial land use activities. The 2008 Project would include office and commercial land uses which as a rule do not generate objectionable odors. All restaurant spaces would be equipped with exhaust vents that filter air before it is released outside of the building as a standard condition of the 2008 Project approval and requirement of building permits pursuant to the Uniform Building Code CUBC). d) The proposed day care center is a sensitive receptor. The 2005 SEIR performed curbside carbon monoxide modeling on a considerably more vehicle-intense land use (see Traffic and Circulation Section) which was based on a mixed-use project with sensitive receptors on site. The 1998/99 SEIR also conducted carbon monoxide modeling. The analysis contained in both documents found that there would be no significant impacts associated with carbon monoxide. Table 3.2-3 on p 3.2-7 of the 2005 SEIR compares the curbside carbon monoxide concentrations associated with the more intense 2005 Project to the most stringent one- and eight-hour state and federal standards. The one-hour concentrations range from 5.2 to 8.1 parts per million (ppm) and are well below the state standard of 20 ppm and federal standard of 35 ppm and the eight-hour concentrations range from 3.7 to 5.8 ppm, well below the state and federal standard of 9 ppm. The level of traffic would need to increase by approximately 5,000 vehicles to increase the concentration by 0.1 ppm. Assuming the most conservative traffic scenario, the 2008 Project would increase traffic from the 2006 Project by 58 trips, which is not a substantial increase. 111ere would be no significant impacts associated with carbon monoxide with the 2008 Project. Net Change from 2006 to 2008 Project with Product Design Studio as Research 0.4 4.4 0.6 0.7 and Development BAAQMD Threshold of Significance 80 550 80 80 Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No Source: r"liller Environmental Consultants, 2008 TABLE 2 ESTIMATED OPERATION- RELATED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS Initial Study - 16 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 17 Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: None. Finding: The 2008 Project slighdy increases the amount of criteria air pollutant from those identified in the 2006 Addendum but not by a substantial amount. This impact would be less than significant. Ozone and PMlO would remain a Significant and Unavoidable Impact as identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, the 2005 SEIR, and the 2006 Addendum. The 2008 Project would not substantially increase the severity of this impact, nonetheless, the 2008 Project will restate and re-adopt the Findings of Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable impacts. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Greenhouse Gases Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Greenhouse Gases. Would the project: a) Conflict with the state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006? D D [gJ D Background Air quality impacts were analyzed for Phase III as discussed above, however, greenhouse gas emission impacts were not analyzed because only recendy have projects begun including analysis of greenhouse gas emissions in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. The remainder of this section focuses on greenhouse gas emissions for the 2006 Project, the 2008 Project with the Product Design Studio as 100 percent ancillary, the 2008 Project with the Product Design Studio as research and development, and the net change between the 2006 Project and the 2008 Project. 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 gases" (GHGs) from human activity. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climatl~ Change, Working Group I: The Physical Basis of Climate Change, http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1 /wgl-report.html). Greenhouse gases are most frequendy 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), -27- -28- 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 · Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased temperatures; and · Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. · A diminishing Sierra snow pack 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; According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team Report, (California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March 2006) the following climate change effects, which are based on the IPCC trends, can be expected in California over the course of the next century: tOO-Year Time Horizon Global Warming.Potential 100 vear .timehorizon 1 21 310 11,700 1,300 140 6,500 Carbon Dioxide Methane (CH4 Nitrous Oxide HFC-23 HFC-134a HFC-152a PFC: Tetrafluoromethane CF4' PFC: Hexafluoromethane C2F6 Sclfur Hexafluoride (SF6) I 3,200 l 23,900 Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 2007 9,200 10,000 50-200 12 :t 3 120 264 14.6 1.5 50,000 TABLE 3 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS Greenhouse gases have varying global warming potential (G\XlP). The G\XlP 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 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide (C02) 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 CO2 equivalents (C02e). The carbon dioxide equivalent is a good way to assess emissions because it gives weight to the G\XlP of the gas. A summary of the atmospheric lifetime and G\XlP of selected gases is summarized in the following table. As shown in Table 3, G\XlP ranges from 1 to 23,900. hydro fluorocarbons (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. Initial Study - 18 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 19 problems include heat rash and heat 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. Senate Bill 97, enacted in 2007, amends the CEQA statute to clearly establish that greenhouse gas emissions and the effect of greenhouse gas emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. The follo'wing analysis evaluates the proposed project's GHG impacts. State Standards Currently the Federal Government dloes 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-3-05, 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 (CARB) 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, CARB 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 possible (California Air Resources Board, September 2007a. Draft Ust ofEarfy Action Measures to Redut'e Greenhouse). In addition to approving the 37 greenhouse gas reduction strategies, CARB directed staff to further evaluate early action recommendations made at the June 2007 meeting, and to report back to CARB within six months. Since the June 2007 CARB hearing, CARB staff has evaluated all 48 recommendations submitted by several stakeholder andl 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 (California Air Resources Board, September 2007a). Draft List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration in October 2007b). Based on its additional analysis, CARB 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) Landtill 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) -29- -30- In addition to identifying early actions to reduce greenhouse gases, CARB has also developed mandatory greenhouse gas reporting regulations pursuant to requirements of AB 32. The regulations will require emissions reporting for classes of facilities that collectively account for 94 percent of the stationary source emissions in California, including cement plants, oil ref1neries, electric generating facilities/providers, co-generation facilities, hydrogen plants and other stationary combustion sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons per year of C02e emissions. (California Air Resources Board, December 6, 2007c, Proposed Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov / cc/ ccei/ reporting/GHGReportBoardSlides 12_06_07.pdf (proposed regulations were approved by CARB on December 6, 2007).) Presumably, while individual facilities within these classes may not create signif1cant greenhouse gas impacts, emissions from these types of facilities are likely to be cumulatively considerable. Likewise, facilities or projects not included among the classes required to report under CARB's mandatory reporting regulations are not expected to have cumulatively considerable greenhouse gas impacts. In total, the 44 recommended early actions have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 42 million metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (C02e) emissions by 2020, representing about 25 percent of the estimated reductions needed by 2020 (California Air Resources Board Res. No.07-55 (Dec. 6, 2007), available at http://www.arb.ca.~~ov/cc/inventoty"/1990levellarb res07- 55 1990 ghg- level.pdt). The 44 measures are in the sectors of fuels, transportation, forestry, agriculture, education, energy eff1ciency, commercial, solid waste, cement, oil and gas, electricity, and f1re suppression. The 2020 target reductions are currently estimated to be 174 million metric tons per year of C02e emissions. (California Air Resources Board, October 2007, Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration.) CARE has approved a 1990 emissions inventory and 2020 limit of 427 million metric tons per year of C02e emissions (California Air Resources Board Res. No.07-55 (Dec. 6, 2007), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov I ccl inventoty" 11990levell arb res07 -55 1990 ghg- level. pdt). Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) reductions from non-electricity sector. The entire list of early action strategies is shown in Table 4. Initial Study - 20 Terrabay Phase III Project Tertabay Phase III Project Initial Study.. 21 TABLE 4 RECOMMENDED AB32 GREENHOUSE GAS MEASURES TO BE INITIATED BY CARB BETWEEN 2007 AND 2012 1 Fuels Above Ground 23 Commercial SF6 reductions Storage Tanks from the non- electric sector 2 Transportation Diesel- Offroad 24 Transportation Tire inflation equipment (non- program a cultural 3 Forestry Forestry 25 Transportation Cool automobile protocol paints endorsement 4 Transportation Diesel - Port 26 Cement Cement (A): trucks Blended cements 5 Transportation Diesel - Vessel 27 Cement Cement (B): main engine fuel Energy- efficiency specifications of California cement facilities 6 Transportation Diesel - 28 T ransporta tion Ban on HFC Commercial releas(~ from harbor craft Motor Vehide AC service / dismantlin 7 T ransporta tion Green ports 29 Transportation Diesel - offroad equipment a cultural 8 Agriculture 30 Transportation Add AC leak tightness test and repair to Smog Check 9 Education Local gov. 31 Agriculture Research on Greenhouse Gas GHG reductions (GHG) from nitrogen reduction land applications guidance / rotocols 10 Education Business GHG 32 Commercial Specifications for reduction commercial guidance / refrigeration rotocols 11 Energy Cool 33 Oil and Gas Reduction in Efficiency communities venting / leaks program from oil and gas s stems -31- -32- ID ID # Sector Strategy Name # Sector Strategy Name 12 Commercial Reduce high 34 Transportation Requirement of Global Warming low-GWP GHGs Potential (GWP) for new Motor GHGs in Vehicle ACs products 13 Commercial Reduction of 35 Transportation Hybridization of PFCs from medium and semiconductor heavy-duty diesel industry vehicles 14 Transportation SmartWay truck 36 Electricity Reduction of SF6 efficiency in electricity generation 15 Transportation Low Carbon 37 Commercial High GWP Fuel Standard refrigerant (LCFS) tracking, reporting and recovery program 16 Transportation Reduction of 38 Commercial Foam recovery / HFC-134a from destruction DIY Motor program Vehicle AC servicing 17 Waste Improved landfill 39 Fire Alternative gas capture Suppression suppressants in fu:e protection systems 18 Fuels Gasoline 40 Transportation Strengthen light- dispenser hose duty vehicle replacement standards 19 Fuels Portable 41 Transporta tion Truck stop outboard marine electrifica tion tanks with incentives for truckers 20 Transportation Standards for 42 Transporta tion Diesel - Vesse! off-cycle driving speed reductions conditions 21 Transportation Diesel - 43 Transportation Transportation Privately owned refrigeration - on-road trucks electric standby 22 Transportation Anti-idling 44 Agriculture Electrification of enforcement stationary agricultural engines - Source: CJlRB, 2007 Initial Study - 22 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 23 The Climate Action Team (CAT), which was created and is chaired by the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEP A), has also issued a report to the Governor and the Legislature in response to Executive Order S-3-05(Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Sc'hwarzenegger and the Legislature (March 2006), available at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov / climate_action_team/ reports/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF). The report proposes a number of strategies for public and private entities that are expected to contribute to compliance with the Governor's reduction goals. CAT has also issued specific early action measures intended to supplement the CARB measures (Climate Action Team, Climate Adion Team Proposed EarlY Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California (April 2007), available at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov / climate_action_team/ reports/2007 -04-20_ CA T _REPORT.PDF). The CAT measures, however, are still in draft form and have yet to be finalized, and are therefore not used in this report. Greenhouse Gas Significance Crit4~ria At this time there are no statewide guidelines for greenhouse gas em1SS10n 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. In the interim, OPR, in collaboration with the California Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, recently provided a new technical advisory containing informal guidance for public agencies as they address the issue of climate change in their CEQA documents. This technical advisory provides OPR's perspective on the issue and precedes the development of draft implementing regulations for CEQA,. in accordance with Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007). In summary, OPR recommends each public agency that is a lead agency for complying with CEQA to develop its own approach to performing a climate change analysis for projects that generate GHG emissions. A consistent approach should be applied for the analysis of all such projects, and the analysis must be based on best available information. For these projects, compliance with CEQA entails three basic steps: . identify and quantify the GHG emissions; . assess the significance of the impact on climate change; and . if the impact is found to be significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures that will reduce the impact bdow significance. Although, there is currently no adopted threshold for all City projects, for this analysis, a Project would be considered to have a significant impact if the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32 and other state regulations. Three types of analyses are used to determine whether the project could be in conflict with the State measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The analyses are as follows: A. Whether the project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of CARE's 44 early action strategies. B. Whether the project will be subject to CARB's mandatory reporting. Qualifying projects include cement plants, oil refineries, electric generating facilities/providers, co-generation facilities, hydrogen plants and other stationary combustion sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons per year of COze emissions. Projects that are not included among these classes of facilities and -33- -34- As shown in Table 5, project construction greenhouse gas emissions for the 2008 Project where the Product Design Studio is treated similar to a research and development land use would be approximately 496 metric tons per year of COze emissions and project operations would be approximately 13,194 metric tons per year of COze emissions (including emissions from vehicle trips, space heating and indirect emissions from the use of electricity). Operational emissions would therefore be significantly lower than the reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons per year of COze emissions. Accordingly, the project would not be subject to CARB's mandatory reporting requirements. In addition, the net increase in COze from the 2006 Project to the 2008 Project are 2 and 70 metric tons per year of COze emissions for construction- and operation-related emissions, respectively. Item B. Greenhouse Gas: The site is primarily undeveloped except for California Water Service Company pump station and associated piping and would involve grading and construction for the two office towers that would also contain a Product Design Studio, commercial space (restaurant and retail), a child care center, and a performing arts center. The Project is not the type of project that would be required to report emissions to CARB (i.e., the project is not a cement plant, oil ref11lery, electric generating facility/provider, co-generation facility, or hydrogen plant or other stationary combustion source that emits more than 25,000 metric tons per year of COze emissions). Iberefore, the specific emissions from this Project would not be expected to have a substantial impact on Global Climate Change. The Project is currently incorporating criteria from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System into the 2006 Project and would continue this practice to the 2008 Project. The LEED Rating System is a nationally recognized program that incorporates sustainable green bu~lding and development practices that lead to higher performing buildings and lower ozone depletion- and global warming-related emissions. The proposed criteria may include, but are not limited to, prohibiting the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)-based refrigerants and using low volatile organic compound (VOC) glues, sealants, and paints. The project design team would include a LEED Accredited Professional to assist with identifying and incorporating additional sustainable green building and development practices best suited for the project. Implementation of these types of practices would be consistent with the energy efficiency- and commercial-related early action strategies. "While the Project's emission impacts would be transportation-related, in the sense that they will be primarily produced by vehicle trips to and from the site, the Project is not a "transportation" project as described in the early action measures. Item A. Greenhouse Gas: The Project does not pose any apparent conflict with the most recent list of the CARB ea.rly action strategies (see Table 4). As mentioned above, 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. C. ~~ether elements of the project, mitigation measures, and City policies and requirements contribute to the efficiency of the project and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most projects include project components and/or mitigation measures that may not be intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but will nonetheless have this I~ffect. 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. '\Jvill not emit 25,000 metric tons per year of COze emissi.ons or more are not required to report emissions to CARB and are not considered to be cumulatively considerable. Initial Study - 24 Terrabay Phas<: III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 25 TABLE 5: PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Constmction..Related Operation-Related ..Emissions Project Description Emissions (Metric Tot1s of (MetricTonsofCOze) ... CO<ie) .. 2006 Terrabay Phase III 494 13,124 2008 Terrabay Phase III with 496 13,060 Product Design Studio as 100% Ancillary to Office Space 2008 Terrabay Phase III with 496 13,194 Product Design Studio as Research and Development Space Net increase from 2006 to 2008 2 70 with Product Design Studio as Research and Development Space (worst-case scenario) Source: :Miller Environmental Consultants, 2008 Item C. Greenhouse Gas: The mixed-use design of the Project (office, product design studio, commercial retail/restaurant, child-care, and perfoffiJing arts) has the potential to minimize greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation for both the employees and the patrons of the mixed uses. First, multiple amenities and services an employee or patron might use are now located in one area, which will reduce vehicle-miles- traveled. Second, the Project proposes a Transportation Demand Management Program designed to affect a 34 percent mode shift for employees, which will reduce vehicle-miles-traveled. As discussed in Item A above, the design of the Project also has the potential to minimize greenhouse gas emissions related to construction and operation of the building. The review of Items A, B, and C indicate that the Project would not conflict with the State goals in AB 32 and therefore this impact would be les~1 than significant Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: None. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: None. Finding: The 2008 Project slightly increases the amount of greenhouse gases from those calculated for the 2006 Project but not by a substantial amount. This impact would be less than significant. No new or additional mitigation measures would be :required for the 2008 Project. -35- -36- The 1998/99 SEIR contains an evaluation of biological resources on the Project site. The 2000 Addendum, 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum updates the information. Section 4.3 Biology of the Terrabcry 1998/99 Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR and Master Response 7.3-8 of the Terrabcry 1998/99 Phase II and III Final Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. The evaluation presented below is based on a Review ojBiological Issues Initial Stucfy for North Peninsula PLaza Proje'" South San Framisl'o, California (Environmental Collaborative 2005) for scoping of the 2005 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum found that the biological impacts were similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR and 2000 Addendum. This analysis remains the same for the 2008 Project as the 2008 Project would not increase the development envelope and as such would not increase impacts on biological resources as discussed below. ~ o o ~ o o ~ o o ~ o o ~ o o ~ o o No Impact Less Than Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Background o f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? o e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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 ~~? 0 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? 01 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? [] 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? [] 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Initial Study - 26 Terrabay Phasle III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study.. 27 The 2008 Project would grade land that was previously graded as a part of the approved 2006 Project. The 2008 Project consists of the addition of floor area above the retail concourse analyzed and approved in the 2006 Project entitlements. Re-grading and removal of a retaining wall and extension of an existing retaining wall in an areas graded in 2007 would be required. The floor elevation of the Product Design Studio would be approximately 66 feet above mean sea level (which is about 16 feet higher than the Retail and Ground Floor Lobby Level of the North Tower). As a result, there would be approximately 4,000 cubic yards of cut at the existing berm (previously graded) and about 500 cubic yards of fill at the current generator area (BKF June 30, 2008) (See ASK-COOl). Site Retaining Wall No.1 (a soil nail wall) comprising about 7,000 SF of vertical area would be lengthened in an area approved for development and previously graded. The analysis contained in the 2006 Addendum remains in force for the 2008 Project and the following discussion has been amended to incorporate the 2008 Project. There are no new mitigations or impacts, or any intensification of existing impacts Analysis a) The 2008 Project is the addition of a second floor in the central area of the approved Project site, and would not impact special status species due to its location. As noted in the 2006 Addendum, the 2006 Project would not result in new impacts to special status species beyond those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The area where special species habitat is located (larval host plant for the federally- endangered callippe silverspot buttert1y) located on the Preservation Parcel. The Preservation Parcel was removed from any potential development impacts by its legal designation to open space during the 2000 Project entitlements. The Preservation Parcel was conveyed as open space to the County of San Mateo in 2004. Biological mapping of the Project site was conducted as part of the 1998/99 SEIR and subsequent mapping of the Project site has been conducted by West Coast Wildlands. No other special- status species have been found in the vicinity of the Project site. The 2008 Project would not impact special status species. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR is implemented as a result of construction of the 2006 Project. The mitigation measure requires dust control, salvage and transplant of Monardella, posting signs along trails and vista points warning park users against illegal activities and required compliance with the landowner obligations identified by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan with respect to the Project site. The redesign of Phase II and III as called for under Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 of the 1998/99 SEIR has been accomplished by the 2000 General, Precise and Specific Plan amendments, the 2006 Project design and the conveyance of habitat to th(: County as open space (the Preservation Parcel). As a result of the conveyance of the Preservation Parcel containing Johnny jumpup (Viola pedunculata) to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park no Viola pedunculatahas has or will be disturbed. Installation of signage along trails and use of appropriate dust control measures is required as a standard condition of approval and is currendy being implemented and monitored by the City. The provision in Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 for salvage of larval host plants for callippe silverspot no longer applies as all Johnny jump-up (Viola pedunculata) plants have been avoided. The Restoration Plan (required by Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR) includes a component to salvage and transplant other nectar plants (especially natives such as Monardella) that may be used for nectaring by adult callippe silverspot. Restoration and salvage activities were conducted by West Coast Wildlands and others in 2007 prior to grading on the Project site for the 2006 Project. The salvage effort was supervised by the City. The 2008 Project would not impact these efforts; nor would more salvage be required. Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 (b) and 4.3-1 (c) from the 1998/99 SEIR -37- 101 Second Street, Suite 555 San Francisco, CA9410S 415-777.3330 APPUCANT: Myers Peninsula Company LLC clo Myers Development CO~8ny Centennial Towers South San Francisco, California PREPARED BY: II Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP BMfrMcf8oo,ClIIIbnIIM111 P.415.981.1. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN Job NO: fill ,..,. 1999028G-20 BKF ""'" Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study- 29 also required the Restoration Plan to include a salvage component for other native plant material and use of existing fire trails for any new ped(~strian trails linking the site with the open space lands of San Bruno Mountain. This effort was also completed in 2007 by West Coast Wildlands and others, as supervised by the City. The 2008 Project would not impact these efforts. A dust mitigation measure for Air Quality is identified in the 1998/99 and 2005 SEIR's and is required of the 2006 Project. The dust control mitigations would continue to apply for the 2008 Project. b) The 2008 Project would have no impact on the site design, avoidance and preservation measures and would continue to provide compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(a) from the 1998/99 SEIR. This mitigation required the avoidance of freshwater marsh and riparian habitat to the greatest extent possible. The 2006 Project was substantially revised (from that analyzed in 1998/99) to avoid freshwater marsh, seeps and riparian habitat in the northern portion of the Phase III site (now known as the Preservation Parcel). The 2006 Project take of 0.10 acres of an unvegetated intermittent stream is being mitigated as discussed below under c. The 2008 Project would not alter these conditions. c) The 2006 Project avoided the jurisdictional wetland habitat in the northern portion of tlle Phase III site evaluated in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2006 Project conforms with the provisions of Mitigation Measures 4.3-3(a), 4.3-3(b) and 4.3-3(c) with respect to wetlands. A Wetland Mitigation Plan (WMP) was prepared by Wetland Research Associates (WRA) in 2000 (WRA 2000) to address the impacts of the City's Oyster Point Hook Ramp Project and development of the Terrabay Project site. The \(1Mp serves to address the filling of 0.68 acres of wetlands to accommodate the widening of Airport Boulevard at the Hook Ramps (a City Project) and anticipated filling of 0.10 acres of unvegetated other waters to accommodate development of the Terrabay Project site, as noted in b, above. As defined in the WMP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters are to be mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wetlands and portions of two drainage channels in the northern portion of the original Phase III site and removal of invasive exotics. The WMP is being implemented and monitored and by the Engineering Division of the City of South San Francisco and WRA. The 2008 Project would not impact any of these efforts. Therefore, the 2008 Project conforms with the provisions of Mitigation Measures 4.3-3(a), 4.3-3(b) and 4.3-3(c) with respect to wetlands. The required agency authorization was secured and re-authorized from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Game to extend the wetland mitigations.3 The permit authorization from the Corps, CDFG and R WQCB remains in effect. The permit authorizations are attached to the 2006 Addendum. The wetland mitigations are continuing and are being monitored by WRA, as noted above. The 2008 Project would not impact any of these efforts or conditions. Implementation of a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan was accomplished as part of the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the 2006 Project and addresses the area of the 2008 Project. 3 This included re-securing authorization from CDFG, the Corps and RWQCB, if necessary. Reauthorization was received from the Corps July 31, 2005 and CDFG on September 22,2005. This also included confirmation of the adequacy of the WMP in addressing the temporary loss of an estimated 500 square feet of potential wedands affected by the 2006 Project driveway access improvements at Airport Boulevard. The Corps stated that this area does not constitute wedands in a letter dated February 1, 2006 and that the existing plan is adequate. -39- -40- Finding: The 2008 Project would not result in additional impacts over what was identified in the 1998/99 SEIR on biological resources. Moreover, as a result of clustering the Project, the 2006 Project impacts are considerably less than those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, as documented in the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum. The majority of the wetlands on the Phase III site have been preserved, the viola has been preserved and wetlands have been enhanced. The requisite United States Army Corp of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game permits has been secured and the wetlands restoration is underway and being monitored by the City. These activities have been completed or implemented as apart of the 2006 Project. No new or additional rnitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR which identifies avoiding wetlands take to the maximum extent feasible which has been accomplished with the creation and conveyance of the Preservation Parcel to the County containing wetlands and enhanced wetlands pursuant to an approved USACE Section 404 permit. The permit mitigates the loss of 0.10 acres of intermittent stream the only take of wetlands associated with the 2006 Project. The 2008 Project would not alter these conditions. This mitigation measure is_completed. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR avoidance of habitat was accomplished by the creation and conveyance of the Preservation Parcel. This portion of Mitigation }'Jeasure 4.3-2 is complete. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR applied to the 2006 Project which address landscape compatibility, a restoration plan and salvage plan. This mitigation measure is completed. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR - The dust control and trail sign age portion of this mitigation measure is applicable to both the 2006 and 2008 Project. This mitigation measure is on-going for the 2006 Project and would continue to be required for the 2008 Project. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: f) The 2006 Project and the 2008 Project conform to the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. The restoration and enhancement efforts on the Preservation Parcel improved habitat values on this portion of the original Project site. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 ensures that the Project sponsor fulfill the landowner/developer obligations identified in the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conseroation Plan. Ms. Autumn Meisel of Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the proposed Phase III 2006 Project limits and found them in compliance with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing auly 12, 2006). The 2008 Project is clearly within those limits. e) The 2006 and the 2008 Project conforms to local plans and policies. d) There were no significant impacts on wildlife habitat associated with the 2006 Project which is consistent with the conclusions from the 1998/99 SEIR. Additionally, the 2006 Project included a Migratory Bird Survey conducted in]anuary 2007, as required by the City. The survey was conducted by Wetlands Research Associates. No Migratory Birds were found on the Project site. The survey was conducted prior to issuance of grading permits for the 2006 Project. The 2008 Project would not impact wildlife habitat or Migratory Birds as grading and vegetation removal was completed in 2007. Initial Study - 30 T errabay Phas(: III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study,. 31 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~15064.5? 0 0 0 ~ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~15064.5? 0 0 0 ~ c) Direcdy or indirecdy destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ge:alogic feature? 0 0 0 ~ d) Disturb any human remains" including those 0 0 0 ~ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Background Section 4.9 Archaeology of the Tl'rrabqy 1998/99Phase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR and Master Responses 7.3-3, 7.3-4, 7.3-5, 7.3-6 and 7.3-7 of the Terrabqy 1998/99 Phase II and III Final Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. The evaluation presented below is based on a review of the 2005 Project site plan by :Miley Holman, Archaeologist (Holman & Associates 2005) for the clustered Project leaving the Preservation Parcel in open space. The Preservation Parcel contains an archaeological site. The 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum restated that cultural impacts would be less- than-significant with mitigation. The mitigation included avoidance of the archaeological site and monitoring grading of the Buffer Parcel. Avoidance of the archaeological site was achieved by preserving it free from development in the Preservation Parcel. Potential unforeseen impacts associated with 2006 Project grading did not occur; :Miley Holman, archaeologist supervised project grading and no cultural artifacts or remains were found outside the mapped area. This is documented as part of the mitigation monitoring conducted by the City. Mr. Holman was on the Project site overseeing grading activities in 2007. The 2008 Project would be construction of a Product Design Studio above ground floor retail; an area of grading that was reviewed and supervised by :Miley Holman, archaeologist in 2007. The discussion below amends the 2006 discussion to include the 2008 Project. There are no 2008 Project impacts to cultural resources. Analysis a) There are no historic resources (as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guideline~) located on the 2006 Project Site. The 2008 Project does not alter this finding. b) One prehistoric archaeological site identified as CA-SMa-40. CA-SMa-40 is adjacent to the 2006 Project site. CA-SMa-40 is within the Preservation Parcel. The Preservation Parcel was conveyed to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park in August 2004. Extensive study of this site has occurred since 1950. Beginning in 1988, comprehensive surface and subsurface archaeological investigations of CA-SMa-40 were conducted by Holman & Associates. The purpose of the subsurface archaeological testing was to assess the boundaries, condition, depositional integrity and research significance of the site. Holman & Associates determined CA-SMa-40 is approximately 2.2 acres in size. Extracted charcoal samples were tested and 18 radiocarbon dates -41- -42- Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR as there are no archaeological resources and as such no indirect impacts between CA-SMA 40 and 92 on the 2006 or the 2008 Project site. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR as there are no archaeological resources on the 2006 or 2008 Project site. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: Mitigation Measures 4.9-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR is implemented by the preservation of CA-SMA-40 on the Preservation Parcel and its conveyance to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County and State Park as open space in perpetuity. There is no impact to CA-SMA-92 off the 2006 Project site and on County land as there is no development on the Preservation Parcel and no trails connecting the two historic resources. The mitigation measure has been completed by creation and conveyance of the Preservation Parcel in 2Q04. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: d) As discussed in Item 5b above, CA-SMa-40 contains Nativ,e American burials. The 2006 Project specific plan and site plan avoided CA-SMa-40. This implemented Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b) identified in the Terrabqy Phase II and III Draft Supplemental DEIR Miley Holman was on site during excavation to monitor activities. As a result of the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (b) into the Project site plan, potential impacts to Native American burials was reduced to a less than significant impact (Holman 2005). The 2008 Project would not result in an impact. c) There are no unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features located on the 2006 Project Site. The 2008 Project does not alter these conditions. The 2006 Project completely avoided CA-SMa-40. The 2008 Project site would not alter this condition. The Preservation Parcel was conveyed to San Mateo County for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain County Park. In addition, a Buffer Parcel containing about 2.7 acres is located south of the Preservation Parcel, and was required as further assurance to avoid disturbance to CA- SMa-40. Development on the Buffer Parcel is limited to roads, surface parking and an informational kiosk. Miley Holman supervised the grading of the Buffer Parcel in 2007, as required by the 2006 Addendum and the 1998/99 SEIR. No archaeological remains were found beyond the mapped area of CA-SMa-40. There were no impacts to archaeological resources as a result of the 2006 Project. The 2008 Project would not alter these conditions. rangmg from 5,155 to 460 years before the present were obtained, suggesting the site is one of the olde:st documented bayside shellmounds in the Bay Area. The most abundant material present at the site was the remains of marine shellfish. Additional materials included those associated with cultural activities that typically would take place in a permanent settlement such as hearths, faunal remains other than shell, artifactual materials imported into the region and chronologically diagnostic artifacts and materials. The shellmound also contains human remains. While the number of human burials is unknown, the results of test excavations suggest that numerous prehistoric Native American burials are present and may be encountered in any portion of the deposit. Holman & Associates determined CA-SMa-40 is probably eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Initial Study - 32 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 33 Finding: The 2008 Project would be located above ground floor retail in an area graded in 2007, and in the center of the Development Parcel. The 2006 Project did not result in any impacts to archaeological, cultural or historical resources. Miley Holman, archaeologist was on the Project site during grading of the Buffer Parcel, as required by the 1998/99 SEIR and the:M:MR.P. No archaeological or historic remnants were found. No burials or artifacts were discovered. Grading and development 1n archaeological sensitive areas was completely avoided. No additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Potentially Significant Impact 6. 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-P:riolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a know fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. D D ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefuction? D iv) Landslides? D b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? D c) Be located on a geologic unit of soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? D d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? D e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? D Background Potentially Significant Unless Mltigarion Incorporated D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact r2J r2J r2J r2J r2J r2J r2J D No Impact D D D D D D D r2J The geotechnical environment has not changed since the 2006 Project and Addendum. The 2008 Project consists of the addition of floor area above the retail concourse analyzed and approved in the 2006 Project. Re-grading and removal of a retaining wall and extension of an existing retaining wall in an area -43- -44- The topography of the Project has been modified as a result of grading and construction of the approved 2006 Project. The bedrock type is predominantly Franciscan sandstone overlain by man-made fill, debris slides, colluvial and alluvial deposits. The Project site is subject to landslides, debris slides, rockslides and rock falls. Additional field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis have been conducted to provide geotechnical recommendations appropriate for the 2006 Project. Ibis work is required by the City and is peer reviewed by the Engineering Division and Cotton Shires, Associates, consulting geologists. The 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum found that geology and soils impacts to be similar to or less than the project impacts analyzed by the 1998/99 SEIR. The 1998/99 SEIl:{., based upon 20 years of field analysis and implementing and monitoring mitigation measures in Terrabay Phase I, identified a list of mitigations for each geological condition facing the site; therefore, minor refinements to the mitigations are all that was required for the 2006 Project. The same conditions and mitigation measures would apply to the 2008 Proj(:ct. Section 4..1 Geology, Soils and Seismicity of the Terrabqy 1998/99 Phase II and III Drcift Supplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference. Subsequent to the 1998/99 SEIR, a geotechnical investigation program was conducted by URS Corporation for the Terrabay Phase III development (URS 200la). The geotechnical investigation program included the following elements: geologic mapping of lithologic units, geomorphology, and structures (bedding and joint orientations); three joint surveys; 36 test borings; 20 test pits; 7 seismic refraction lines; 11 downhole velocity surveys; 9 piezometers; and 7 inclinometers. The investigation also included 1 0 geologic/geotechnical cross sections through representative portions of the previously proposed project as well as the results of a laboratory testing program to characterize the engineering properties of soil and rock units. The field investigation and laboratory testing program served as the basis for engineering analyses, the results of which were submitted in a second geotechnical report (URS 2001b). Previous Studies The geotechnical ffilt1gation measures identified in the 2006 :MMRP are being implemented 1n construction of the 2006 Project and would continue to be implemented for the 2008 Project. The implementation is supervised by Cotton Shires, Associates, the City's consulting geologists. graded in 2007 would be required (See ASK-COOl, 009 Current Site Plan Building Level 2 and 010 Site Plan with Product Design Studio). The floor elevation of the Product Design Studio would be approximately 66 feet above mean sea level. There would be approximately 4,000 cubic yards of cut at the existing berm and about 500 cubic yards of fill at the current generator area. Site Retaining Wall No. 1 (a soil nail wall) comprising about 7000 square feet of vertical area would be extended. Initial Study - 34 Terrabay Phasc~ III Project i - . I ~ ", ,,, '" ~ "-. M '" ~f;lJ ,~ ,~ "" 21.0 '" ,~ '" ,~ ," ,," ___~d ~"\ \ .~ "" ( g .,. . i. J~:. . . if" " /~ . .. OiMc--tJHK' ~..,.. 00..1"<' ... . . /. :~ j ~/ /. ~ ..::;:. . / I ~ U1 I ~ BUILDING LEVEL 2 File Name 009 CURRENT SITE PLAN, Job No. 204000 Drawn By Ref CENTENNIAL TOWERS South San Francisco, California Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP San Francisco, California 94111 L L CENTENNIAL TOWERS South San Francisco, California Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP San Francisco, California 94111 WITH PRODUCT DESIGN STUDIO Job No. File Name 204000 A 1.0.2 DAF Date 2008.06.30 Sheet No. NTS A1.0.2 01 0 Ref. Sheet ~ I H::>o 0\ I I SITE PLAN. BUILDING LEVEL 2 I Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study.. 37 Analysis a) No known active faults are located within the entirety of the Terrabay site. Four active faults in the region include the: San Andreas fault, located approximately three miles southwest; San Gregorio, fault about ten miles southwest; Hayward fault about 15 miles northeast; and the Calaveras fault about 27 miles northeast. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the probability of an earthquake of at least magnitude 6.7 along the San Francisco Peninsula segments of the San Andreas fault zone is estimated to be 15 percent over the 30-year period from 2000 to 2030 (U.S. Geological Survey 1999). Two inactive faults located close to the Phase III Project site include the San Bruno fault zone located about 1.5 miles southwest of the site and the Hillside fault which trends in a west-northwesterly direction approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection between Airport Boulevard and Sister Cities Drive. A rock slope stability analysis was conducted for the 2006 Project site, consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 (a) in the 1998/99 SEIR to identify slope stability conditions at the 2006 Project site. Based on the rock slope stability analysis, the following measures were incorporated into the 2006 Project: Grade flatter slopes with benches, drainage ditches and access for maintenance; Install rock anchors; Install subdrains; Revegetate slopes; Install slope monitoring instrumentation; Locate fences below rock outcrops and above cut slopes; and Scale off loose rocks. These measures are listed in Mitigation Measure 4.1-(a) and reduce potential rockslide and rockfall impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures have been or are in the process of being installed as a part of the overall site work associated with the approved grading plan. Cotton Shires Associates is monitoring the installation work. The 2008 Project would not change these conditions. The 2006 Project was required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(b) to include a Slope Maintenance Plan in the CC&R's. The CC&Rs require that the Project's Property Owners Association retain the services of a licensed geotechnical engineer or geologist to maintain and inspect of the geotechnical mitigations. The City has reviewed and approved the Slope Maintenance Plan and has reviewed and made final comments of the CC&R's. This requirement would not be affected or altered by the 2008 Project. The 2006 Project implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-4(a) and 4.1-4(b) in the 1998/99 SEIR reduces rockslide and rockfall impacts that could occur as a result of seismic activity to a less than significant level. Implementation of 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-6, which requires a slope stability analysis on representative slopes to assess Project seismic loading and groundwater conditions. This analysis was completed for the 2006 Project as envisioned in the 1998/99 SEIR. The following measures were incorporated into the 2006 Project design including: Place keyways for fills through soft soils; Grade flatter slopes with benches, Install rock anchors; Install subdrains; Install retaining walls to minimize fill over sensitive areas; Design buildings in conformance with UBC Zone 4 and City standards; and, Remove rockfalls or encapsulate or fence them. These measures are listed in Mitigation Measure 4.1- 6 and reduce potential impacts from seismically induced landsliding and rocksliding impacts to a less than significant level. Again, these measures have been or are in the process of being installed as a part of the overall site work associated with the approved grading plan. Cotton Shires Associates is monitoring the installation work. The 2008 Project would not change these conditions. The surficial soil deposits at the 2006 Project site, as well as the 2008 Project, consist of very dense colluvium and alluvial fan deposits, which contain significant amounts of fines. These deposits are generally not susceptible to liquefaction. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered very low (URS 2001b). The 2008 Project would not affect these conditions. Landslides and debris slides are present within and above the 2006 Project site. Mitigation Measure 4.1- 3(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR has been implemented. The mitigation measures include construction of a debris basin, installation of deflection structures, perimeter drainage, retaining walls and monitoring equipment. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b) required a Slope Maintenance Plan (see discussion -47- -48- e) The Project is connected to the city sewer system. d) 2006 Project development would be and is primarily constructed on rock except for small areas where foundations would be constructed over alluvial fan deposits. Alluvial fan deposits are very dense. Estimated settlement would be low. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-5(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR requires design techniques to mitigate differential settlement which reduces potential damage to structures, roadways and utilities to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.1-5(a) lists a number of measures that can be and have been incorporated into the .2006 Project design including: Over- excavating cuts to provided benches in the fill; Surcharge fill with excess material to accelerate settlement; Postpone development of areas most sensitive to settlement for a construction season; Monitor rate of settlement and delay development until the rate of movement is within acceptable limits of the engineered structures; and Place structures on deep pier foundations. The 2006 Project avoided the archaeological site which is contained in the Preservation Parcel. Therefore, two of the approaches identified by this mitigation are no longer applicable: "Fill over the archaeological site shall be placed on a scarified or benched surface" and "Construction activity on the archaeological site shall be limited to small construction equipment". The geotechnical mitigations are a part of the approved grading plan and are continually being refmed as site work progresses. The work is being monitored by Cotton Shire Associates. The 2008 Project would not affect or alter these conditions. c) The Project site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction tllerefore the risk of lateral spreading is considered very low (URS 2001). The site contains landslides which could adversely affect Project development, see Item 6a above. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR requires measures to mitigate active slide areas and cuts into active slides. These measures include, and are a part of the approved grading plan, removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b), requiring the CC&Rs for the Property Owners Association to establish and fund a Slope Maintenance Plan to provide for the monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures has been impl,emented as noted in a, above. Potential Project landslide impacts were reduced to a less than significant level as a result of implementation of these mitigation measures. The 2008 Project would not change these conditions. b) The 2006 Project resulted in a reduced area of cut slopes from the previous Phase III development plan, slope stability problems and the potential for erosion remain high. Mitigation Measures 4.1-2(a) 4.1- 2(b) and 4.1-2(c) in the 1998/99 SEIR required the 2006 Project grading plan to maximize slope stability, install appropriately designed retaining walls, install perimeter typ1e A - ditches, regulate the steepness of grade slopes (bedrock graded no greater than 1.5:1 and in soil 2:1), install subsurface drains, install slope and groundwater monitoring instruments and winterize exposed slopes and graded pads. This mitigation measures are being implemented as part of the approved grading plan, and have reduced erosion impacts to a less than significant level. The 2008 Project would not change these conditions. Rockfall and rockslide fences are currently being installed pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(a) and 4.1-4(b) (see above) reduce rockslide and rockfall impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures would not be changed as a result to the 2008 Project. No additional mitigation measures are required as a result of the 2008 Project. above) that provides for ongoing monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-3(a) and (b) has reduced potential impacts from movements of debris flow slides to a less than significant level. The 2008 Proj ect would not affect these conditions. Initial Study - 38 Terrabay Phas(: III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study.. 39 Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 4.1.1 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2008 Project which stipulates that all grading shall be in conformance with the Agreement with Resped to San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. This mitigation also requires state and federal agency permitting prior to grading. The 2006 Project is in compliance with this requirement. TIlls mitigation measure is currently being- implemented and would continue to be implemented for the 2008 Project. Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR shall apply to the 2008 project which stipulates maximum slope grades, benches and drainage and slope engineering design to insure slope stability and minimize erosion. TIlls mitigation measure is currently being- implemented and would continue to be implemented for the 2008 Project. Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR apples to the 2006 and 2008 Project requiring measures to mitigate active slide areas and to mitigate cuts into active slides include removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls. Additionally, implementation of this mitigation measure requires that the CC&Rs for the Property Owners Association establish and fund a Slope Maintenance Plan which shall provide for the monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures. TIlls mitigation measure is currently being implemented and would continue to be implemented for the 2008 Project although the Slope Maintenance Plan is an approved document. Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR applies to the 2006 and 2008 Project which requires rockslide and rockfall mitigations including such measures as flatter slopes with benches, rock anchors, subdrains, revegetation, slope monitoring instrumentation, sealing off loose rocks, netting and encapsulating rocks, fencing rocks, annual inspection of outcrops prior to the rainy season, slope maintenance plans and implementation of the plans through the CC&R's for the property. This mitigation measure is currently being implemented and would continue to be implemented for the 2008 Project. Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR applies to the Project which addresses the secondary effects of seismic shaking. This mitig-ation measure is currently being implemented and would continue to be implemented for the Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.1-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR Artificial fill over CA-S:MA-40. No fill would be placed over CA-S:MA-40. Mitigation Measure 4.1-7 from the 1998/99 SEIR Hook Ramp Mitigations. The City sponsored hook ramp project is complete and the mitigation was incorporated. Finding: The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to geology and soils from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and as restated in the 2005 SEIR. The 2006 Project resulted in less site disturbance than analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2008 Project would not affect these conditions. The geotechnical mitigations required in the MJvfRP are being implemented and -49- -50- Paten tially Significant Potemially Unless Less Than Significant Mitiga tion Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the proiect involve: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or 0 0 disposal of hazardous materials? 1:1 0 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? 0 0 0 0 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 0 0 0 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? 0 0 0 0 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? 0 0 0 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 0 0 f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 0 0 0 g) 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? 0 0 0 0 Analysis a) The 2006 Project site was found not to contain toxic or hazardous materials (pHASE ONE, rnc 2003). The Project would not transport, use or dispose of any hazardous materials notwithstanding monitored by Cotton Shires Associates and the same 1ll1t1gations would be applicable to the 2008 Project. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Initial Study - 40 Terrabay Phas,e III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 41 typical construction activities where equipment is used requiring various types of fuel. The 2008 Project would not alter these conditions. b) The Project is office and commercial uses which are land uses not associated with the use or release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) The nearest school, Martin School, is located about 0.75 miles from the Project site. See Items 7a and 7b above. d) The Project site is not included on the Department of Toxic Substance Control's site dean up list (DTSC 2004) as per Government Code Section 65962.5. e) San Francisco International Airport is located approximately two miles from the site. The General Plan designates airport-related height limits consistent with the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. The Project site has a height limit of 360 feet and exceptions to the height limit may be granted by the Federal Aviation Administration. (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999). f)The Project is not within the immediate vicinity of any private airports and would not present a safety hazard for people working at the 2006 Project. g) Development of the Project would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plans. The South San Francisco Fire Department reviewed the plans and requested the emergency vehicle access and turn around on the buffer parcel which was incorporated into the 2006 Project. The Fire Marshal reviewed the2008 Project Ouly 1, 2008) and did not identify any impacts associated with the 2008 Project. The 2006 project incorporates this request. The 2008 Project would not alter these conditions. h) The General Plan identifies the Project site as a ''Low Priority Fire Hazard Management Unit" (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999). The 2008 Project does not alter these conditions. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: N one required. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR Aerially deposited lead applied to the hook ramp project and the requisite field work and analysis was conducted as apart of the City's Oyster Point Flyover transportation improvements. Mitigation Measure 4.8-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR from the effect of EMF on future residents applied to the Commons neighborhood proposed in the 1998/99 Project. The Commons parcel is now designated open space/recreation and is not a part of the 2008 Project. Finding: The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to hazards from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, 2000 Addendum, 2005 SEIR or its 2006 Addendum. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. -51- -52- Terrabay Phasle III Project Initial Study - 42 Potentially Significant Paten tially Unless Less Than Significant Mitiga tion Significant No Impact Incotporated Impact Impact 1. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 0 0 [gI 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 (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 0 granted?) [] 0 [gI c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 0 0 [gI 0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site 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? 0 0 0 [gI e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 0 [gI 0 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 [gI 0 g) Place housing within a lOa-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 0 0 0 [gI h) Place within a laO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 0 [gI i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 0 0 0 [gI j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? 0 0 [gI 0 Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 43 Background Section 4.2 Hydrology and Drainage of the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum is hereby incorporated by reference. Analysis a) The 2006 Project did not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requiJrements. A SWPP and compliance with the NPDES C-3 provisions was implemented and is being monitored by the City. The 2008 Project would be a part of the approved SWPP. b) The 2006 Project development resulted in a reduction of development area by approximately 75 percent over that analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The pervious area increased groundwater recharge at the 2006 Project site from that analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. This condition is discussed in the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum. The addition of a Product Design Studio above the North Tower retail extending back to a retaining wall resulting in the removal of pavers and approximately 8,000 of landscaping is not a significant increase in non-pervious area. The 2008 Project would result in a less- than-significant impact. c) As a result of the 2006 Project, a portion of an intermittent drainage upslope of the building was filled and the loss of jurisdictional waters is being mitigated as discussed in the Biology section of this document. Storm water runoff is collected into a pipe system that conveys storm water to the existing storm drain facilities in Airport Boulevard. The 2006 Project constructed the debris basin to accommodate entrained sediments and rocky debris. Mitigation Measures 4.2-11 from the 1998/99 SEIR is fulfilled as a result of the 2006 Project. The 2008 Project would not alter site conditions with respect to drainage patterns. d) The amount of surface runoff from the 2006 Project was substantially reduced from that analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2006 Project reduced the potential for flooding at the Project site. See Items 8c, 8g and 8h. The 2008 Project would not alter site conditions with respect to surface runoff and flooding. e) The 2006 Project resulted in a reduction of storm water runoff compared to the previous development plans. 2006 Project-related storm water runoff was also evaluated in the 2005 SEIR. The City Engineer conducted the analysis required by Mitigation Measure a 3.4-8 from the 2005 SEIR and found that there is adequate capacity for Terrabay Phase III and cumulative development in the existing storm drain infrastructure. The City Engineering Division reviewed the 2008 Project Gune 30, 2008) and identified no impacts or additional conditions of approval that would be required over those in force currendy as a result of the 2006 Project approval. The 2008 Project would not alter these existing conditions. f) The 2008 Project would be a part of the approved 2006 Storm Water Pollution Plan incompliance with NPDES C-3 standards. Erosion control and other measures are in place to minimize potential impacts to water quality. The 2008 Project would not alter site conditions and would not result in a degradation of water quality. g) The Project site is not within a 100-year flood zone (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999/FIRM Map 065 062 002 B, September 2, 1981). The Project site conveys storm water runoff into a pipe and straw bale system (straw bales are used during construction in certain areas) that connects to the storm water facilities located in Airport Boulevard. The construction of the storm water facilities in Airport Boulevard was mitigation for the development of Terrabay as a whole, and was constructed by the Project proponent. These facilities were designed for a greater capacity than the Terrabay -53- -54- Mitigation Measure 4.2-7 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the Phase II Woods Project, not the Phase III Project. Ibe mitigation measure is incorporated into the completed project. Mitigation Measure 4.2-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to erosion and sedimentation based upon the 1998 project (not approved or constructed) and does not apply to the Project. Mitigation Measure 4.2-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the completed City sponsored hook ramp project. The project is complete and the mitigations have been implemented. Mitigation Measure 4.24 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the design analyzed in the 1998 Project (not approved. or constructed) analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Mitigation Measure 4.2-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to a storm water impact on the Commons parcel in Phase II and does not apply to Phase III. Mitigation Measure 4.2-2from the 1998/99 SEIR storm water drainage and flooding impact relates to Phase II and does not apply to Phase III. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 from the 19998/99 SEIR storm water and flooding applies to the design of Phase II and does not apply to Phase III. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: Mitigation Measure 4.2-11 from the 1998/99 SEIR refers to debris basins that are required on the Phase III Terrabay parcel. The debris basin was installed as part of the 2006 Project. This mitigation measure is not entirely completed as the 2006 Project is not at the certificate of occupancy stage, and there are portions elements of the surrounding slope analysis and remediation that are currently being conducted and emplaced. The 2008 Project is would be included in this mitigation measure. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: j) The Project site is approximately 4.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and about one-quarter mile from San Francisco Bay. The potential for inundation as a result of tsunami, seiche, or mudflow is considered low. i) The Project site is not within the flood path of any levees or dams. See Items 8g and 8h above. h) The Project site did not and would not locate any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area and did not impede or redirect any flood flows (FIRM Map 065 062002 B, September 2, 1981). The 2008 Project would not alter site conditions and would not emplace structures within a 100-year flood zone as stated in the 2006 Addendum. development as a whole including the 2006 Project and the proposed 2008 Project. (For reference to this, refer to the development scenarios identified in the introduction section of this document). The 2006 Project design eliminated the need for a storm drain link as identified in 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation Measure~ 4.2-4. The 2008 Project would not alter site conditions mitigated and approved in the 2006 Project. Initial Study - 44 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 45 Mitigation Measure 4.2-8 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the Phase II Commons parcel. The Commons is now the ''Recreation and Open space" parcel. The sedimentation basin has been improved and abandoned roads have been re-vegetated. Mitigation Measure 4.2-9 from the 1998/99 SEIR relates to the Phase II Pointe neighborhood which has been constructed and the mitigation measure is implemented. Finding: The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to hydrology from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, the 2005 SEIR and the 2006 Addendum. The City did re- evaluate storm water/waste water and as noted by the City Engineer adequate capacity does exist in the existing infrastructure for the Project and cumulative development. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significanl No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 9. LAND USE PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? D D D rgJ 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? D D D rgJ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? D D D rgJ Analysis a) The 2008 Project would be a part of the 2006 Project which is the third and final phase of the development of Terrabay. The Project is a part of this planned community and would not divide an established community. b) The 2008 Project would require minor text amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District to accommodate the addition and defmition of a Product Design Studio within the approved Terrabay 2006 Project. The 2008 Project would be regulated by the Transportation Demand Management Program that is in compliance with Chapters 20.115 and 20.120 of the Municipal Code which also serves to reduce traffic and green house gas emissions. The 2008 Project would not conflict with a plan or policy or zoning established to protect the environment. c) The Project is consistent with the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. See Section 4 Biological Resources, Item 4f. Additionally, CC&Rs are required and have been prepared as part of the Project. The CC&Rs language and enforcement mechanisms for HCP compliance including the payment of HCP fees, prohibition of pesticide use in certain areas, maintenance of a fin~ break and exotic weed control. -55- -56- Finding: There are no mineral resources on the Project site and therefore there are no mineral resource impacts associated with the 2008 Project. None. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: N one required. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: b) The P:roject site is not delineated as an area of locally-important mineral resources under the General Plan (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999). a) The Project site does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or state (City of South San Francisco general Plan 1999). Analysis !2J o o o b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? !2J o o o 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? 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: No Impact Less Than Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mtiga tion Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Finding.: There are no land use impacts associated with the 2008 Project. None. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: N one re(~uired. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Initial Study - 46 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 47 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, specific plan, noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies;:' D D (gJ D b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? D D (gJ D c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D D (gJ D d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D D (gJ D 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? D D (gJ D f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 0 ~ Analysis a, b, c and d) The dominant source of noise in the Project area is traffic from U.S. 101 and aircraft flyovers from San Francisco International Airport. The Project fronts Airport Boulevard and U.S. 101. The 2005 SEIR analyzed noise on a mixed use project that included 24/7 land uses inclusive of noise sensitive residential uses. The 2005 Project also proposed construction and land uses located on the point within approximately 200 feet of residential land uses. The 2006 Project clustered development in the northern portion of the Development Parcel approximately 900 feet from residential land uses. The 2006 Project did not include residential land uses. The 2008 Project does not alter these conditions. The 2006 Project is currently under construction. City mitigation monitors have been on site to insure that the noise mitigation measures identified in the 2006 Addendum and :MMRP are in place. To date, no complaints have been received 'with respect to construction noise impacts. The 2008 Project would be an incremental addition to the construction currently underway, and the same mitigation measures would apply to the 2008 Project, although in and of itself, the 2008 Project construction would be considered less than significant. -57- -58- Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: e and f) The Project site is within two miles of San Francisco International Airport. There are no private airstrips in the Project vicinity. The Project site is not within the current Airport Land Use Commission (CCAG) Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for the San Francisco International Airport. (General Plan, 1999). The project site is within a 74 - 78 dBA, CNEL contour. A design level acoustical analysis was required, as a matter of law, for the 2006 Project. The 2008 Project is also required to conduct and implement a design level acoustical analysis. The recommendations of the analysis include construction measures to reduce interior ambient noise levels for the users of the Project facilities. The 2008 Project would not change these requirements or conditions. Impacts to Occupants No cumulative noise impacts were identified resulting from the 2006 Project. The 1998/99 SEIR, based upon measurements and modeling, did not identify an increase in ambient noise levels associated with the 1998 Project and cumulative development. The 2008 Project would be a less than significant impact. No additional mitigation is needed or required. The 2005 SEIR analyzed increases to ambient noise levels based upon a substantially more intense Project than the 2006 Project. The 2005 SEIR found that traffic related to the 2005 Project would increase the ambient noise levels by one db in the year 2020. A one db increase is not perceptible to the human ear and not considered an impact. Typically, a five db is considered a significant impact. A doubling of traffic volumes is required in order to increase the noise environment by three decibels. The 2008 Project would potentially increase traffic to the site by 54 round trip trips, less than one percent of the total traffic for Terrabay Phase III (see the Traffic section of this document). The 2008 Project noise levels are not substantial and would be considered less than significant. Operational and Cumulative Impacts Pile driving and blasting were not needed for 2006 Project construction and they will not be required for the 2008 Project. Grading, concrete work and pneumatic equipment is underway of the Project site. Although construction activity may on occasion be audible to nearby residential land uses no complaints have been received during the 2006 Project. In all likelihood the majority of construction noise is muffled by the traffic from the freeway. Additionally, Project construction is approximately 900 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 from the 2005 SEIR which restates Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR would applies to the 2006 Project and would apply to the 2008 Project. The mitigation measures require construction scheduling and limits hours of construction activity, muffling and shielding of equipment, stipulates location of equipment (furthest from residential uses) and equipment idling prohibitions to reduce temporary noise impacts. The mitigations also require "Disturbance Coordinator" which in practice on Terrabay Phase I and II has been entitled a "Mitigation Monitor". The Monitor has ensured and continues to ensure that all mitigations are adhered to, inspects the site and reports on compliance to various departments, agencies and officials and has the authority to recommend to the Building Division to red tag construction should mitigations not be in place. TemporaJ:y Construction Impacts Initial Study - 48 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 49 :Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 from the 2005 SEIR which restates :Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR relating to temporary construction impacts. :Mitigations are in place and on-going for the 2006 Project and would extend to the 2008 Project. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 from the 2005 SEIR requiring disclosure of the location of the airport on CC&R's for the Project. This disclosure is included in the CC&R's for the 2006 Project and the same CC&R's would apply to the 2008 Project. This mitigation measure is complete. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2006 Project: Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 from the 2005 SEIR which requires the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR to the residential uses proposed in the 2005 Project. Residential land uses are not proposed as a part of the 2006 Project. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 from the 2005 SEIR - Pertaining to noise from mechanical equipment. The 2006 Project would not impact residential land uses as none are proposed. The Design Review Board required shielding of mechanical equipment, as does a standard condition of approval. The City's Municipal Code restricts the level of noise generating from mechanical equipment to 55 DBA at the property line. Finding: The 2008 Project would add 54 trips to the Project site which would not result in any new or substantially increased impacts with respect to noise from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, 2000 Addendum, the 2005 SEIR and th~~ 2006 Addendum. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Poten tiaIly Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? D D D ~ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ~ elsewhere? D D D c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating D ~ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? D D -59- D D D D D No Impact ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D Paten tially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated -60- D D D D D a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government 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: Potentially Significant Impact Finding: The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to population and housing nor did the 1998/99 SEIR, 2000 Addendum, 2005 SEIR or the 2006 Addendum identify any impacts associated with population and housing. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project and none have been required as a part of the previous environmental reView. None. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: None. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: c) The 2008 Project site would not displace any people. b) The 2:008 Project would not displace any housing as there is no housing nor has there ever been any housing on the Project site. a) The: Project does not require or include the extension of roads and other infrastructure. The 2008 Project would be a part of the third and fIDal phase of Terrabay. The Terrabay Project has provided housing, constructed a recreation center in Phase I and a flte station in Phase I a sound wall, donated open space, paid child care fees and developed project-specific and area-wide and regional infrastructure, and has been planned since the 1980's. The 2008 Project is the addition of a support use to the approved office towers on the site. Analysis Initial Study - 50 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study.. 51 Analysis a) The South San Francisco Fire Marshall, Luis Da Silva, evaluated the 2008 Project and identified specific Project requirements that will be imposed as conditions of project approval. No new environmental impacts pertaining to the 2008 Project were identified Gull' 7, 2008). b) The South San Francisco Police Department evaluated the Project. Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR would be required for the 2008 Project. The mitigation requires the funding of one new police position. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR requires the installation of relay equipment to facilitate police and fire communications. The communications equipment was provided as a part of the 2006 Project. Cumulative development for police and fire requires the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR which carries over the 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR requirements to fully fund a separate new fully-funded staff (1982 EIR) consisting of three police officers and one new patrol vehicle (1996 SEIR). The addition of 15,000 square feet of ancillary use to the Project does not alter this requirement. c) The 2005 SEIR analyzed school impacts on a more intense and mixed-use project and found that there would be no impact to schools. The state required school impact fees required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits adequately addressed the land plan. The 2008 Project would not alter this finding. School impact fees would be assessed and paid on the addition of the 2008 Project. d) The Terrabay Project constructed a recreation center in Phase I (Terrabay Recreation Center). The Terrabay Project has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parce:! (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres). The addition of a Product Design Studio would not have nay substnaital adverse impact on existing park and recreation facilities. Accordingly, impacts to existing parks and recreation facilities are considered to be insignificant. e) There are no other public facilities affected. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 3.10-6 from the 2005 SEIR addressing mitigations for wildland fire which was included as a condition of 2006 Project approval. The fIre buffer area has increased from 50 to 100 feet from project structures. The fIre buffer is in place around the perimeter of the Project. This mitigation measure is complete. Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 from the 1998/99 SEIR requires the funding of one new police position is required of the 2006 Project and carries over to the 2008 Project. Mitigation Measure 4.74 from the 1998/99 SEIR and restated in the 2005 SEIR as Mitigation Measure 3.10-3 requires the installation of relay equipment to facilitate police and fire communications on the first building constructed on the Phase III site. This mitigation measure is completed in October 2006 by the payment of fees to the City of South San Francisco Fire Department for the provision of the communications equipment. This mitigation measure is complete. -61- -62- Potenrially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 14. RECREATION. Would the project: 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? 0 0 0 [gJ 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? 0 0 0 [gJ Finding: The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts -with respect to public services from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, the 2000 Addendum, the 2005 SEIR or the 2006 Addendum. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. No impacts associated -with parks and open space are anticipated. The project has constructed the Terrabay Recreation Center and has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and ]uncus Ravine and remaining parcels ( 400 acres) as open space. Mitigation Measure 3.104 from the 2005 SEIR requiring a radio communications design and study based upon the 2005 Project. Communications issues for the 2006 Project were satisfied by the payment of $35,000 to the South San Francisco Fire Department for the provision of the communications equipment. This was addressed through Project conditions of approval, and not a mitigation measure for the 2006 Project. Mitigation Measure 3.10-2.from the 2005 SEIR requiring additional fire positions based upon the 2005 Project. Mitigation Measure 3.10-1 (a), (b) and (c)from the 2005 SEIR which mitigates an more intense project that proposed in 2006 and requires the funding of six police officers and three vehicles, crime and safety equipment specific to the 2005 Project, and the timing of the funding of the six positions and three vehicles. (please note, the Public Service Mitigation Measures from the 2005 SEIR are numbered 3.10- 1 through 9 on pages 3.4-8 through 3.4-13 and as 3.4- 1 through 9 in the summary table.). Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: Measure 4.7-6.from the 1998/99 SEIR which carries over the 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR requirements to fully fund a separate new fully-funded staff (1982 EIR) consisting of three police officers and one new patrol vehicle (1996 SEIR) to address cumulative development impacts. Initial Study - 52 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study - 53 Analysis: a) See Item 13d above. b) See I tern 13d above. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Unnumbered :Mitigation Measures from the 1982 EIR that include: . 153 acres of open space dedication consisting of the remainder lands abutting Phases I, II and III. Phase I and II lands have been restored and have been offered to the County. Phase III will be offered when construction is complete. . Trail access to the Mountain- Completed to the satisfaction of the County in Phase 1. The County has stated in writing that they do not want additional trails. . 2,000 square foot child care center- Completed September 25, 1996 when the City accepted a $700,000 in-lieu payment. . Improvement of Hillside School, grading and soccer fields and outdoor facilities- Completed in 1997 as a part of Phase 1. . Construction of Terrabay Recreation Center- Completed in 1996 as a part of Phase I . Restoration and offer of dedication to the County of the 157-acre Juncus Ravine Parcel- Restoration complete and offered to the County in 2004. . Restoration and conveyance of the Preservation Parcel to the County Phase III - Completed August 2004. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: None. Finding: The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to recreation and open space. The Terrabay Project has constructed the Terrabay Recreation Center and has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres) as open space. The 2006 Project is constructing a 100 child day care center. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. -63- -64- · U.S.101 Southbound Hook ramps and the Oyster Point Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover have been constructed and were in operation for the 2005 analysis, but were not for the 1998 analysis. · Hickey Boulevard extension was completed in 2002 and its affect is analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, but not in the 1998 SEIR. · BART extension to South San Francisco and the Airport is in and included in analysis for the 2005 SEIR, but not for the 1998 SEIR. Changes from 1999 to 2006 Terrabay Project traffic has been analyzed extensively since 1982. More recently updated studies have been conducted by Crane Transportation Group in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2008. The City requested Crane Transportation Group to analyze the changes in the 2008 Project as compared to the approved 2006 Project analyzed in the 2006 Addendum. The 2005 SEIR was used as the baseline for the traffic analysis because background, environmental and cumulative conditions had changed since the certification of the 1998/99 SEIR. The impacts of the previously approved Project is an appropriate baseline for an evaluation of whether project changes require additional CEQA review. (Benton 1/. Board oj Superoisors (1991) 226 Ca1.App.3d 1467, 1484.) The project analyzed in the 2000 Addendum to the 1998/99 SEIR was very similar to the 2006 Project in magnitude, however, due to the changes noted below a 2006 Project comparison was made to the 2005 SEIR. The following three paragraphs identify the changes in the environment to 2006, and tl1en to 2008. Terrabay Phas(~ III Project Initial Study - 54 Significant Poten tialJy Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 15. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULA TION. Would the proposal result in: 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 traps, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? 0 0 [gI 0 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 0 [gI 0 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? 0 0 0 [gI d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 0 [gI e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 [gI f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 [gI 0 Background Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study.. 55 . Hillside Boulevard and Chestnut Avenue signal was not in place in 1997 when the 1998 SEIR documentation was established, but was in and operational for the 2005 traffic analysis. . Home Depot and Lowes were not included in the cumulative assumptions in the 1998/99 SEIR, but are included in the 2005 SEIR. . East of 101 cumulative traffic impact study was not complete or included in the background analysis for the 1998/99 SEIR, but was complete, in place and used for the cumulative analysis in the 2005 SEIR. The 1998/99 SEIR analysis is dated, using older traffic models and counts to identify project impacts. . The 1998 SEIR used 1994 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodologies for the traffic analysis. . The 2005 SEIR used 2000 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodologies for the traffic analysis. . The 1998 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 1994. . The 2005 SEIR traffic counts were conducted in 2004. Changes from 2006 to 2008 Additional changes to the regulatory environment have occurred since the adoption of the 2006 Addendum. More specifically, AB 32 and SB 97 were adopted to address greenhouse gas emissions, as noted and discussed fully in the Air Quality section of this document. Therefore a traffic update was prepared by Crane Transportation Group to identify the change in trip generation form the approved 2006 Project to the proposed 2008 Project. Traffic Analysis Comparison 2006 Project The 2006 Addendum analyzed the traffic and air quality impacts associated with 665,000 sCluare feet of office, 25,000 square feet of retail (including a 7,000 square foot restaurant), a child care facility serving 100 children and a shared use performing arts facility that would be used as an office meeting and presentation facility during the day and a performance space in the evenings and weekends. The traffic analysis in 2006 as well as this 2008 Addendum uses Trip Generation, 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2003 by which to base vehicle trips associated with the Project. Some of the commercial traffic in 2006 as well as 2008 is assumed to be "pass-by" and office serving. As a comparison, campus-like projects in the East of 101 Area in South San Francisco include retail use as a TDM measure, and as such no retail square footage is included in the traffic modeling. The practice is supported by fact that a mixed-use project does reduce vehicle trips over those associated with a single use. As a result the Terrabay traffic analysis is very conservative in that it does assign vehicle trips to 16,000 square feet of the retail use. The child care and shared use performing arts facility were considered a part of the TDM Program in both the 2006 and 2008 analysis; thereby no trips were or are assigned to these uses. 2008 Project The 2008 Project is the conversion of 2,500 square feet of office to circulation area and the addition of a 15,007 square foot Product Design Studio. The Studio, according to the project description submitted by the applicant, is to be an ancillary use to the office. The Studio would be used to produce video and sound arts in direct support to the office use in the 2006 Project The sludio is not envisioned as additional office area, and if approved, would be conditioned to prohibit such use. -65- -66- Assuming that the new design studio square footage would have the same trip generation potential as research and development (R&D) uses the 2008 Project is expected to increase by 58 trips (or about DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS TRIPS PROJECT 2-WAY IN OUT IN OUT TRIPS 2008 8370 841 121 203 787 Addendum 2006 SEIR 8312 829 119 204 778 Difference 2008 vs. +58 +12 +2 (-1) +9 2006 Source: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 7 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON SUMMARY R&D TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS Assuming that the studio is 100% ancillary to the office daily two-way trip generation is expected to be reduced by 64 trips (or about 0.8%). AM peak hour generation would be reduced by five trips (or about 0.5%) and PM peak hour generation reduced by eight trips (or about 0.8%). DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS TRIPS PROJECT 2- WAY IN OUT IN OUT TRIPS 2008 8248 825 118 201 773 Addendum 2006 SEIR 8312 829 119 204 778 Difference 2008 vs. (-64) (-4) (-1) (-3) (-5) 2006 S oum: Crane Transportation Group TABLE 6 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON SUMMARY 100% ANCILLARY For purposes of analyzing the delta of the 2008 Project two traffic generation factors were modeled for the product design studio; one assuming no traffic trips assigned for the use (i.e., 100% ancillary) and the second assigning a research and development trip factor to the studio. Theses two models show the extremes in the potential trip generation for the 2008 Project; a negative (-64) trip generation and a positive (+ 58) trip generation. TABLE 6 compares the 100% ancillary analysis for the Product Design Studio to the 2006 Addendum and TABLE 7 compares a research and design analysis for the Product Design Studio to the 2006 Addendum. The memorandum from Crane Transportation Group is in Appendix A. Initial Study - 56 Terrabay Phas,e III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study.. 57 0.7 %). AM peak hour generation would be increased by 14 trips (or about 1.5%) and PM peak hour generation increased by eight trips (or about 0.8%). The two models show the extremes in potential Project trip generation. In all likelihood the 2008 Project would fall somewhere in between the addition of 58 daily round trips to/from the site and the reduction of 64 daily round trips to/from the site. Even with the minor increase in peak hour traffic associated with the assumption of the design studio square footage having R&D use trip generation, there would be no new year 2010 or 2020 circulation system significant impacts. The follo\.ving analysis does assume the most conservative scenario that being R&D use and some trip generation associated with the retail uses. Analysis a and b) The 2008 Project would add approximately 14 inbound + outbound trips in the AM peak hour and 9 inbound + outbound trips in the PM peak hour beyond the currently entitled 2006 Project. The addition of these trips is considered less-than-significant. c) No change in traffic air patterns would result from the 2008 Project. The 2006 Project maximum height pursuant to the FAA is 360 feet above mean sea level (as noted in the South San Francisco General Plan). The North Tower is proposed at 360 feet above mean sea level. The 2008 Project would not change the height of the towers. The 2008 Project would change the height of the retail concourse associated with the North Tower to approximately 40 feet above mean sea level. d and e) The 2006 Project site plan was reviewed by police, engineering, fire, planning and the City's traffic consultant. The on-site intersections are designed to be free flowing for traffic inbound to or outbound from the Project garage. Pedestrian walkways are mostly separated from high traffic flow locations. The parking garage proposes underground, well-lighted and appointed pedestrian tunnels separating pedestrian and vehicular movements. The 2008 Project does not change the approved circulation pattern and was also reviewed by police, engineering, ftte, planning and the City's traffic consultant. No new impacts were identified. f) Parking is proposed at 2.88 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of land use and includes an approved TDM Program. The parking is calculated on all the land uses, a very conservative analysis, compared to that of other campus developments which exclude the retail uses from the parking capacity. The 2008 Project impacts would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: Mitigation Measure 4.4.2 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Intersection (Airport) requiring a fmancial contribution to the Oyster Point Interchange project sponsored by the City. The Applicant provided $8.5 million and this mitigation is completed. Mitigation Measure 4.4.3 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Intersection (Dubuque) requiring a financial contribution to the Oyster Point Interchange project sponsored by the City. The Applicant provided $8.5 million and this mitigation measure is completed. Mitigation Measure 3. I-Sa and b from the 2005 SEIR - Intersection queuing 2010. -67- -68- The 2008 Project would not substantially increase the severity of any of these impacts, nonetheless, would still require the 2008 Project to restate and re-adopt the Findings of Overriding Considerations for three significant and unavoidable impacts. The three impacts are: Finding: The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to Transportation and Circulation from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, the 2000 Addendum, the 2005 SEIR and the 2006 Addendum. Two traffic scenarios were evaluated that represent the extremes in potential Project trip generation. In all likelihood the 2008 Project would fall somewhere in beriV'een the addition of 58 daily round trips to/from the site and the reduction of 64 daily round trips to/from the site. Even with the minor increase in peak hour traffic associated with the assumption of the design studio square footage having R&D use trip generation, there would be no new year 2010 or 2020 circulation system significant impacts. The analysis does assume the most conservative scenario that being R&D use and some trip generation associated with the retail uses. No significant new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Mitigation Measure 3.1-11 from the 2005 SEIR - On Site Parking. Mitigation Measure 3.1-6 from the 2005 SEIR - Intersection Level of Service 2020. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2 from the 2005 SEIR - Intersection Level of Service 2010. Mitigation Measure 4.4--14 from the 1998/99 SEIR - City Hook Ramp Project Freeway Ramps (required an override). Mitigation Measure 4.4-13 from the 1998/99 SEIR - City Hook Ramp Project Freeway Mainline (required an override). Mitigation Measure 4.4-12 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Potential Storage Deficiencies Between Intersections. Mitigation Measure 4.4-11 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Trail Head Parking. Mitigation Measure 4.4-10 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Potential Commercial Parking Shortfall. Mitigation Measure 4.4-9 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Overflow Parking. Mitigation Measure 4.4-8 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Phase II Residential Parking. Mitigation Measure 4.4-7 from the 1998/99 SEIR - Turnaround Sizes. Mitigation Measure 4.4-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR Roadway Widths. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Projf:ct: Mitigation Measure 3.1-10 from the 2005 SEIR - On Site Circulation. Mitigl'1tion Measure 3.1-9a and b from the 2005 SEIR - Intersection queuing 2020. Initial Study - 58 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study.. 59 Impact 4.4-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. Impact 4.4-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. Impact 4.4-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. Potentially SignifIcant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorpora ted Impact Impact 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 ~ 0 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? 0 0 ~ 0 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? 0 0 ~ 0 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 ~ 0 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 0 ~ 0 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ) 0 0 ~ 0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 ~ 0 Analysis a, b and e) The 2005 SEIR analyzed wastewater impacts on a more intense land use proposal. The 2006 Project Applicant has paid the City a fair share amount for the inspection (televising) of the stonn drain and sanitary sewer lines in Airport Boulevard (Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 2005 SEIR). The Engineering Division completed the study and has found that there is adequate capacity to serve the 2006 Project and cumulative development (Ray Razavi, City Engineer, August 17, 2006). The Engineering Department reviewed the 2008 Project and did not identify any new impacts associated with the addition (Sam Bautista, Senior City Engineer, June 30, 2008). -69- -70- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 17. 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? 0 0 ~ 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Finding:: The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. None. Mitigation Measures from Previous Environmental Documents that do not apply to the 2008 Project: None. Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 2005 from the SEIR is complete. Mitigation Measures Required from Previous Environmental Documents: f and g) The Project is required through conditions of approval to provide recycling and waste diversion (2006 approvals). The same conditions of approval apply to the 2008 Project. d) The Terrabay Project installed a water tank for the Terrabay project as a part of Phase 1. The Project also constructed the water distribution system and pump house on the Phase III site. Cal Water has provided the project with a will serve letter (Appendix F of 2005 SEIR) which is based on a more intense land plan. The incremental change represented in the 2008 Project does not alter these conditions. c) The existing 48-inch storm drain system in Airport Boulevard was designed and constructed to accommodate the 100-year storm event. The 48-inch line connects to a 60-inch culvert which crosses under U.S. 101. The 60-inch culvert drains to a concrete lined channel that discharges to the Bay. The downstream system is sized to accommodate the 100-year event. (Corolett, 2005 whom was the City's engineer for the storm drain improvements). Additionally, as a matter of law, the 2008 Project shall comply with the NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permits including the C-3 requirements and as a matter of procedure will be included in the approved 2006 S'W'PP. The 2008 Project does not change these conditions. No new impacts or mitigation measures are identified. Initial Study - 60 Terrabay Phase III Project Terrabay Phase III Project Initial Study- 61 ("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.) 0 o [g1 o c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o o [g1 o Findings: The 2008 Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially more severe impacts as compared to those identified in the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum which supplement the 1998/99 SEIR, 2000 Addendum, 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR. Significant and unavoidable impacts were identified, analyzed, and mitigated to the extent feasible in prior CEQA documents. The 2008 Project would not increase the severity of any of those impacts. Nonetheless, Findings of Overriding Considerations will be re-adopted for four significant unavoidable impacts adopted by the City Council February 1999, 2000 and 2006 relating to air quality and traffic. The impacts are: 1. Impact 4.5.2 from the 1998/99 SEIR Changes in Long Term Air Quality. 2. Impact 4.4-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. 3. Impact 4.4-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. 4. Impact 4.4-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. -71- -72- Wedand Research Associates. 2004. Letter to Mr. Ed Wylie, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, from Tom Fraser, Principal, July 21,2004. Wedand Research Associates. 2000. Wetland Mitigation Plan, Oyster Point Hook Ramp, South San Francisco, California, COE File Number 23533S. September 2000. U.S. Geologic Survey. 199. Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2000-2030 _ A Summary of Findings, Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Open File Report 99-517. URS. 2001b. F'..eport Geotet'hnkal Design Criteria Terrabqy Phase III Development, South San Franczsco, California. March 16, 2001. URS. 2001a. Geotechnical Exploration, Terrabqy Phase III Development, South San Francisco, California. February 12, 2001. City of South San Francisco. 1982. Terrabqy Development Prqjet"f Draft Ent'ironmental Impad Report. August 1982. Prepared by Environmental Impact Planning Group. City of South San Francisco. 1996. T errabqy Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Final Supplemental Environmental Impad Report. Prepared by Wagstaff and Associates. City of South San Francisco. 1996. T errabqy Specijit- Plan and Development Agreement Extension Draft Supplemental Environmentallmpat"f Report. January 1996. Prepared by Wagstaff and Associates. City of South San Francisco. 1998. Terrabqy Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impad Report. July 1998. City of South San Francisco. 1998. Final Terrabqy Spetifit' Plan. October 16, 2000. Prepared by Myers Development Company. City of South San Francisco. 1999 Terrabqy Phase II and III Final Supplemental Environmental Impad Report. January 1999. City of South San Francisco. 2002. South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia. Adopted October 13, 1999, as amended December 2002. PHASE ONE, Inc. 2003. Update Report Northwest Corner of Sister Cities Blvd. and Bayshore Blvd. South San Francisco, California. Prepared for Myers Development. February 24, 2003. Holman, :Miley. Holman & Associates. Personal communication January 3,2005. Environmental Collaborative. 2005. Review ofBiologiml Issues Initial Stuc!y for North Peninsula Plaza Projed South San Francisco, California. March 1,2005. Corlett, Adrian. BKF. Email correspondence February 27,2005. REFERENCES Initial Study - 62 Terrabay Phase III Project SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM -73- -74- 2008 ADDENDUM FINDINGS TERRABAY PHASE III Aesthetics The 2008 Project would not alter the clustering of that approved in 2006. The 2008 Project would not introduce residential uses or a significant addition of lighting to the site. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Moreover, the following conditions continue to exist for the 2008 Project: Slightly reduced lighting impacts from those identified in the 2005 SEIR because there were no impacts associated with residential land uses; No conflict between night lighting and residential uses; and, the Project clustering leaving the majority of the site open with views of the Mountain. Agriculture There are no agricultural resources on the Project site. There are no impacts to agricultural resources and no mitigation measures are required. Air Quality The 2008 Project slightly increases the amount of criteria air pollutant from those idl~ntified in the 2006 Addendum but not by a substantial amount. This impact would be less than significant. Ozone and PMlO would remain a Significant and Unavoidable Impact as identified and fully analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, the 2005 SEIR, and the 2006 Addl~ndum. The 2008 Project would not substantially increase the severity of this impact, nonetheless, the 2008 Project will restate and re-adopt the Findings of Overriding Considerations for the following impact: Impact 4.5.2 from the 1998/99 SEIR Changes in Long Term Air Quality. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Greenhouse Gas The 2008 Project slightly increases the amount of greenhouse gases from those calculated for the 2006 Project but not by a substantial amount. This impact would be less than significant. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Biological Resources The 2008 Project would not result in additional impacts over what was identified in the 1998/99 SEIR on biological resources. Moreover, as s a result of clustering the Project in 2006, the 2006 Project impacts are considerably less than those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, as documented in the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum. The majority of the wetlands on the Phase III site have been preserved, the viola has been preserved and wetlands have been enhanced. The requisite United States Army Corp of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game permits has been secured and the wetlands restoration is underway and being monitored by the City. These activities have been completed or implemented as apart of the 2006 Project. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Terrabay 2008 Addendum Findings July 17, 2008 Page 1 -75- Noise The 2008 Project would add 54 trips to the Project site which would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to noise from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, 2000 Addendum, the 2005 SEIR and the 2006 Addendum. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Terrabay 2008 Addendum Findings July 17, 2008 Page 2 -76- Mineral Resources There are no mineral resources on the Project site and therefore there are no mineral resource impacts associated with the 2008 Project. Land Use The 2008 Project would require only minor text amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan. The Proje:ct is otherwise consistent with applicable plans. Therefore, there are no land use impacts associated with the 2008 Project. Hydrolob>y and Water Quality The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to hydrology from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, the 2005 SEIR and the 2006 Addendum. The City did re-evaluate storm water/waste water and as noted by the City Engineer adequate capacity does exist in the existing infrastructure for the Project and cumulative development. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Hazards The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to hazards from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, 2000 Addendum, 2005 SEIR or its 2006 Addendum. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Geology and Soils The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to geology and soils from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and as restated in the 2005 SEIR. The 2006 Project resulted in less site disturbance than analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2008 Project would not affect these conditions. The geotechnical mitigations required in the MMRP are being implemented and monitored by Cotton Shires Associates and the same mitigations would be applicable to the 2008 Project. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Cultural Resources The 2008 Project would be located above ground floor retail in an area graded in 2007, and in the center of the Development Parcel. The 2006 Project did not result in any impacts to archaeological, cultural or historical resources. Miley Holman, archaeologist was on the Project site during grading of the Buffer Parcel, as required by the 1998/99 SEIR and the MMRP. No archaeological or historic remnants were found. No burials or artifacts were discovered. Grading and development in archaeological sensitive areas was completely avoided. No additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Population and Housing The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to population and housing nor did die 1998/99 SEIR, 2000 Addendum, 2005 SEIR or the 2006 Addendum identify any impacts associated with population and housing. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project and none have been required as a part of the previous environmental review. Public Services The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to public services from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, the 2000 Addendum, the 2005 SEIR or the 2006 Addendum. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. No impacts associated with parks and open space are anticipated. The project has constructed the Terrabay Recreation Center and has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres) as open space. Recreation The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to recreation and open space. The Terrabay Project has constructed the Terrabay Recreation Center and has or is in the process of dedicating over 400 acres for open space and recreational use including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres) as open space. The 2006 Project is constmcting a 100 child day care center. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Traffic and Transportation The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to Transportation and Circulation from those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, the 2000 Addendum, the 2005 SEIR and the 2006 Addendum. Two traffic scenarios were evaluated that represent the extremes in potential Project trip generation. In all likelihood the 2008 Project would fall somewhere in between the addition of 58 daily round trips to/from the site and the reduction of 64 daily round trips to/from the site. Even with the minor increase in peak hour traffic associated with the assumption of the design studio square footage having R&D use trip generation, there would be no new year 2010 or 2020 circulation system significant impacts. The analysis does assume the most conservative scenario that being R&D use and some trip generation associated with the retail uses. No significant new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. The 2008 Project would not substantially increase the severity of any of these impacts, nonetheless, would still require the 2008 Project to restate and re-adopt the Findings of Overriding Considerations for three significant and unavoidable impacts. The three impacts are: Terrabay 2008 Addendum Findings July 17, 2008 Page 3 -77- -78- Terrabay 2008 Addendum Findings July 17, 2008 Page 4 1120874.1 The Adopted 2006 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prohrram (City Council Resolution # 82-2006) contains all the mitigation measures required of the Terrabay Phase III Project, including the 2008 Project increment. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4. Impact 4.4-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. 3. Impact 4.4-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. 2. Impact 4.4-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. 1. Impact 4.5.2 from the 1998/99 SEIR Changes in Long Term Air Quality. The 2008 Project would not result in any new or substantiaUy more severe impacts as compared to those identified in the 2005 SEIR.and 2006 Addendum which supplements the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR. Significant and unavoidable impacts were identified, analyzed, and mitigated to the extent feasible in prior CEQA documents. The 2008 Project would not increase the severity of any of those impacts. Nonetheless, Finding of Overriding Considerations will be re-adopted for four significant unavoidable impacts adopted by the City Council February 1999, 2000 and 2006 relating to air quality and traffic. The impacts include: CONCLUSION Utilities and Service Systems The 2008 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Impact 4.4-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. Impact 4.4-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. Impact 4.4-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. +Phase III 2006 - Terraba ation Monitoring and Reporting Plan I IMPLEMENTED BY I WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY IVERIFlED I DATE IMPACT ~ MITIGA nON GEOLOGY MITIGATION -- PHASE 11/ SITE 1998-1998 SEIR City's Geology Consultant On grading pelTI1il plans (before City issues grading permit). In addition, the project sponsor's geotechnical consultant shall be present on-site full-time during grading to verify and, if necessary, modify the final grading plans. Project sponsor's geotechnical consultant No measures would be required for grading per se within previously graded parts of Phase 11 site development areas. Moreover, grading which would not extend beyond the 50-foot minor boundary adjustment limit and 9.3 I-acre uphill of the HCP fence would comply with the Agreement with Respect to the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan, as required by the Terrabay Specific Plan District, and, therefore, would not necessitate additional mitigation. In order for the project to be deemed in compliance and to constitute a less-than-significant impact 4.1-1 Grading ConstTUction oflhe Phase III 2006 Project would require excavation of 12 acres ofland of which approximately 10 acres were previously disturbed. This grading would expose areas to erosion, decrease the stability of the bedrock and sediment cover, and cause differential settlement in fills over drainages. The impact of grading of new areas could not be avoided without redesigning the project and reducing the size of development areas. Grading as proposed without mitigation would result in significant erosion. slope instability, difTerential settlement, and secondary impacts. All grading plans and operations in the Terra- bay Specific Plan District shall be in compliance with the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan (Title 20 oflhe South San Francisco Zoning Code Section 20.63.020). hl order to meet this requirement, disturbed land within this minor boundary adjustment limit area shall be replaced through in-kind restoration. . No development proposal which requires a pelTI1it or an approval of any sort to be issued by any local, State, or Federal agency may be approved by the City until proof of such other pelTI1it, license, or approval is on file in the department of Co nun unity Development (Tille 20 of the South San Francisco Zoning Code Section 20.63.250). . I 'I \.0 I Reducing the extent of grading involved in project implementation would help balance cut and fill operations and the need to export excess fill material for disposal (or reuse) at another location. Measures to mitigate direct erosion, slope stability, and differential settlement impacts are presented below (see Mitigation Measures 4.1-2 through 4.1-5), and measures to mitigate indirect traffic, air quality, and noise impacts are presented in the respective analyses. Grades of the site streets shall be increased wherever possible to reduce grading into the hill but in no case exceed 15 percent. Grades between 12 and 15 percent shall require approval by the City Engineer, as provided by the Terrabay Specific Plan District. 2 . The location and! or height of retaining walls shall be shifted or raised. Retaining walls higher than ten feet shall not be designed as poured in place structures but shall provide step backs or cribs planted with vegetation and built with rough stone or earth colored materials. The project sponsor shall submit plans for retaining wall design for walls higher than ten feet lor City review. I 00 o I . If slopes cannot be laid back without encroaching beyond the 50-foot minor boundary adjustment limit (and in excess of 9.31 acres) in the Hep area, alter- native mitigation to the above criteria include revising proposed grading plans to modify site design. Such modifications shall incorporate one or all of the following measures: Slope and groundwater monitoring instruments (inclinometers, piezometers) shall be installed at the tops of cuts to monitor slope stability. Perimeter type A-ditches shall be provided above cut slopes. CONTINUED -- 4.1-2 Slope Stability I Erosion Cuts greater than ten feet high, cuts in soil for proposed slopes with grades steeper than 2: I (horizontal:vertical), or cuts with bedrock grades steeper than 1.5:1 could erode until vegetation is re-established. These engineered slopes can erode locally, as experienced in Phase I where substantial grading was completed during a drought and then abandoned during a period of above average rainfall. Proposed cut slopes, especially in soil, need to be protected from erosion before the rainy season. Unless a comprehensive winterization plan is implemented before the onset of winter rains, the erosion from the unvegetated slopes would be significant. . . termediate benches and accompanying drain- age shall be designed with vertical intervals of about 30 feet or as recommended by the City Engineer Slopes shall be laid back to provide grades no steeper than 2:1 in soil and 1.5:1 in rock except in areas where rock is highly fTactured and acts like soils in which case slopes shall be laid back farther, rock bolts shall be installed, or retaining walls shall be constructed. In addition, subsurface drainage shall be installed. [n addition, the sponsor's geotechnical consultant shall be present on-site full-time during grading to verify and, if necessary, modify the final grading plans. City's geologic consultant to monitor slopes including monitoring instruments until slopes are turned over to Homeowners Association. (a) In order to reduce slope stability impacts to less- than-significant levels, the project's proposed grading plans shall be revised to incorporate the following: On grading permit plans (before City issues grading permit). City geologic consult- ant to monitor mass grading. After grading, sponsor's and IMPACT GEOLOGY MIT/GA TION I MlTlGA TlON 1998-1999 SEIR Project sponsor's geotechnical consultant 1.IMPLEMENTED BY I WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY 1 VERIFIED BY IDA TE I VERIFIED BY IDA TE MONITORED BY T r WHEN IMPLEMENTED r IMPLEMENTED BY I MITIGA TlON 1998-1999 SEIR Development shall be limited to lower site elevations to contain grading within development areas, thus reducing the total development area (and amount of developmen which could be accommodated CONTINUED IMPACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION City's consulting geologist After at least one average winter season (before City issues the building permit). City's Engineering and Building Divisions (b) As previously stipulated for Phase I, the City shall withhold building permits for development of lots located downhill of cut slopes until the slopes have experienced at least one average winter season (about 20 inches of rainfall). City's Geology Consultant and City's \Vater Quality Control Division 5. Before October Project sponsor's geotechnical consultant (c) As automatically required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCQB) and the City of South San Francisco, all exposed slopes and surfaces (graded pads) shall be winterized before October 15 of each year. TIle Phase II winterization program shall include such measures as; . Waddles, hydroseeding, silt fences, straw bales, and berms shall be placed around pads with contained (pipe) discharges. I 00 ..... I Streets shall be swept before (and truck access should be limited during) major storms. Sandbag check dams shall be placed along gutters, and straw mats should be placed ovel storm inlets. . . 3 TIle grading site(s) shall be inspected prior to and during major storms. . (b) The project's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall establish and provide for implementation of a Slope Maintenance Plan by the project's Property Owners Associations (Owners Associations). The project sponsor shall provide initial funding for the Slope Management Plan, and the Property Owners Associations shall fund long- term implementation after receiving title to their respective private open space lands. At a minimum, the Slope Maintenance Plan shall provide for moni- tOling and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention, and deflection structures. 4 Project Sponsor initially in the project's CC&Rs and Property Owners Associations thereafter City Planner, City's Geology Consultant and City Attorney I 00 N I Please note, although this impact and mitigation references the Phase III site there is a debris slide the Phase 1Il site. Measures shall adhere to the City's grading requirements listed in Impact 4. I -2 and can be achieved by using techniques listed in Mitigation Measure, including installation of slope stability monitoring instruments. On draft CC&R 's prior to ColO on -- CONTINUED 4.1-3 Landsliding and Debris Slides Landslides and debris slides are present within and above site development areas ofthe Phase II site. Without mitigation, continued movement would have significant impacts on proposed development. large- scale grading operations likely \vQuld be necessary to repair unstable areas. In addition to deep-seated landslides, the site has experienced impacts from shallow debris slides. Landslide repair techniques, similar to those used during Phase I grading, would be necessary during grading proposed for the Phase II site. If mitigation measures, including drainage, removal, deflection and I or retention structures, setbacks, debris basins, etc., are not taken, future debris slides would have a significant impact on proposed development. . . (a) The Precise Plan and Ve~ting Tentative Map grading plans shall be revised to incorporate the following: Implementation shall include installation of monitoring instruments (inclinometers, piezometers). Locations shall be shown of all deflection and retaining walls as detennined necessary by the City's Consulting Geologist. Measures to mitigate active slide areas located in the Commons neighborhood and mitigate cuts into active slides shall be incorporated into the project and include removing material, buttressing, and building retaining walls. o Project sponsor's geotechnical consultant The sponsor's geotechnical consultant and City's inspector shall monitor mass grading on the Phase HI site. The project sponsor's geotechnical consultant also shall monitor the instrumentation. Any conditions not identified before grading, shall be mitigated during mass grading. Ifmonitoring determines that mitigation is not working as designed, additional mitigation will be necessary, using the measures listed above, as approved by the City. As required by Mitigation Measure 4.1- 2(b), slopes shall be monitored for at least one average winter season before releasing lots immediately below the slopes for development. After development, the site shall be monitored as part of the Slope Maintenance Plan similar to procedures used in Phase L IMPACT GEOLOGY MlTlGA TlON I MITIGA TION 1998-1999 SEIR In Grading Plan. .lIMPLEMENTED BY --L WHEN IMPLEMENTED i MONITORED BY J VERIFIED BY I DA TE I VERIFIED BY IDA TE I WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY Property Owners Associations for implementing Slope Maintenance Plans including monitoring of the outcrops to be inspected annually before each rainy season and after significant seismic shaking. In Grading Plan r IMPLEMENTED BY Project sponsor's geo- technical consultant -- including both visual in- spection and continuing to collect monitoring instrumentation data -- before turning repaired slopes over to the respective Property Owners Associations for long-term maintenance and monitoring. I MITIGA flON 1998-1999 SEIR (a) Project plans shall incorporate the specific measures identified by the detailed rock slope stability analysis of the orientation and spacing of rock defects and inspection of individual rock outcrops conducted by the project sponsor's geotechnical consultant. The revised plans shall identify individual measures or combinations of measures proposed for each rock slope, outcrop, and source area to mitigate rockslide and rockfall impacts. Among measures for consideration are one or more ofthe following: CONTINUED 4.1-4 Rockslides and Rockfalls Past cuts into the sandstone bedrock along the southern end of San Bruno Mountain often initiated major rockslides, sllch as large historic rockslides present north and northeast of the Phase III development area. In addition, rock outcrops on and above the site pose potential hazards from rockfalls, especially if triggered by groundshaking in an earthquake. IMPACT GEOLOGY MITIGA nON Rockslide measures: Flatter slopes shall be graded with benches, drainage ditches, and access for maintenance. . be installed. Rock anchors shal Subdrains shall be constructed. Geotechnical mitigation and revegetation shall be coordinated, possibly through design of benched terracettes. . . Slope monitoring instrumentation shall be installed (inclinometers, piezometers etc.). . I 00 CJJ I Rockfall measures: be scaled off. Loose rocks shal Engineered rock fall fences shall placed below rock outcrops and above cut slopes. . City's Geology Consultant and City Attomey In Precise Plan (before City approves grading permit) Project Sponsor initially in CC&Rs and Property Owners Associations thereafter. 5 Netting shall be placed around features to encapsulate and prevent material from moving. (b) The project sponsor shall include annual inspection of outcrops before each rainy seasOl after significant seismic shaking in the Slope Maintenance Plans (that is CC&Rs) identified in Mitigation Measure 4.1- 3(b) for implementation by the respective Property Owners Associations. The City shall review, modify as necessary, and approve the CC&Rs. and Rockfalls shall be mitigated by removal, encapsulation, or fences (Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(a)). I 00 ~ I Buildings shall be designed in conformance with Uniform Building Code (UBG) Zone 4 and City standards. . . Retaining walls shall be built over sensitive areas. to minimize fill . Subdrains shall be constructed. . Rock anchors shall be installed . Flatter slopes shall be graded with benches. IMPACT GEOLOGY MITIGATION -- CONTINUED 4.1-6 Secondary Effects of Seismic Shaking Given site geologic conditions, hazards to people or property from groundshaking (including liquefaction, lurching, and lateral spreading) could be mitigated to levels deemed acceptable in a seismically active region through compliance with Uniform Building Code standards and measures required to address other potential impacts on development. . Stability analyses shaH be conducted on representative slopes based on seismic loading and anticipated groundwater conditions to evaluate the need (if any) for special mitigation measures over and above standard engineering of the slopes in order to mitigate potential impacts on development from seismically induced landsliding and rocksHding. If the stability analysis identifies the need for special mitigation, Mitigation Measures 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 shall be revised to incorporate the additional seismic measures required. These could include one or more of the following: I MITIGA nON 1998 EIR I IMPLEMENTED BY Project sponsor's geo- technical consultant shall be responsible for analyzing the engineering analysis of proposed slopes, also to be reviewed and approved by the City before granting grading pemlits. 6 Keyways for soils. fiHs shaH be placed lrough soft l WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY City building inspectors shall be responsible for reviewing and approving the seismic design of proposed structures as a routine response to building permit applications Before City permits. issues grading I VERIFIED BY / DATE VERIFIED BY I DA TE T r WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY r IMPLEMENTED BY IMPACT r MITIGA TION 1982 GEOLOGY MITIGATION -1982 Elf{ TIle removal of vegetation during grading would The project sponsor has incorporated the following expose the land surface to increased on-site erosion mitigation measures in the Terrabay Development potential and, consequently, increased off-site Specific Plan which directly or indirectly relate to sedimentation of drainage systems. geologic and hydrologic impacts: Steep slopes of medium to fine grained soils on San · The development plan would implement, where Bruno Mountain would have high erosion potential feasible, the recommendations ofthe Phase II If disturbed dUling the rainy season (November to Geotechnical Study already completed and those March). proposed to be completed prior to the project design. · An erosion control plan would be incorporated in the project design which would include on-site siltation basins to prevent downstream sedimentation and construction techniques to prevent soil loss. Excavation of bedrock could produce some rock fragments over six inches in size. Since a nearly balanced cut-and-fill concept is proposed, these oversized fragments would be used on the site as fill. If left un-crushed, they could eventually cause differential settlement of sill surfaces that support buildings. TIle construction peliod would be kept as brief as possible and phased to reduce the duration of unprotected soil exposure and to minimize soil rernova1. . Slopes would generally be graded to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) surfaces using cuts or fills. Steeper slopes or irnproperiy designed slopes at this ratio could be subject to landsliding during seismic shaking, heavy rainfall, or from the weight of structures above them. The graded areas which would not be pennanently disturbed would be hydromulched prior to the rainy season to further reduce soil exposure. Limi ts of temporary and pennanent grading would be clearly delineated during construction to prevent encroachment into areas to be left un- disturbed. Pedestrian and bicycle paths would be constructed to reduce the effects of indiscriminate travel across the project site and adjacent upslope areas. Incorporated by reference into the 1998-99 SEIR, the 2000 Addendum, the 2005 SEIR and the 2006 Addendum. 7 Sharp changes in slope would be reduced to eliminate areas where erosion could begin. . . . Terrabay Woods has numerous shallow landslides I j three deep slides within its boundaries. Slides 00 tside the boundaries affect the west part of the U1 Jods. Soil creep is moderate, but downhill creep !.. weathered bedrock is severe. Some bedrock in the Woods West my not be ripable and may require blasting. Residences on both the east and west would be built on fill and would be subject to moderate settlement Access roads around the edges would generally be on cut slopes. Road grades would be generally below six percent but range lip to 14 percent Slide repair, slope stabilization and subdrainage would be necessary. IMPACT HYDROLOGY MITIGA T/ON -- PHASE fI/ SITE 2005 S E I R AND 1998-1999 4.2-11 Erosion and Sedimentation The southern debris basin diversion swaJe shall be designed to avoid sedimentation and deposition that would re-route water and result in down slope erosion. I 00 0\ I I MIT/GA T10N S E I R 111e debris basin shall be designed in accordance with the approved design of the Phase I and II basins and based upon the geotechnical studies identified in the Geology and Soils section. Note: Does not directly apply to 2006 Project but retained to asure design 8 Applicant's geotechnical engineer. Prior to issuance of building permits. City Engineer. llMPLEMENTED BY L WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY 1 VERIFIED BY / DA TE r VERIFIED BY IDA TE r MONITORED BY r WHEN IMPLEMENTED r IMPLEMENTED BY IMPACT -r MITIGA nON BIOLOGY MIT/GA nON -- PHASE 11/ SITE 1998-1999 SEIR City Planner and HCP coordinator to monitor compliance. Prior to issuance of grading permits. Project sponsor to prepare Restoration Plan for Phase It1 site. Project sponsor's vegetation specialisl (a) A Restoration Plan for the project shall be prepared to include an additional component which provides for the selective use of native plant material that otherwise would be eliminated as a result of grading and development. The scope of the salvage effort shall be determined by the project sponsor's vegetation specialist responsible for implementing the Restoration Plan and shall consider proven success rates and availability from other sources in targeting specific species. Methods of plant material salvage may include transplanting, seed colJection and propagation, and use of cuttings from on-site vegetation. Transplanting shall be performed during the optimum period necessary to ensure plant survival, generally in the fall and early spring months, with salvage_material stored in a tem-porary growing area if necessary and eventually trans-planted onto slopes where restoration is to occur following final grading and soil preparation. Any plant salvage and seed collection operation shall be restricted to the limits of final grading to prevent the further loss of native species in pennanent open space areas. 4.3-1 Vegetation Removal, Wildlife Habitat Loss, and Landscape Compatibility Grading associated with project implementation would re- quire removal of existing vegetation and associated wildlife habitat in areas proposed for development. Loss of non-native grassland would not be consider- ed significant, but impacts on native freshwater marsh and riparian habitat and remnant stands of native grasslands would be significant. Proposed landscaping and restoration of graded slopes appear to be compatible with open space designations on parts of the site, but without a salvage component to the proposed restoration plan anticipated impacts would continue to be significant. 9 I 00 '..:J I Appropriate dust control measures shall be implemented as a component of the project's sedimentation and erosion control plans in order to minimize construction-generated dust (as required by Mitigation Measures 4.1-2(c) and 4.5-1). Measures shall include frequent watering of graded area, equipment, and haul roads to minimize dust and control its dispersal. o I 00 00 I Signs shall be prepared, in cooperation with the San Mateo County Parks Department and HCP coordinator, and installed along trails and other appropriate locations warning park users against illegal activities (such as poaching). If pernlitted under the Federal Endangered Species Act, the proposed Restoration Plan shall be revised to include a component to salvage and transplant existing adult nectar plants (especially natives such as Monardella) which other-wise would be lost due to grading and develop-ment in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (b). Salvage material shall be used as part of a propagation program to reestablish adult nectar plants on restored slopes and in addition-al grassland habitat where they currently are absent. 4.3-2 Impacts on Special-Status Species Except for callippe silverspot butterfly and mission blue butterfly, no impacts on populations of other special-status plant and animal species are antici- pated. While the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Con- servation Plan (HCP) fully addresses potential im- pacts of anticipated deveJopnlent on mission blue, amendments to the HCP would be necessary for the recently listed callippe silverspot. Further loss of suitable habitat for callippe silverspot on the site would be a significant impact. All stands oflarval host plant which are to be preserved on the Phase II site should be adequately protected from construction-related disturbance. These locations should be identified as a "no disturbance zone" on all grading plans. The perimeter of stands oflarval host plants within 100 feet of proposed grading and consiruction should be fenced prior to initiating of grading to prevent possible damage and loss. IMPACT -1 MITIGA nON BIOLOGY MITIGA TION -- PHASE III SITE 1998-1999 SEIR II 1/MPLEMENTED BY I WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY .-L VERIFIED BY IDA TE City Planner and HCP coordinator to monitor compliance. rVERIFIED BY / DA TE r WHEN IMPLEMENTED .'..MONITORED BY I IMPLEMENTED BY r MITIGA nON IMPACT -- BIOLOGY MITIGA nON -- PHASE 1998-1999 SEIR Wetland Plan complete in 2000 and approved by USACE, RWQCB, CDFO. Section 404 permit and plan extended. City Engineer is mitigating wetlands for 2006 Project and Oyster Point Circulation improvements of the Preservation Parcel. City to monitor compliance with Corps, CDFO, and RWQCB Prior to issuance of grading permits Project sponsor and biologist. A wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared by the project sponsor's wetland consultant to provide for their replacement SITE 4.3-3 Loss of Jurisdictional Wetland Habitat Implementation ofthe project as proposed would eliminate approximately 0.10 acre of unvegetated streams. I 00 1.0 I 3.J-5a and b - Intersection Queuing 2010. MITIGA T10N Lengthening the Sister Cities Boulevard left turn pocket (at Airport Boulevard) to 250 feet would reduce queuing impacts to less than significant at this intersection that currently experiences unacceptable base queuing. 12 IMPLEMENTED BY 1 WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITOREDBY I VERIFIED BY / DA TE Project Sponsor Improvements to be on building permit drawings 2005 SEIR IMPACT 4.4-3 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phases 1/ + /II Intersection Impact Project Phase II + III traffic would change 20 lOAM peak hour operation at the Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101 Northbound On- D ~"1p Intersection from an unacceptable . \0, E to an acceptable LOS D (a beneficial . 0 lct) but would change acceptable PM peak i,u'ur LOS D operation to an unacceptable LOSF. The project sponsor shall provide a fair share contribution towards construction of a second exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound (Oyster Point Boulevard) approach and a second exclusive left-turn lane on the northbound (Dubuque Avenue) intersection approach. Both measures would require widening existing structures. Based upon total traffic growth to 2010, the project's fair share con- tribution would be five percent of the improvement costs (see Exhibits 4.4-10 and 4.4-15). Project sponsors of Terrabay Phase II and Phase III and other local area development to pay their fair share of the improvements. Execution of amended and restated Development Agreement prior to approval of Final Subdivision Map. City Planning and Engineeling Divisions and City Attomey to monitor implementation. As part of this process, the City should review modifying the existing capital improvements program to include fair share funding mechanisms for major roadway improvements. Complete 2005 8.5 contributed 4.4-2 Year 2010 Base Case plus Phases /I + III Intersection Impact AM peak hour Base Case operation plus project traffic would change operation from an unacceptable LOS E to an acceptable LOS D at the Sister Cities Boulevard / Bayshore Boulevard / Airport Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard Intersection (a beneficial hnpact), Dui accepiabie LOS D PM peak hour operation would change to an unacceptable LOS F. TRAFFIC MITIGA T/ON -- PHASE 1998-1999 SEIR IMPACT III SITE MIT/GA nON The project sponsor shall provide a fair share contribution towards restriping the westbound (Oyster Point Boulevard) intersection approach (to provide a single left turn lane, two exclusive through lanes, and a shared through / right turn lane). A contribution also would be needed towards a third westbound departure lane (on Sister Cities Boulevard) which then would merge into the two existing departure lanes just west of the intersection. In addition, although not strictly needed for capacity reasons, restrlping also is recommended for the southbound (Bayshore Boulevard) intersection approach (to provide an exclusive right, a sllared through / right, a through, and two left turn lanes) Based upon total traffic growth to 2010, the project's fair share contribution would be 21 percent of the improvement costs.. II IMPLEMENTED BY Project sponSors of Terrabay Phase II and Phase III and other local area development to pay their fair share of the improvements. WHEN IMPLEMENTED Execution of amended and restated Development Agreement prior to approval of Final Subdivision Map. MONITORED BY City Planning and Engineering Divisions and City Attorney to monitor implementation. As part of this process, the City should review modifYing the existing capital improvements program to include fair share funding mechanisms for major roadway improvements. Mil VERIFIED BY / DA TE Complete 2005 8.5 Mil contributed VERIFIED BY I DA TE MONITORED BY City Engineer WHEN IMPLEMENTED Improvements to be on building pemlit drawings IMPLEMENTED BY Sponsor Project MITIGA nON Lengthening the Sister Cities Boulevard left turn pocket (at Airport Boulevard) to 325 feet would reduce queuing impacts to less than significant at this intersection that currently experiences unacceptable base queuing. 13 Airport Project Access: Mitigations include lengthening the left turn lane on the Airport Boulevard approach to the Project access intersection in conjunction with shortening the left turn lanes on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Oyster Point Boulevard (based upon monitoring of queuing). The two other alternatives are I) striping the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to the Project access intersection as an exclusive left turn lane, a shared through/left turn lane and an exclusive through lane and provide split phase signalization; or 2) widening Airport Boulevard adjacent to the project site and providing a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to the project access intersection. TRAFFIC MITIGA nON -- PHASE III SITE 2005 SEIR IMPACT 3.1-9a and b Intersection Queuing 2020. I \0 I-" I 2005 SEIR IMPACT 3.1-10 - On Site Circulation I \0 N I Project). MITIGA TlON Pedestrian crossings at the first on-site 2006 Project intersection could disrupt traffic flow. A "walk/don't walk" signal for pedestrians is identified as a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 3.i-iQ 2005 SEIR as modified for the 2006 Project). Additionally, to address any potential queuing and stacking impacts, he first intersection on the site shall be mon tored after full project completion and occupa cy. The monitoring shall be funded through developer pass-through account. Backu s off the project site or driver confusion will r suit in signalizing the intersection with timin coordinated to the signal at the project a cess intersection with Airport Boulevard. Additionally, there will be adequate righ -of- way area to provide either an exclusive r ght turn lane and/or an exclusive left turn la eon the inbound driveway approach to the fir t intemal intersection should the results 0 the monitoring indicate the necessity to do s . Also, right-of-way will be provided on t e outbound driveway approach to Airport Ivd. to provide a second exclusive right turn I e, should the results ofthe monitoring indi ate the necessity to do so (Mitigation Measu e 3 1-10 2005 SEIR as modified for the 20 6 IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED MONITORED BY I VERIFIED BY / DA TE Project Sponsor Based upon monitoring City Engineer within two years of full project occupancy. 14 VERIFIED BY / DATE T MONITORED BY A mitigation monitor ("disturbance coordinator") hired by the City and paid for by the project sponsor. T WHEN IMPLEMENTED Note on grading and construction drawings for the building permit and before and during construction. I I IMPLEMENTED BY Project sponsor and sub- sequent developers of individual parcels to incorporate Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 into all contractors' contracts. S E f R The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommends the following measures for large construction areas located near sensitive receptors. The BAAQMD typically determines the level of significance based on the control measures implemented. These measures constitute all feasible contml measures, with the addition of a disturbance coordinator to monitor compliance with the control measures and respond to neighborhood complaints. The disturbance coordinator shall be retained by the City and paid for by the project sponsor. The following controls shall be implemented throughout the construction area: r MfT/GA nON IMPACT AIR QUALITY -- PHASE f1I SITE 2005 SEIR AND 1998 999 4.5-1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Dust generated during construction periods could result in both health and nuisance effects. Although temporary, this would be a significant impact. (Mitigation Measure 3.2.1 from the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 Project which address dust and soil erosion. Note that this mitigation is a re- statement of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 from the 1998/99 SElR.) All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily and more often when conditions warrant. This measure would reduce emissions by at least 50 percent. . All trucks hauling soil, sand, and uther luose materials shall be covered, or all trucks shall be required to maintain at least two feet of free- board. . All unpaved access roads and parking areas at construction sites shall be paved, watered three times daily, or b'eated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers. . I \0 W I All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites shall be swept daily (with water sweepers). . Streets shall be swept daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. . Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more) shall be hydroseeded or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers. . Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil binders. . 15 Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. . A disturbance coordinator, retained by the City and paid for by the project sponsor, shall be designated to be responsible for monitoring compliance with dust control measures and to respond to neighborhood concems regarding air pollutant emissions (primarily dust) during construction. The project sponsor and coordinator shall be responsible for operating a neighborhood "hotline" for neighbors to voice complaints regarding air quality during construction. 6 . The area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity shall be limited at anyone time. I ~ ~ I . Wind breaks shall be installed, or trees / vegetative wind breaks shall be plant on windward sides(s) of construction areas, if conditions war-rant, to prevent visible dust clouds from extending beyond the site. . Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph and cause visible c\ouds to extend beyond the construction site. Activities shall be suspended until the disturbance coordinator decides that the emissions from construction activities would be controlled (such as through additional watering or installation of wind fences). This measure could reduce dust emissions by up to 80 percent. . Wheel washers shall be installed for all exiting trucks, or the tires or tracks shall be washed off alllrucks and equipment leaving the site. Disturbed areas shall be replanted with vegetation as quickly as possible (within one month of the disturbance). . IMPACT I MITIGATION AIR QUALITY -- PHASE 11/ SITE 2005 SEIR AND 1998-1999 SEIR llMPLEMENTED BY --1 WHEN IMPLEMENTED -I MONITORED BY 1 VERIFIED BY / DA TE r IMPLEMENTED BY I WHEN IMPLEMENTED I MONITORED BY I VERIFIED BY / DA TE City's Engineering Prior to final acceptance of City's Engineering The City's Oyster Point Division. Division. Flyover and Final map and in the Transportation Development Agreement. Improvements were completed in 1995. COMPLETE r MIT/GA nON S E I R Air pollutant emissions which would be regionally significant could be reduced from motor vehicles through a reduction in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and reduced traffic congestion. The following measures either are included in the project design or shall be implemented by the project sponsor to reduce regionally significant air polluta1 emissions. IMPACT AIR QUALITY -- PHASE III SITE 2005 SEIR AND 1998-1999 4.5-3 Changes in Regional Long- Term Air Quality Direct and indirect emissions of air pollutants associated with full buildout of the project could interfere with the efforts within the region to attain ozone and PM 10 air quality standards. Thus, while the incremental change between the currently and previously proposed Phase II and III projects would be less-than-significant, the cumulative impact of full Terrabay project development (Phases I, II, and III) would exceed standards tightened since examination in the 1982 EIR and 1996 SEIR.i Coordinated traffic signals shall be installed to provide more efficient levels-of-service at inter- sections substantially affected by project traffic. . The draft TDM Program for the 2006 Project is included as part of the project. The project includes roadway improvements to Sister Cities Boulevard which have already been constructed. Additional intersection improvements are proposed along Bayshore Bou levard as part of Phase III. ll1is measure could reduce total year 2000 project emissions by ten (10) pounds per day of ROG, seven (7) pounds per day of NO., and one (I) pound per day of PM 10. The U.S. 101 southbound fi'eeway off ramp shall be reconstructed and a new u.s. 101 on ramp shall be constructed (the "hook ramps"). This measure would allow direct access on to the freeway, eliminating emissions associated with congestion at local intersections, which provide access to southbound u.s. 101. This measure could reduce total year 2000 project emissions by five (5) pounds per day of ROG, six (6) pounds per day of NO., and seven (7) pounds per day of PM 10. . (Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 from the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the 2006 project which requires a TDM Program. Note that this mitigation is are-statement of Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 from the 1998/99 SElR. This mitigation will reduce impacts but not mitigate to a level of insignificance as discussed in the finding below.) I \0 OJ I front A A bus shelter is in of the project site. TDM Program is proposed as part of the project. City Planning and Building Divisions. In Precise Plan and building plans. Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by Council on May 12, 1999 by Resolution #6499, however the mitigations still apply. 17 Project sponsor. Bus shelters, easy pedestrian access, and bicycle lanes shall be provided in the project design to facilitate alternative modes of transportation. This measure could reduce total year 2000 project emissions by ten (10) pounds per day of ROG, 12 pounds per day of NO., and 11 pounds per day of PM to- Noise Disturbance Coordinator A project construction supervisor shall be designated as a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise (as was done for Phase I site development). The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause ofthe noise cOlnplaints (such as starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shaH require implementation of reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. The telephone number of the disturbance coordinator also shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site 8 . Equipment Location and Shielding Stationary noise-generating construction equipment shall be located as far as possible from nearby residences. I \0 0\ I . . . ..~litigation }.-feasure 3.3-1 frOth the 2005 SEIR ' restates Mitigation Measure 4.6-/ ft"om the /998/99 SEIR. . Idling Prohibitions Powered construction equipment shaIl be turned off when not in use. Mufflers and Maintenance All equipment used on the project site shall be adequately muffled and maintained. AIl internal combustion engine-driven equipment shaH be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers, which are in good condition. Use of good mufflers with quieted compressors on all non-impact tools should result in a maximum noise level of 85 dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet. Construction Scheduling Noise-generating construction activities, including tmck traffic going to and from the sile for any purpose, and maintenance and servicing activities for construction equipment, shall be limited to the hours stipulated by the City's Noise Ordinance which are 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Sundays. 2005 1998-1999 4.6-1 Construction Noise Impacts During construction periods, noise levels would be elevated in the Project area S E I R The following measures shall be required to reduce the project's short-term construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level: Project sponsor or sub- sequent developers in contracis of all contrac- tors involved in site preparation and developtnent activities. Mitigation Monitoring Coordinator to super- vise project construction for each phase of development. IMPACT NOISE -- PHASE S E I R SITE AND 1 MITIGA nON l/MPLEMENTED BY I WHEN IMPLEMENTED ~_ MONITORED BY Throughout Phase III construction. City Engineering Division to grant grading and building permits contingent on full compliance with the measures. 1 VERIFIED BY / DA TE MONITORED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED IMPLEMENTED BY MITIGA TION Prior to issuance of building permits. City Planner and City Attomey Project Sponsor to be drafted in the CC&R's for the Project Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 from the 2005 SEJR requiring disclosure of the location of the airport on CC&R's for the 2006 Project. S E I R 19 impact Airports NOTE: This is technically not an under CEQA but is included at the request on the 2005 Project 999 Impact 3.3-1 from the 2005 SEJR Noise rrom the airport may disturb some project occupants although the Project is not within the 65 dBA, CNEL airport contour. 998 I \0 'I I -1Q96 SEIR 1- ~ lid Waste '...upplementallmpact PS-5 Recycling Pro- gram Collection Services State law requires provision of adequate space for recycling in multiple family residential projects with five or more units and all new commercial developments. Future pro- ject phase multi-family residential and commercial development may not include adequate provision for collection ofrecyclable materials. TI1is situation would represent a significant adverse project im- pact. 11 order to ensure that project waste is recycled in a manner consistent with the State-mandated require- ment that the City divert at least 50 percent of po- tential waste rrom landfill disposal by 2000, require the design of fuIure project development to provide common exterior trash and recyclable material stor- age areas in commercial developments and in those multi-family developments that would use dump- sters, rather than relying on individual curbside pick-up for trash collection. Such areas should be conveniently located and accessible to residents and collection vehicles and personnel, properly protect- ed rrom the elements, screened, and architecturally integrated into the development. 20 Project sponsor Architectural drawings for building petmit City Planner and Building Division 4.7-6 Police Impact from Cumulative Development Substantial cumulative develop- ment by the year 2010 would greatly increase the number of calls for service to the South San Fran- cisco Police Department and could require an estim- ated 5.4 to 6.2 additional police positions plus two additional police vehicles. While these cumulative impacts would be significant, the incremental contri- bution of Terrabay Phase II and III development would not be "considerable", thus less-than-signifi- cant for the purposes ofCEQA. No additional mitigation would be required of the Terrabay Phase II or HI project than identified by Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 and the J982 ElR / 1996 SElR. The prior ElRs required funding provision of a separate new fully-staffed beat (/982 EIR) to con- sist ofthree officer positions and one new patrol vehicle (1996 SEJR). Prior to certi ficate of Occupancy for Phase office tower. 4.7-4 Radio communications are impacted on the eastern slope of San Bruno Mountain Installation of relay equipment to facilitate police and fire communications on the first lower constructed. Project Sponsor Prior to Certificate of occupancy on Phase I office tower. Police Chief IMPACT PUBLIC SERVICE MITIGA TION 1998-1999 SEIR 4.7-2 and 3 Combined Project Impact on Police Services The combined effect of Terra bay Phase II and HI development according to the 1998 Precise Plan could be interpreted to require one additional police position (0.91 position) which stilI would represent a less-than-significant impact. The mitigation requires the funding of one new police position and one new vehicle and is a restatement of the ] 996 SEIR and ] 982 EIR Project sponsor Prior to Certificate of occupancy on first tower. Police Chief. PHASE II l MITIGA nON SITE Project spOnsor llMPLEMENTED BY --L WHEN IMPLEMENTED ~_MONITORED BY Police Chief. J VERIFIED BY / DATE VERIFIED BY / DATE MONITORED BY Fire Chief WHEN IMPLEMENTED Prior to certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1 office tower. IMPLEMENTED BY Project Sponsor MITIGA nON TIle South San Francisco Fire Marshall, Brian Niswonger evaluated the 2006 Project and found that the mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR apply to the 2006 Project The Mitigation Measure (unnumbered) requires the addition of one fire fighter position to Station 1. 1982 EfR IMPACT Unnumbered rrom 1982 Impact on Fire Services....staffing shortage City's Planning Divi- sion, HCP Adminis- trator. II. Completion of Phase Project sponsor. The County Department of Parks and Recreation has recommended that the open space areas of the pro- ject be deeded in fee to the County and fenced. Parks and Recreation TIle project design designates approximately 46 per- cent (153 acres) of the site as open space. Most of the open space is adjacent to the San Bruno Moun- tain State and County Park. The project sponsor has agreed to dedicate all undisturbed areas of the pro- ject site to the County as pemmnent open space. 'The Sail Bnmo Mountain Hep stipulates dedication of the project's undeveloped open space at the time the first grading permits are granted for the parcel of the project to which it pertains. i Complete. City's Planning Divi- sion, HCP Adminis- trator, and County, Being implemented Project sponsor, HCP Administrator, City and County. Upon project approval, the project sponsor has agreed to dedicate Juncus Ravine to the County as permanent open space. access to San is Juncus Ravine, a separate I 57-acre parcel ofland, lor'lted west of Hillside Elementary School. This ~ 1 has been designated general open space on the \0 Jnty General Plan and as a community park on I City's General Plan. The proposed project provides for trai Bruno Mountain. City accepted in lieu fee September 25, 1996 by Ordinance 1191-96, for Phase 1, II, and III impacts. COMPLETE A 2,000 square foot child care center would be located within Terrabay Village. TIle Terrabay Development plan indicates develop- ment of Hillside Recreation Center, a four-acre community park with both indoor and outdoor facilities. COMPLETE The Terrabay Development concept also indicates improvement of four acres of Hillside Elementary School with development of an illuminated adult softball field, soccer field, bleachers, and a restroom. Maps Pages 82-85 in Volume 53 at San Mateo County in 1983. The parcel This is included in this document as provisions for open space were addressed by recordation of Parcel maps addressed all the remainder lands for dedication for Phases I, II and III. 21 I I-' o o I 22 August 2006. AKW PROPOSED COMPLETE AS The project would not have a significant impact on the microclimate of the area, but the microclimate could impact proposed uses. Wind would have the most direct impact on outdoor activities. TIle current layout locates most of the project in areas at least partially sheltered rrom the wind. Nevertheless, the entire site would be breezy. Care should be taken in the layout of buildings and the planting of vegetation to put wind-sensitive activit- ies to the east of some form of sheller. Vegetation, such as trees and hedges, are the most effective wind shelter. Where this type of windbreak is not feasible, porous screens could be used, such as the kind installed around tennis courts. Prior to Re-entitIement City Planner. A wind analysis was conducted for Phase III. The 2006 Project is in the lee of the Mountain and the site planning is designed to take advantage of the micro climate and sunlight. The 2006 Project is designed to avoid the creation of a wind tunnel. IMPACT I MITIGATION WIND AND CUMA TE MIT/GA TlON -- PHASE III SITE 1982 EIR Project architect. 1,MPLEMENTED BY 1 WHEN IMPLEMENTED ~... MONITORED BY 1 VERIFIED BY / DA TE APPENDIX Air Quality, Miller Consulting Traffic, Crane Transportation Group -101- -102- AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS REPORT APPENDICES Greenhouse Gas Calculations 2006 Addendum GHG Summary Emissions 2006 Addendum Electrical Use 2008 Addendum GHG Summary Emissions (Ancillary) 2008 Addendum Electrical Use (Ancillary) 2008 Addendum GHG Summary Emissions (R&D) 2008 Addendum Electrical Use (R&D) URBEMIS Results Existing 2006 Addendum Annual Existing 2006 Addendum Summer Existing 2006 Addendum Winter 2008 Addendum Annual (Ancillary) 2008 Addendum Summer (Ancillary) 2008 Addendum Winter (Ancillary) 2008 Addendum Annual (R&D) 2008 Addendum Summer (R&D) 2008 Addendum Winter (R&D) -103- -104- 52.5% 0.008% Percentage of 25,000 Percentage of 174 Million Ibslmetric ton = 2204.62 PG&E Carbon Footprint C..lculator gives C02 output emission rate (lbslklJ\h1) 0.524 IbslklJ\h1 Pg. 87 (CCARRP) gives Mathane and Nitrous Oxide electricity emission factors (lbs/mlJ\h1) Methane - 0.0067 (lbslmlJ\h1) Nitrous Oxide - 0.0037 (lbs/mlJ\h1) Pg. 85 (CCARRP) gives C02 equivalency factors Pg. 32 (CCARRP) gives Equations Notes and References: Total Emissions from Indir,act Electricity Use Formula and Emission Fac~or from The California Climate Action Registry Report Protocol 2006 Metric Tons 883 613 4 1,481 494 Tons from URBEMIS 20011 951 2000 676 201C) 5 Total Construction 1,632 Average Per Year 544 Total Annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission from Project Construction -- All Sources (C02 equivalent Metric Tons) Metric Tons/Yr C02e emissions Metric Tons/Yr C02e emissions Metric TonslVr C02e emissions Metric Tons/Yr C02e emissions 944 9,976 2,204 13,124 Area Sources Vehicles Electrical Use Total- Total Annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission from Project Operations -- All Sources (C02 equivalent Metric Tons) I Annual C02 Equivalent Emissions (metril:: tons) 2,199 5 1 2;204 Annual I C02 Emission Factor Project GHGs Equivalent Ib/mlJ\h1 Electricity mlJ\h1 metric tons Factor 524 9,250 2,199 1 0.0037 9,250 0.0 296 0.0067 9,250 0.0 23 Total Indirect GHG Emissions from Project Electricity Use- 9,250,213 klJ\h1 (kilowatt hours)/year 9,250 mlJ\h1 (megawatt hours)lyear Estimated Project Annual Electrical Use: Indirect Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Project use of Electricity (Power Plant Emissions) 10,920 12,037 24,074,400 Total Emissions (area s;ources + vehicles) ) Metric Tons 944 9,976 Annual Emissions pounds (Ibs.) Tons 2,080,480 1,040 21,993,920 10,997 URBEMIS2007 Area Emissions URBEMIS2007 Vehicle Emissions Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Area Sources and Vehicles T e/Tabay 2006 Project Name: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Calculations Annual kWh Calculations for Project Emissions of Electricty Used by the project Project Name: Terrabay 2006 Project Total GHG Emissions From Commercial Electricity Use Average monthly consumption (kWh) Office* (kWh/sq fiN ear) 12.95 Quality Restaurant* (kWh/sq fiN ear) 47.45 Retail* (kWh/sq fiN ear) 13.55 Child Care* (kWh/sq fiN ear) 5.9 Performing Arts Facility* (kWh/sq fiN ear) 10.5 square footage** kWhours per year 665,028 square footage** 8,612,113 kWhours per year 7,000 square footage** 332,150 kWhours per year 18,000 square footage** 243,900 kWhours per year 5,000 square footage** 29,500 kWhours per year Total 3,100 698,128 32,550 kWhours per year 9,250,213 *Electricity Usage Rates from Table A9-11-A South Coast AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook 1993 - Usage Rate is Average for SCE and LADWP **Based on project description -105- -106- 52.2% 0.008% Percentage of 25,000 Percentage of 174 Minion Ibs/metric ton ,= 2204.62 PG&E Carbon Footp'int Calculator gives CO2 output emission rete (bslkWl) 0.524 Ibsik'Ml Pg. 87 (CCARRP) giles Methane lirld Nitrous Oxde electricity emission factors (lbsJmWl) Methane - 0.0037 (lbsJrrNIhl) Nitrous Oxide - 0.0037 (lbs/mWl) Pg. 85 (CCARRP) gites C02 equivalency factors Pg. 32 (CCARRP) gites Equations Notes and References: Total Emissions from Indirect Electricity Use Fonnula and Emission Fllctor from The Caifomia Climate Action Regstry Report Protocol 2006 Metric Tons 863 622 4 1,489 496 Tons from URBEMIS 2008 951 201)9 686 20'10 5 Total Conslluction 1,642 Average Per Year 547 Total Annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission from Project Construction - All Sources (C02 equivalent Metric Tons) Metric TonslYr C02e emssions Metric TonslYr C02e emssions Metric TonslYr C02e emssions Metric TonslYr C02e emssions 961 9,902 2,196 13,060 Area Sources Vehicles Elecb1cal Use Total" Total Annual C:;reenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission from Project Operations -- All Sources (C02 equivalent Metric Tons) I Annual I C02 Emission Fador Project GHGs Equivalent Ib/mWl Electricity mWl metric tons Factor 524 9,219 2,191 1 0.0037 9,219 0.0 296 0.0067 9,219 0.0 23 Total Indirect GHG Emlaslons from Project Electricity Use.. 9,219,056 kWl (kilowatt hoursyYear 9,219 mWl (megawatt hOISS)/year Estimated Project Anrual Bactrical Use: Indirect Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Project use of Electricity (Power Plant Emissions) 10,863 11,975 23,949,140 Total Emissions (area sources + vehicles) ) Metric Tons 961 9,902 Annual Emissions pounds (Ibs.) Tons 2,119,060 1,060 21,830,080 10,915 URBEMIS2oo7 Area Emissions URBEMIS2007 Vehicle Emissions Greenhouse 13as (GHG) Emissions from Area Sources. and Vehicles T errabay 2006 AnciKary Project Name: Greenhouse IGas (GHG) Emissions Calculations Annual kWh Calculations for Project Emissions of Electricty Used by the project Project Name: Terrabay 2008 Ancillary Project Total GHG Emissions From Commercial Electricity Use Average monthly consumption (kWh) Office* square footage** (kWh/sq ft/Y ear) 12.95 662,528 Quality Restaurant* square footage** (kWh/sq ft/Y ear) 47.45 7,000 Retail* square footage** (kWh/sq ft/Year) 13.55 17,009 Child Care* square footage** (kWh/sq ft/Y ear) 5.9 5,644 Performing Arts Facility* square footage** (kWh/sq ft/Y ear) 10.5 4,133 Product Design Studio square footage** (kWh/sq ft/Year) 4.35 15,007 Total 711,321 kWhours per year 8,579,738 kWhours per year 332,150 kWhours per year 230,472 kWhours per year 33,300 kWhours per year 43,397 kWhours per year 65,280 kWhours per year 9,219,056 *Electricity Usage Rates from Table A9-11-A South Coast AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook 1993 - Usage Rate is Average for SCE and LADWP **Based on project description -107- -108- 52.8% 0.008% Percentage of 25,000 Percentage of 174 Minion Ibs/metric ton = 2204.62 PG&E Carbon Footpint Calculator gives CO2 output emission rate (bs/kVlh1) 0.5241bslkWl Pg. 87 (CCARRP) giles Methane II1d Nitrous Olide electricity emission factors (lbs/mVlh1) Methane - 0.Oal7 (lbs/rrl.M1) Nitrous Oxide - 00037 (lbsJrn'Ml) Pg. 32 (CCARRP) giles Equations Pg. 85 (CCARRP) giles C02 equwalency factors Notes and References: Total Emissions from Indirect Electricity Use Formula and Emission Factor from The Caifomia Climate Action Registry Report Protocol 2006 Metric Tons 863 622 4 1,489 496 Tons from URBEMIS 2008 951 2009 686 2010 5 Total Construction 1,642 Average Per Year 547 Total Annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission from Project Construction -- All Sources (C02 equivalent Metric Tons) Metric TonslYr C02e enissions Metric TonslYr C02e errissions Metric T ons/Yr C02e errissions Metric Tons/Yr C02e enissions 961 10,037 2,196 13,194 Area Sources Vehicles Electrical Use Total" Total Annual (ireenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission from Project Operations -- All Sources (C02 equivalent Metric Tons) 9,219,056 kVlh1 (kHowatt hoursyYear 9,219 mVlh1 (megawatt hOLrS)/year I Annual I C02 I Annual Emission Factor Project GHGs Equivalent C02 Equivalent IblmVlh1 Electricity mVlh1 metric tons Factor 524 9,219 2,191 1 0.0037 9,219 0.0 296 0.0067 9,219 0.0 23 Total Indirect GHG Emissions from Project Electricity Use" Estimeted Freject Anroal Electrical Use: Indirect Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Project use of' Electricity (Power Plant Emissions) 10,998 12,123 24,246,280 Total Emissions (areasources + vehicles) ) Metric Tons 961 10,037 Annual Emissions pounds (Ibs. ) Tons 2,119,060 1,060 22,127,220 11,064 URBEMIS2007 Area Emissions URBEMIS2007 Vehicle Emissions Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Area Sources and Vehicles Terrabay 2008 R&D Project Name' Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Calculations Annual kWh Calculations for Project Emissions of Electricty Used by the project Project Name: Terrabay 2008 R&D Project Total GHG Emissions From Commercial Electricity Use Average monthly consumption (kWh) Office* square footage** (kWh/sq ftlYear) 12.95 662,528 Quality Restaurant* square footage** (kWh/sq ftlYear) 47.45 7,000 Retail* square footage** (kWh/sq ftIY ear) 13.55 17,009 Child Care* square footage** (kWh/sq ftIY ear) 5.9 5,644 Performing Arts Facility* square footage** (kWh/sq ftIY ear) 10.5 4,133 Product Design Studio square footage** (kWh/sq ftIY ear) 4.35 15,007 Total 711,321 kWhours per year 8,579,738 kWhours per year 332,150 kWhours per year 230,472 kWhours per year 33,300 kWhours per year 43,397 kWhours per year 65,280 kWhours per year 9,219,056 *Electricity Usage Rates from Table A9-11-A South Coast AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook 1993 - Usage Rate is Average for SCE and LADWP **Based on project description -109- Page: 1 7/5/2008 9:29:24 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (TonsNear) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lois Clarke\My Documents\Lois\Miller Envt Inc\Terrabay\Analysis\Terrabay Existing SMC.urb924 Project Name: Terrabay Existing SMC Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 I ..... ..... 0 I CQ2 951 .48 676.25 4.67 QQ2. Page: 2 7/5/2008 9:29:24 PM Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES BOO llillI. CQ SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust EMti! PM2 5 Dust E.M2...5. ~ Exhaust 2008 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.60 8.22 2.96 0.01 6.44 0.34 6.77 1.35 0.31 1.66 2009 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 4.15 2.79 6.07 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.20 0.01 0.16 0.17 2010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 3.93 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG ~ .QQ ~ PM10 PM2.5 CO2 1 ::: 'TALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.87 0.88 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,040.24 ~ I OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES BOO ~ CQ ~ E.M1!l PM25 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 10.07 12.21 122.97 0.11 20.73 3.89 10,996.96 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES BOO ~ CQ ~ E.M1!l ~ ~ TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 10.94 13.09 124.40 0.11 20.73 3.89 12,037.20 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated BOO ~ .QQ ~ PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust E.M1Q PM2 5 Dust PM2 5 Exhaust ~ Page: 3 7/5/2008 9:29:24 PM 2008 Mass Grading 08/04/2008- 09/26/2008 Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Fine Grading 10/06/2008- 11/28/2008 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel I I--' Fine Grading Worker Trips I--' Nrenching 12/01/2008-01/30/2009 I Trenching Off Road Diesel Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .17 0.03 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 19.72 0.03 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 20.89 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.55 0.19 3.24 .01 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.11 0.12 402.60 0.09 0.75 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 60.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.20 0.00 3.20 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.28 3.99 .42 0.00 3.22 0.16 3.38 0.67 0.15 0.82 465.30 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.55 0.19 0.00 0.09 3.24 0.00 0.75 .01 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 3.20 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.14 3.20 0.04 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.67 0.04 402.60 0.00 60.15 0.28 0.60 3.99 8.22 .42 2.96 0.00 0.01 3.22 6.44 0.16 0.34 3.38 6.77 0.67 1.35 0.15 0.31 0.82 .66 465.30 951.48 Page: 4 7/5/2008 9:29:24 PM 676.25 19.98 18.86 0.17 0.Q1 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.07 0.10 2.79 0.21 4.15 0.02 12/01/2008-01/30/2009 2009 Trenching 0.09 0.21 0.02 Trenching Off Road Diesel 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Trenching Worker Trips 31.49 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.35 0.07 Asphalt 02/02/2009-03/27/2009 0.00 22.64 4.78 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.31 0.01 0.05 Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel 0.Q1 0.04 0.00 Paving On Road Diesel 4.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 Paving Worker Trips 620.55 0.13 0.12 0.01 0.16 0.14 0.02 0.00 5.69 2.23 0.51 Building 04106/2009-11127/2009 137.80 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.98 .47 0.33 Building Off Road Diesel 95.88 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.50 0.04 Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips ..... ..... W I 386.87 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 4.35 0.25 0.14 4.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 3.55 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.55 Architectural Coating 4.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 4.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 3.93 2010 4.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 3.93 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.93 Architectural Coating 4.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips n~f~II" I:'ino ~itc r:::.r~""'inn no~,..rintinn Ul;O.D\.AIIL' If''''' ......,...... _'U"',"I~ _.................u..... - 11/28/2008 n....___. ~;__ r".._....:..._ rIICl;:)C. rille UIClUIIIY Total Acres Disturbed: 32.05 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.01 1 0/6/2008 Page: 5 7/5/2008 9:29:24 PM Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 8/4/2008 - 9/26/2008 - Type Your Description Here Total Acres Disturbed: 32.05 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.01 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default I !--' Ibs per acre-day !--' Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 joj:::.. I ~Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 12/1/2008 - 1/30/2009 - Type Your Description Here Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/2/2009 - 3/27/2009 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 8.01 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 6 7/5/2008 9:29:24 PM 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 4/6/2009 - 11/27/2009 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day ~ ase: Architectural Coating 12/7/2009 - 1/29/2010 - Default Architectural Coating Description ~ Ie: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 U1 I Ie: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 1213112040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/3112040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12131/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page:? 7/5/2008 9:29:24 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ~ ROO. NUx .c.o. Natural Gas 0.06 0.87 0.73 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape 0.06 0.01 0.70 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.75 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.87 0.88 1.43 I Area Source Chances to fmlII ~ ~ rcentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 35% to 0% I Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 55% to 0% Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ~ ROG NOX CO Day-care center 0.01 0.00 0.03 Quality resturant 0.67 0.87 8.66 Regnl shop. center 0.82 1.05 10.42 General office building 8.53 10.25 103.44 Performing Arts 0.04 0.04 0.42 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 10.07 12.21 122.97 0.11 0.00 0.09 0.Q1 0.01 0.00 S02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~ 20.73 0.07 17 .40 .78 .48 0.00 PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EM1D. 3.89 0.01 3.27 0.33 0.28 0.00 PM25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EMU QQZ ,038.98 0.00 1.26 ,040.24 CO2 2.52 780.93 940.99 9,234.78 37.74 10,996.96 Total VMT 15.29 4,736.23 5,714.20 55,716.12 229.18 66,411.02 Diesel 0.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 28.6 33.3 77.8 Total Trips 2.05 629.65 772.92 6,876.41 31.00 8,312.03 Catalyst 98.5 95.8 99.5 100.0 71.4 66.7 22.2 Page: 8 7/5/20089:29:24 PM Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Day-care center 0.41 1000 sq ft 5.00 Quality resturant 89.95 1000 sq ft 7.00 I gnl shop. center 42.94 1000 sq ft 18.00 ~ ~ 'neral office building 10.34 1000 sq ft 665.03 I Performing Arts 10.00 1000 sq ft 3.10 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Light Auto 55.9 1.1 Light Truck < 3750 Ibs 11.9 1.7 Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs 20.2 0.5 Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs 6.3 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs 0.7 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs 0.6 0.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs 0.9 0.0 Page: 9 7/5/2008 9:29:24 PM Vehicle Type Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home I I--" I--" Ian Trip Length (miles) 00 ,',ural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Day-care center Quality resturant Regnl shop. center General office building Performing Arts Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.8 67.9 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 5.0 2.5 8.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 35.0 17.5 2.0 .0 Diesel 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Customer 7.4 6.6 35.0 92.5 88.0 97.0 47.5 97.0 Page: 7/5/20089:28:49 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lois Clarke\My Documents\Lois\Miller Envt Inc\Terrabay\Analysis\Terrabay Existing SMC.urb924 Project Name: Terrabay Existing SMC Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 I ~ ~ \0 I Page: 2 7/5/20089:28:49 PM Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES .BOO llI.Qx .c.o. SQZ PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust E.M1Jl PM2 5 Dust EMU EM2.Q .c.Q.2 ~ 2008 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 14.22 199.64 71.20 0.19 160.91 8.16 169.07 33.69 7.50 41.19 23,264.78 2009 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 374.04 26.20 66.96 0.05 0.26 1.60 1.87 0.09 1.46 1.56 7,300.59 2010 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 374.02 0.26 4.60 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 444.75 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES I ROO ~ .c.o. ~ EM1O. ~ .QQ2. :::; 'TALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 5.04 4.84 11.72 0.00 0.04 0.04 5,707.08 0 I OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES BOO ~ m ~ EM1O. ~ ~ TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 53.18 56.93 658.35 0.62 113.65 21.34 63,212.01 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG ~ ~ SQ2 EM1O. PM25 .QQ2. TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 58.22 61.77 670.07 0.62 113.69 21.38 68,919.09 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated BOO ~ CO ~ PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2 5 Dust PM2 5 Exhaust PM25 ~ Page: 3 7/5/2008 9:28:49 PM 23.264.78 41.19 U!!. 33.69 lli.Jrr 8.12 160.91 Q..li .I1.2O. 199.64 1422 Time Slice 8f4f2008-9f26f2008 Active Days: 40 23,264.78 0.00 3,007.48 41.19 33.46 .87 7.50 0.00 .87 33.69 33.46 0.00 169.07 160.20 2.03 8.16 0.00 2.03 160.91 160.20 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 71.20 0.00 18.93 199.64 0.00 37.73 14.22 0.00 4.62 Mass Grading 08f04f2008- 09f26f2008 Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 20,130.04 5.86 5.63 0.23 6.83 6.12 0.70 0.19 50.70 161.82 9.55 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 127.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 .56 0.09 0.05 Mass Grading Worker Trips 23264.78 ~ I..5Q an 16.MI Mi lli..n o..1S. Z1.,1Q lliM H.2.2. Time Slice 1 Of6f2008-11 f28f2008 Active Days: 40 23,264.78 41.19 7.50 33.69 169.07 8.16 160.91 0.19 71.20 199.64 14.22 Fine Grading 10f06f2008- 11 f28f2008 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 33.46 0.00 33.46 160.20 0.00 160.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,007.48 .87 .87 0.00 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 18.93 37.73 4.62 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 20,130.04 5.86 5.63 0.23 6.83 6.12 0.70 0.19 50.70 161.82 9.55 Fine Grading On Road Diesel ~ tv ~ I 127.26 ,816.45 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.01 .01 0.00 .00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 .56 9.71 0.09 20.19 0.05 2.37 Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 12f1f2008-12f3112008 Active Days: 23 Trenching 12/01f2008-01f30/2009 ,816.45 0.92 0.92 0.00 .01 .00 0.00 0.00 9.71 20.19 2.37 ,714.64 0.92 0.92 0.00 .00 .00 0.00 0.00 8.46 20.12 2.33 Trenching Off Road Diesel 101.81 ,816.50 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.94 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .25 9.47 0.07 18.96 0.04 2.22 Trenching Worker Trips Time Slice 111 f2009-1 f30f2009 Active Days: 22 Trenching 12f01f2008-01f30/2009 ,816.50 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.94 0.93 0.00 0.00 9.47 18.96 2.22 ,714.64 101.86 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.01 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.32 15 18.90 0.07 2.18 0.04 Trenching Off Road Diesel Trenching Worker Trips Phase: Fine Grading 10/6/2008 - 11/28/2008 Total Acres Disturbed: 32.05 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.01 Default Fine Site Grading Description Ph Coating Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.60 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 444.75 Architectural Coating Time Slice 1/1/2010-1/29/2010 Active Days: 21 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 373.87 374.02 0.00 0.26 0.00 4.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 444.75 ~ Q.22 ~ Q.Q2 Q.QZ Q..Q1 11m Q..Q1 Q..Q1 Q.QZ ~ Coating Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 444.47 Architectural Coating I j-l Trips N N 1e Slice 12/7/2009-12/31/2009 .'._live Days: 19 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 373.87 374.04 0.00 0.29 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 444.47 ~ 0.29 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 444.47 Building Worker .67 2.92 51 18 0.04 0.22 0.11 0.33 0.08 0.09 0.17 4,551.36 Building Vendor Trips 0.42 5.93 4.27 0.01 0.04 0.22 0.26 0.01 0.20 0.21 ,128.04 Building Off Road Diesel Time Slice 4/6/2009-11/27/2009 Active Days: 170 Building 04/06/2009-11/27/2009 3.87 5.96 17.35 26.20 11.50 66.96 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.26 .28 .60 .28 .87 0.00 0.09 .17 .46 17 .56 1,621.20 7,300.59 5.96 22.2.Q ~ ~ .Q.2.6. 1.QQ 1J!I Q.QQ 1M. jM ~ Paving Worker Trips 0.11 0.07 0.13 2.29 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 203.73 Paving On Road Diesel 1.78 0.55 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.06 239.00 Paving Off Road Diesel Time Slice 2/2/2009-3/27/2009 Active Days: 40 Asphalt 02/02/2009-03/27/2009 Paving Off-Gas 2.62 0.52 3.33 15.62 0.00 17.52 8.36 11.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 .33 .40 0.00 .33 .42 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 .22 .29 0.00 1.22 .29 0.00 ,131.92 ,574.65 0.00 7/5/20089:28:49 PM Page: 4 3.33 17.52 11.20 0.00 0.02 .40 .42 0.01 .29 1.29 1,574.65 Page: 5 7/5/2008 9:28:49 PM Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 8/4/2008 - 9/26/2008 - Type Your Description Here Total Acres Disturbed: 32.05 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.01 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default I I-" Ibs per acre-day tv Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 W 1 -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factorfor 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 12/1/2008 - 1130/2009 - Type Your Description Here Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/2/2009 - 3/27/2009 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 8.01 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 6 7/5/20089:28:49 PM 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor iOf 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 4/6/2009 - 11/27/2009 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day I Jse: Architectural Coating 12/7/2009 - 1/29/2010 - Default Architectural Coating Description .... N e: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 ~ I e: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 111/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 em. 5,693.04 14.04 5,707.08 CO2 14.48 4,489.81 5,410.32 53,080.40 217.00 63,212.01 E.M2...5. 0.01 0.03 0.04 PM25 0.00 .52 .84 17.91 0.07 21.34 EM1Q. 0.01 0.03 0.04 PM10 0.03 8.10 9.78 95.35 0.39 113.65 ~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 S02 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.53 0.00 0.62 Page:? 7/5/2008 9:28:49 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ~ ROO t:!Qx .cu Natural Gas 0.34 4.74 3.99 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.61 0.10 7.73 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 4.09 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 5.04 4.84 11.72 I Area SourC'.e Chances to Defaultl ~ ~ centage of residences with wood stoves changed from 35% to 0% I Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 55% to 0% Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ~ ROG NOX CO Day-care center 0.06 0.01 0.15 Quality resturant 3.39 4.07 46.15 Regnl shop. center 4.16 4.92 55.39 General office building 45.38 47.73 554.44 Performing Arts 0.19 0.20 2.22 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 53.18 56.93 658.35 Page: 8 7/5/2008 9:28:49 PM Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Day-care center 0.41 1000 sq ft 5.00 Quality resturant 89.95 1000 sq ft 7.00 I ~nl shop. center 42.94 1000 sq ft 18.00 ..... ~ neral office building 10.34 1000 sq ft 665.03 I Performing Arts 10.00 1000 sq ft 3.10 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Light Auto 55.9 1.1 Light Truck < 3750 Ibs 11.9 1.7 Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs 20.2 0.5 Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs 6.3 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs 0.7 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs 0.6 0.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs 0.9 0.0 Total Trips 2.05 629.65 772.92 6,876.41 31.00 8,312.03 Catalyst 98.5 95.8 99.5 100.0 71.4 66.7 22.2 Total VMT 15.29 4,736.23 5,714.20 55,716.12 229.18 66,411.02 Diesel 0.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 28.6 33.3 77.8 Diesel 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Customer 7.4 6.6 35.0 92.5 88.0 97.0 47.5 97.0 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.8 67.9 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 5.0 2.5 8.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 35.0 17.5 2.0 .0 Page: 9 7/5/2008 9:28:49 PM Vehicle Type Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home I ~ IV Ian Trip Length (miles) 'I ~u..al Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Day-care center Quality resturant Regnl shop. center General office building Performing Arts Page: 7/5/2008 9:29:08 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lois Clarke\My Documents\Lois\Miller Envt Inc\Terrabay\Analysis\Terrabay Existing SMC.urb924 Project Name: Terrabay Existing SMC Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 I ...... N 00 I Page: 2 7/5/2008 9:29:08 PM Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES BOO ~ m SQ2. PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust ~ PM2 5 Dust ~ ~ CQ2. Exhaust 2008 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 14.22 199.64 71.20 0.19 160.91 8.16 169.07 33.69 7.50 41.19 23,264.78 2009 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 374.04 26.20 66.96 0.05 0.26 1.60 1.87 0.09 1.46 1.56 7,300.59 2010 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 374.02 0.26 4.60 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 444.75 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES BOO ~ gQ S02 PM10 PM25 ~ I ~ TALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 4.43 4.74 3.99 0.00 0.01 0.01 5,693.04 \0 I OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES BOO ~ m ~ PM10 PM25 ~ TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 59.09 87.07 704.62 0.54 113.65 21.34 54,347.86 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES BOO ~ Ql ~ EM1Q ~ ~ TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 63.52 91.81 708.61 0.54 113.66 21.35 60,040.90 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated BOO ~ m ~ PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2 5 Dust PM2 5 Exhaust PM25 ~ Trenching Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 01.86 Trenching Off Road Diesel Time Slice 1/1/2009-1/30/2009 Active Days: 22 Trenching 12/01/2008-01/30/2009 2.18 2.22 18.90 18.96 8.32 9.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 ,714.64 ,816.50 2.22 18.96 9.47 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.94 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,816.50 Trenching Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 .25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 101.81 Trenching Off Road Diesel Time Slice 12/1/2008-12/31/2008 Active Days: 23 Trenching 12/01/2008-01/30/2009 2.33 2.37 20.12 20.19 8.46 9.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 .00 1.00 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1,714.64 ,816.45 2.37 20.19 9.71 0.00 0.00 .00 .01 0.00 0.92 0.92 ,816.45 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.05 0.09 .56 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 127.26 I ....... W o I Fine Grading On Road Diesel 9.55 161.82 50.70 0.19 0.70 6.12 6.83 0.23 5.63 5.86 20,130.04 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 4.62 37.73 18.93 0.00 0.00 2.03 2.03 0.00 .87 1.87 3,007.48 Fine Grading 11/28/2008 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 160.20 0.00 160.20 33.46 0.00 33.46 0.00 10/06/2008- 14.22 199.64 71.20 0.19 160.91 8.16 169.07 33.69 7.50 41.19 23,264.78 Time Slice 10/6/2008-11/28/2008 Active Days: 40 M.22. .1RH zuo. o.n lli.i1 J!...16. m.oz 3Ui l..SQ ~ 23 264 78 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.05 0.09 .56 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 127.26 Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 9.55 0.00 4.62 161.82 0.00 37.73 50.70 0.00 18.93 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.70 160.20 0.00 6.12 0.00 2.03 6.83 160.20 2.03 0.23 33.46 0.00 5.63 0.00 .87 5.86 33.46 1.87 20,130.04 0.00 3,007.48 Mass Grading 08/04/2008- 09/26/2008 Mass Grading Dust 14.22 199.64 71.20 0.19 160.91 8.16 169.07 33.69 7.50 41.19 23,264.78 Time Slice 8/4/2008-9/26/2008 Active Days: 40 Page: 3 7/5/2008 9:29:08 PM 1422 19964 lUfl Q..1i ~ Mi lli.R ~ L.5O. M.19 23.264.78 Page: 4 7/5/2008 9:29:08 PM ,574.65 ,574.65 0.00 ,131.92 239.00 203.73 ~ 7,300.59 1,621.20 1,128.04 4,551.36 444.47 .29 .29 0.01 .42 .40 0.02 0.00 11.20 17.52 3.33 3.33 Time Slice 2/2/2009-3/27/2009 Active Days: 40 Asphalt 02/02/2009-03/27/2009 .29 .29 0.01 .42 .40 0.02 0.00 11.20 17.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 Paving Off-Gas .22 .22 0.00 .33 .33 0.00 0.00 8.36 15.62 2.62 Paving Off Road Diesel 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.55 .78 0.11 Paving On Road Diesel 0.01 1M 0.00 .'!.& 0.00 .Q...ill! 0.01 1M 0.00 1&Q 0.01 .!U.6. 0.00 QJlli 2.29 ~ 0.13 2620 0.07 5.96 5.96 Paving Worker Trips Time Slice 4/6/2009-11/27/2009 Active Days: 170 Building 04/06/2009-11127/2009 .56 .46 0.09 .87 .60 0.26 0.05 66.96 26.20 17 17 0.00 .28 .28 0.00 0.00 11.50 17.35 3.87 Building Off Road Diesel 0.21 0.20 0.01 0.26 0.22 0.04 0.01 4.27 5.93 0.42 Building Vendor Trips 0.17 0.09 0.08 0.33 0.11 0.22 0.04 18 51 2.92 .67 1 ~ Worker Trips VJ ~ Ie Slice 12/7/2009-12/31/2009 rL.ive Days: 19 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 Building 444.47 0.00 444.47 ~ 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 5.00 0.29 374.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 5.00 0.29 374.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 373.87 Architectural Coating 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 5.00 0.29 0.16 Coating Worker Trips Q.Jl2. Q...Q.1 QJll ~ Q...Q.1 .Q...Q2. Q,.Q.Q. ~ .Q..2Q lli.QZ Time Slice 1/1/2010-1/29/2010 Active Days: 21 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 444.75 0.00 444.75 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 4.60 0.26 374.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 373.87 Architectural Coating 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 4.60 0.26 0.15 Coating Worker Trips f"'\_t.....I4. r":':_... eo:.... ~r..."":"'.... nnr",rinfinn UCIClUII. 11110: V"V VIClUIII~ '-'"'V.;J....II..."VII Ell ...... ,,..,n,,,,nno - I II","O'","UUO - Phase: Fine Grading Total Acres Disturbed: 32.05 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.01 An,ro,nn^n IU/O/LUUO Page: 5 7/5/2008 9:29:08 PM Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 8/4/2008 - 9/26/2008 - Type Your Description Here Total Acres Disturbed: 32.05 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.01 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default I I--' Ibs per acre-day CJ.> I Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 N I '-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 12/1/2008 - 1/30/2009 - Type Your Description Here Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/2/2009 - 3/27/2009 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 8.01 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 6 7/5/2008 9:29:08 PM 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 4/6/2009 - 11/27/2009 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day ~ ase: Architectural Coating 12nt2009 - 1/29/2010 - Default Architectural Coating Description W Ie: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 W I Ie: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12131/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page:? 7/5/2008 9:29:08 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ~ ROO. NQx CQ Natural Gas 0.34 4.74 3.99 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 4.09 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 4.43 4.74 3.99 1 Area Source Chances to fl!..y!t ~ ~ rcentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 35% to 0% I Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 55% to 0% Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ~ ROG NOX CO Day-care center 0.01 0.02 0.16 Quality resturant 4.25 6.22 50.14 Regnl shop. center 5.14 7.51 60.45 General office building 49.48 73.02 591.45 Performing Arts 0.21 0.30 2.42 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 59.09 87.07 704.62 0.54 0.00 0.45 0.05 0.04 0.00 S02 0.00 0.00 0.00 SQ2 113.65 0.39 95.35 9.78 8.10 0.03 PM10 0.01 0.00 0.01 EM1Q 21.34 0.07 17.91 .84 .52 0.00 PM25 0.01 0.00 0.01 EM2.& .Q.Q.2. 5,693.04 0.00 5,693.04 CO2 12.44 3,857.64 4,647.63 45,643.74 186.41 54,347.86 Total VMT 15.29 4,736.23 5,714.20 55,716.12 229.18 66,411.02 Diesel 0.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 28.6 33.3 77.8 Total Trips 2.05 629.65 772.92 6,876.41 31.00 8,312.03 Catalyst 98.5 95.8 99.5 100.0 71.4 66.7 22.2 Page: 8 7/5/2008 9:29:08 PM Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 40 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 ses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Day-care center 0.41 1000 sq fl 5.00 Quality resturant 89.95 1000 sq fl 7.00 I 'gnl shop. center 42.94 1000 sq fl 18.00 ....... ~ !neral office building 10.34 1000 sq fl 665.03 I Performing Arts 10.00 1000 sq fl 3.10 Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Light Auto 55.9 1.1 Light Truck < 3750 Ibs 11.9 1.7 Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs 20.2 0.5 Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs 6.3 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs 0.7 0.0 Ute-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 !bs 0.6 0.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs 0.9 0.0 Page: 9 7/5/2008 9:29:08 PM Vehicle Type Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home I ~ W Ian Trip Length (miles) 0\ .'._ral Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Day-care center Quality resturant Regnl shop. center General office building Performing Arts Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.8 67.9 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 5.0 2.5 8.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 35.0 17.5 2.0 .0 Diesel 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Customer 7.4 6.6 35.0 92.5 88.0 97.0 47.5 97.0 Page: 7/5/20089:44:32 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (TonsNear) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lois Clarke\My Documents\Lois\Miller Envt Inc\Terrabay\Analysis\Terrabay 2008 Ancillary SMC.urb924 Project Name: Terrabay Ancillary SMC Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 , ~ VJ 'I I Page: 2 7/5/2008 9:44:32 PM Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES RQG NQx QQ SQ.2. PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust EM1.ll PM2 5 Dust ~ ~ QQ2 ~ 2008 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.60 8.22 2.96 0.01 6.56 0.34 6.89 1.37 0.31 1.68 951 .48 2009 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 4.22 2.80 6.16 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.20 0.01 0.16 0.17 685.54 2010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 4.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.76 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES BQ.Q ~ QQ ~ EM1.ll PM25 .QQ2. , ;:;:; 'TALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.89 0.89 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,059.53 00 , OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES BOO ~ QQ ~ PM10 PM25 .QQ2. TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 10.01 12.13 122.05 0.11 20.60 3.87 10,915.04 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG ~ QQ ~ PM10 ~ .QQ2. TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 10.90 13.02 123.62 0.11 20.60 3.87 11,974.57 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated BOO ~ QQ ~ PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2 5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM25 .QQ2. 951.48 .68 0.31 .37 6.89 0.34 6.56 0.01 2.96 8.22 0.60 465.30 0.84 0.15 0.69 3.44 0.16 3.28 0.00 .42 3.99 0.28 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.68 3.26 0.00 3.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.15 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.75 0.09 402.60 0.12 0.11 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.01 0.00 .01 3.24 0.19 2.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 465.30 0.84 0.15 0.69 3.44 0.16 3.28 0.00 .42 3.99 0.28 0.00 60.15 402.60 2.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 20.89 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.23 0.03 19.72 17 0.68 0.04 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.26 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.01 0.00 3.26 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 .01 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.75 3.24 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.03 0.00 Page: 3 7/5/2008 9:44:32 PM 2008 Mass Grading 08/04/2008- 09/26/2008 Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Fine Grading 10/06/2008- 11/28/2008 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel , ..... Fine Grading Worker Trips W \0 .renching 12/01/2008-01130/2009 I Trenching Off Road Diesel Trenching Worker Trips Phase: Fine Grading 10/6/2008 - 11/28/2008 Total Acres Disturbed: 32.66 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.16 Default Fine Site Grading Description Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.76 Architectural Coating 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating 2010 Coating Worker Trips Architectural Coating 3.62 3.62 0.00 4.00 0.00 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.30 Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.25 4.43 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 394.17 I ~ ~ o I Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 97.69 Building Off Road Diesel 0.33 .47 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.10 137.80 Building 04/06/2009-11/27/2009 0.51 2.24 5.78 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.16 0.01 0.12 0.13 629.67 Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.07 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.87 Paving Off Road Diesel 0.05 0.31 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 22.64 Paving Off-Gas 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt 02/02/2009-03/27/2009 0.07 0.35 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 31.58 Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .12 Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.21 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 18.86 Trenching 12/01/2008-01/30/2009 0.02 0.21 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 19.98 2009 Page: 4 7/5/2008 9:44:32 PM 4.22 2.80 6.16 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.20 0.01 0.16 0.17 685.54 Page: 5 7/5/2008 9:44:32 PM Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Defaul 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 8/4/2008 - 9/26/2008 - Type Your Description Here Total Acres Disturbed: 32.66 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.16 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default I Ibs per acre-day I-" ~ I Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 I-" I f-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 12/1/2008 - 1/30/2009 - Type Your Description Here Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/2/2009 - 3/27/2009 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 8.16 Off-Road Equipment Page: 6 7/5/2008 9:44:32 PM 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 4/6/2009 - 11/27/2009 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day I ase: Architectural Coating 12/7/2009 - 1/29/2010 - Default Architectural Coating Description ~ ~ Ie: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 N , Ie: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a vac of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 QQ2 ,058.01 0.00 .52 ,059.53 E.M2....5. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SQ2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page:? 7/5/2008 9:44:32 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ~ .BOO ~ ~ Natural Gas 0.06 0.88 0.74 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape 0.07 0.01 0.83 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.76 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.89 0.89 1.57 I Area Source Chanoes to De ~ t; centage of residences with wood stoves changed from 35% to 0% , percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 55% to 0% Page: 8 7/5/2008 9:44:32 PM Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ~ ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 Day-care center 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 3.26 Quality resturant 0.67 0.87 8.66 0.01 1.48 0.28 780.93 Regnl shop. center 0.77 1.00 9.84 0.01 1.69 0.32 889.23 General office building 8.49 10.20 102.95 0.09 17.32 3.25 9,191.16 Performing Arts 0.05 0.06 0.56 0.00 0.10 0.02 50.28 Product Design Studio 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 10.01 12.13 122.05 0.11 20.60 3.87 10,915.04 I ~ ~ erational Settings: ~ I uoes not include correction for passby trips Does not indude double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Season: Annua! Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 fu!J Ul. Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Tolal VMT Day-care center 0.47 1000 sq ft 5.64 2.65 19.77 Quality resturant 89.95 1000 sq ft 7.00 629.65 4,736.23 Regnl shop. center 42.94 1000 sq ft 17.01 730.41 5,399.92 General office building 10.33 1000 sq ft 662.53 6,843.94 55,452.98 Performing Arts 10.00 1000 sq ft 4.13 41.30 305.33 Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 0.01 1000 sq ft 15.01 0.15 1.11 8,248.10 65,915.34 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 55.9 1.1 98.5 0.4 11.9 1.7 95.8 2.5 20.2 0.5 99.5 0.0 6.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 71.4 28.6 0.6 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.8 67.9 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 Page: 9 7/5/2008 9:44:32 PM Land Use Type Product Design Studio Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs I ~-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs ,..... ~ ~-HeavyTruck 10,001-14,000 Ibs U1 I~,.,d-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Urban Trip Length (miles) Page: 10 7/5/2008 9:44:32 PM Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % ofTrips - Residential % ofTrips - Commercial (by land use) Day-care center Quality resturant ,gnl shop. center I--' ~ ,neral office building 0\ I _ rforming Arts Product Design Studio Travel Conditions Residential Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other 16.8 7.1 7.9 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 Commercial Commute Non-Work 14.7 6.6 35.0 35.0 5.0 2.5 8.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 35.0 17.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 .0 Customer 6.6 35.0 92.5 88.0 97.0 47.5 97.0 97.0 Page: 7/5/2008 9:44:02 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lois Clarke\My Documents\Lois\Miller Envt Inc\Terrabay\Analysis\Terrabay 2008 Ancillary SMC.urb924 Project Name: Terrabay Ancillary SMC Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 I ~ fl::o. 'I I Page: 2 7/5/2008 9:44:02 PM Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES BOO t!Qx CQ SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust EM1Q PM2 5 Dust E.M2...Q. E.MZ& CQZ ~ 2008 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 14.22 199.64 71.20 0.19 163.91 8.16 172.07 34.32 7.50 41.82 23,264.78 2009 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 381.10 26.37 68.00 0.06 0.27 1.61 1.88 0.10 1.47 1.56 7,407.90 2010 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 381.09 0.26 4.69 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 453.15 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES BOO ~ CO ~ EM1Q PM25 ~ , :;: TALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 5.25 4.95 13.33 0.00 0.04 0.04 5,814.15 00 1 UPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES BOO N.Qx m .s..Q.2. EM1Q ~ ~ TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 52.93 56.50 653.47 0.62 112.79 21.19 62,741.15 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES BQG N.Qx .QQ ~ PM10 PM25 CO2 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 58.18 61.45 666.80 0.62 112.83 21.23 68,555.30 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ROG t!Qx Q.Q ~ PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2 5 Dust PM2 5 Exhaust ~ ~ Page: 3 7/5/2008 9:44:02 PM 23.264.78 41.82 ~ 34.32 172.07 Ufi. .ID..i1 Mi ~ 19964 1422 Time Slice 8/4/2008-9/26/2008 Active Days: 40 23,264.78 0.00 3,007.48 20,130.04 41.82 34.08 1.87 5.86 7.50 0.00 1.87 5.63 34.32 34.08 0.00 0.23 172.07 163.20 2.03 6.83 8.16 0.00 2.03 6.12 163.91 163.20 0.00 0.70 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.19 71.20 0.00 18.93 50.70 199.64 0.00 37.73 161.82 14.22 0.00 4.62 9.55 Mass Grading 08/04/2008- 09/26/2008 Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 127.26 23 264 78 0.00 ~ 0.00 U2 0.00 ~ 0.01 1ll..Q1. 0.00 M.6 0.01 jllJtl 0.00 Q..1i .56 I1..2O. 0.09 mM 0.05 H22. Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 10/6/2008-11128/2008 Active Days: 40 23,264.78 41.82 7.50 34.32 172.07 8.16 163.91 0.19 71.20 199.64 14.22 Fine Grading 10/06/2008- 11/28/2008 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 3,007.48 34.08 .87 0.00 .87 34.08 0.00 163.20 2.03 0.00 2.03 163.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.93 0.00 37.73 0.00 4.62 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel I ...... ~ \0 I 20,130.04 5.86 5.63 0.23 6.83 6.12 0.70 0.19 50.70 161.82 9.55 127.26 ,816.45 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.01 .01 0.00 .00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 .56 9.71 0.09 20.19 0.05 2.37 Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 12/1/2008-12/31/2008 Active Days: 23 Trenching 12/01/2008-01/30/2009 ,816.45 0.92 0.92 0.00 .01 .00 0.00 0.00 9.71 20.19 2.37 ,714.64 0.92 0.92 0.00 .00 .00 0.00 0.00 8.46 20.12 2.33 Trenching Off Road Diesel 101.81 ,816.50 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.94 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .25 9.47 0.07 18.96 0.04 2.22 Trenching Worker Trips Time Slice 1/1/2009-1/30/2009 Active Days: 22 Trenching 12101/2008-01/30/2009 ,816.50 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.94 0.93 0.00 0.00 9.47 18.96 2.22 ,714.64 101.86 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.01 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.32 15 18.90 0.07 2.18 0.04 Trenching Off Road Diesel Trenching Worker Trips Phase: Fine Grading 10/6/2008 - 11/28/2008 Total Acres Disturbed: 32.66 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.16 Default Fine Site Grading Description Ph Coating Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.69 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 453.15 Architectural Coating Time Slice 1/1/2010-1/29/2010 Active Days: 21 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 380.94 381.09 0.00 0.26 0.00 4.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 453.15 .3U.!!9. .l1.22 ~ !!..Q.Q .QJl2. .Q,Q1 M3. Q.Jll .Q,Q1 .QJl2. ~ Coating Worker Trips 0.17 0.29 5.09 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 452.87 Architectural Coating I I-l Trips Ul One Slice 12/7/2009-12/31/2009 .I._live Days: 19 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 380.94 381.10 0.00 0.29 0.00 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 452.87 Building Worker ID.1Q .71 0.29 2.98 5.09 52.15 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.23 0.01 0.22 0.11 0.03 0.27 0.34 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.20 0.09 0.02 0.22 0.17 452.87 ,149.35 4,637.35 Building Vendor Trips 6.05 4.35 0.42 Building Off Road Diesel Time Slice 4/6/2009-11/27/2009 Active Days: 170 Building 04/06/2009-11/27/2009 3.87 6.00 17.35 26.37 11.50 68.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.27 .28 .61 .28 1.88 0.00 0.10 .17 .47 .17 .56 ,621.20 7,407.90 6.00 ~ 2M2 .Q,Q2 !UI .1.21 .1..IDl .Q.1.Q 1AZ 1M 7 407 90 Paving Worker Trips 0.07 0.13 2.29 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 203.73 Paving On Road Diesel 0.11 .81 0.56 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.06 243.48 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.62 15.62 8.36 0.00 0.00 .33 .33 0.00 .22 .22 131.92 Paving Off-Gas Time Slice 2/2/2009-3/27/2009 Active Days: 40 Asphalt 02/02/2009-03/27/2009 0.53 3.34 0.00 17.56 0.00 11.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 .40 0.00 1.42 0.00 0.01 0.00 .29 0.00 .29 0.00 1,579.12 Page: 4 7/5/20089:44:02 PM 3.34 17.56 11.21 0.00 0.02 .40 .42 0.01 .29 .29 ,579.12 Page: 5 7/5/2008 9:44:02 PM Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Defaul 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (YMT): 5000 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 8/4/2008 - 9/26/2008 - Type Your Description Here Total Acres Disturbed: 32.66 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.16 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 1 Ibs per acre-day ..... U1 Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 ..... I ~Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 12/1/2008 - 1130/2009 - Type Your Description Here Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/2/2009 - 3/27/2009 - Defauit Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 8.16 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 6 7/5/2008 9:44:02 PM 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 4/6/2009 - 11/27/2009 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day ~ ase: Architectural Coating 12/7/2009 - 1/29/2010 - Default Architectural Coating Description Ollie: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 N I lie: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a vac of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12131/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 ~ 5,797.30 16.85 5,814.15 EMZ...5. 0.01 0.03 0.04 EM1Q 0.01 0.03 0.04 SQ2 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page:? 7/5/2008 9:44:02 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ~ BQG NUx .QQ Natural Gas 0.35 4.83 4.06 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.74 0.12 9.27 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 4.16 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 5.25 4.95 13.33 I Area Source Chanoe ~ ~ rcentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 35% to 0% I Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 55% to 0% Page: 8 7/5/2008 9:44:02 PM Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ~ ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 Day-care center 0.06 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.03 0.01 18.73 Quality resturant 3.39 4.07 46.15 0.04 8.10 1.52 4,489.81 Regnl shop. center 3.93 4.65 52.34 0.05 9.24 1.73 5,112.76 General office building 45.17 47.50 551.82 0.53 94.90 17.83 52,829.71 Performing Arts 0.25 0.26 2.96 0.00 0.52 0.10 289.09 Product Design Studio 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 52.93 56.50 653.47 0.62 112.79 21.19 62,741.15 I ...... Ul erational Settings: ~ I Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 full ~ land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips TotalVMT Day-care center 0.47 1000 sq ft 5.64 2.65 19.77 Quality resturant 89.95 1000 sq ft 7.00 629.65 4,736.23 Regnl shop. center 42.94 1000 sq ft 17.01 730.41 5,399.92 General office building 10.33 1000 sq ft 662.53 6,843.94 55,452.98 Performing Arts 10.00 1000 sq ft 4.13 41.30 305.33 Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 0.01 1000 sq ft 15.01 0.15 1.11 8,248.10 65,915.34 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 55.9 1.1 98.5 0.4 11.9 1.7 95.8 2.5 20.2 0.5 99.5 0.0 6.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 71.4 28.6 0.6 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.8 67.9 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 Page: 9 7/5/2008 9:44:02 PM Land Use Type Product Design Studio Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs I !-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs ..... OJ !-HeavyTruck 10,001-14,000 Ibs OJ ~ed-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Urban Trip Length (miles) Page: 10 7/5/2008 9:44:02 PM Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Day-care center Quality resturant I gnl shop. center J--.' CJ1 neral office building 0\ . I _.forming Arts Product Design Studio Travel Conditions Residential Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other 16.8 7.1 7.9 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 Commercial Commute Non-Work 14.7 6.6 35.0 35.0 5.0 2.5 8.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 35.0 17.5 2.0 .0 2.0 .0 Customer 6.6 35.0 92.5 88.0 97.0 47.5 97.0 97.0 Page: 7/5/20089:44:20 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lois Clarke\My Documents\Lois\Miller Envt Inc\Terrabay\Analysis\Terrabay 2008 Ancillary SMC.urb924 Project Name: Terrabay Ancillary SMC Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 I ~ U1 'I I Page: 2 7/5/2008 9:44:20 PM Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES BOO. NQx .G.Q SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust .E.M1U PM2 5 Dust EMll J:.M.Z...Q. Q.Q2 ~ 2008 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 14.22 199.64 71.20 0.19 163.91 8.16 172.07 34.32 7.50 41.82 23,264.78 2009 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 381.10 26.37 68.00 0.06 0.27 1.61 1.88 0.10 1.47 1.56 7,407.90 2010 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 381.09 0.26 4.69 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 453.15 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES I ROG NOx .G.Q ~ PM10 PM25 CO2 ~ ITALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 4.51 4.83 4.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 5,797.30 00 I OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES B.QQ. ~ ~ ~ EMN PM25 CO2 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 58.64 86.42 699.36 0.53 112.79 21.19 53,943.16 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG ~ .QQ ~ PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 63.15 91.25 703.42 0.53 112.80 21.20 59,740.46 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated R.ill2 ~ CO ~ PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2 5 Dust PM2 5 Exhaust PM25 ~ Page: 3 7/5/2008 9:44:20 PM 23.264.78 41.82 ~ 34.32 172.07 M.2 163 91 0.19 I1..2.O. ~ 1422 Time Slice 8/4/2008-9/26/2008 Active Days: 40 23,264.78 41.82 7.50 34.32 172.07 8.16 163.91 0.19 71.20 199.64 14.22 Mass Grading 08/04/2008- 09/26/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 34.08 0.00 34.08 163.20 0.00 163.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,007.48 1.87 .87 0.00 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 18.93 37.73 4.62 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 20,130.04 5.86 5.63 0.23 6.83 6.12 0.70 0.19 50.70 161.82 9.55 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 127.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 .56 0.09 0.05 Mass Grading Worker Trips 23 264.78 ~ I.&O. ~ .112Jrr M6. lli.i1 Mi I1..2Q lliM ~ Time Slice 10/6/2008-11/28/2008 Active Days: 40 23,264.78 41.82 7.50 34.32 172.07 8.16 163.91 0.19 71.20 199.64 14.22 Fine Grading 10/06/2008- 11/28/2008 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 34.08 0.00 34.08 163.20 0.00 163.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,007.48 1.87 .87 0.00 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 18.93 37.73 4.62 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel I ~ U1 \0 I 20,130.04 5.86 5.63 0.23 6.83 6.12 0.70 0.19 50.70 161.82 9.55 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 127.26 ,816.45 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.01 0.00 .00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 .56 9.71 0.09 20.19 0.05 2.37 Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 12/1/2008-12/31/2008 Active Days: 23 Trenching 12/01/2008-01/30/2009 ,816.45 0.92 0.92 0.00 .01 .00 0.00 0.00 9.71 20.19 2.37 ,714.64 0.92 0.92 0.00 1.00 .00 0.00 0.00 8.46 20.12 2.33 Trenching Off Road Diesel 101.81 ,816.50 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.94 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .25 9.47 0.07 18.96 0.04 2.22 Trenching Worker Trips Time Slice 1/1/2009-113012009 Active Days: 22 Trenching 12/0112008-01/30/2009 ,816.50 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.94 0.93 0.00 0.00 9.47 18.96 2.22 ,714.64 101.86 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.01 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.32 15 18.90 0.07 2.18 0.04 Trenching Off Road Diesel Trenching Worker Trips Phase: Fine Grading 10/6/2008 - 11/28/2008 Total Acres Disturbed: 32.66 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.16 Default Fine Site Grading Description Ph Coating Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.69 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 453.15 Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time Slice 1/1/2010-1/29/2010 Active Days: 21 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 381.09 380.94 0.00 0.26 0.00 4.69 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 453.15 ~ .Q2Q ~ .Q...Q.Q. .Q.Q2. .QJl1 .!l...O.a .QJl1 .QJl1 .Q.Q2. ~ Coating Worker Trips 0.17 0.29 5.09 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 452.87 Architectural Coating I ~ Trips 0\ o Ie Slice 12/7/2009-12/31/2009 . !_.ive Days: 19 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 380.94 381.10 0.00 0.29 0.00 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 452.87 381 10 0.29 5.09 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 452.87 Building Worker .71 2.98 52.15 0.05 0.23 0.11 0.34 0.08 0.09 0.17 4,637.35 Building Vendor Trips 0.42 6.05 4.35 0.01 0.04 0.22 0.27 0.01 0.20 0.22 149.35 Building Off Road Diesel Time Slice 4/6/2009-11127/2009 Active Days: 170 Building 04/06/2009-11/27/2009 3.87 6.00 17.35 26.37 11.50 68.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.27 .28 .61 .28 .88 0.00 0.10 17 .47 17 1.56 .621.20 7,407.90 6.00 ~ 6800 Q.Q2 Q..ll 1M 1M Q,..1Q 1AZ 1..Q2 IAQUQ Paving Worker Trips 0.07 0.13 2.29 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 203.73 Paving On Road Diesel 0.11 .81 0.56 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.06 243.48 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.62 15.62 8.36 0.00 0.00 .33 .33 0.00 .22 .22 131.92 Paving Off-Gas Time Slice 2/2/2009-3/27/2009 Active Days: 40 Asphalt 02/0212009-03/27/2009 0.53 3.34 0.00 17.56 0.00 11.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 .40 0.00 .42 0.00 0.01 0.00 .29 0.00 1.29 0.00 ,579.12 Page: 4 7/5/2008 9:44:20 PM 3.34 17.56 11.21 0.00 0.02 .40 .42 0.01 .29 1.29 ,579.12 Page: 5 7/5/2008 9:44:20 PM Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Defaul 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 8/4/2008 - 9/26/2008 - Type Your Description Here Total Acres Disturbed: 32.66 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.16 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default I ~ bs per acre-day 0\ Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 ~ I Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 12/1/2008 -1/30/2009 - Type Your Description Here Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/2/2009 - 3/27/2009 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 8.16 Off-Road Equipment Page: 6 7/5/2008 9:44:20 PM 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 4/6/2009 - 11/27/2009 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day ~ Ise: Architectural Coating 12nt2009 -1/29/2010 - Default Architectural Coating Description 0\ e: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 N I e: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a vac of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a vac of 250 em. 5,797.30 0.00 5,797.30 ~ 0.01 0.00 0.01 EM1Q 0.01 0.00 0.01 SQZ 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page:? 7/5/20089:44:20 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ~ ROO NQx .c.Q Natural Gas 0.35 4.83 4.06 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 4.16 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 4.51 4.83 4.06 I Area Source Chance ~ ~ centage of residences with wood stoves changed from 35% to 0% I Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 55% to 0% Page: 8 7/5/2008 9:44:20 PM Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ~ ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 Day-care center 0.02 0.03 0.21 0.00 0.03 0.01 16.09 Quality resturant 4.25 6.22 50.14 0.04 8.10 1.52 3,857.64 Regnl shop. center 4.86 7.09 57.12 0.04 9.24 1.73 4,392.01 General office building 49.24 72.68 588.65 0.45 94.90 17.83 45,428.18 Performing Arts 0.27 0.40 3.23 0.00 0.52 0.10 248.34 Product Design Studio 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 TOTALS (Ibslday, unmitigated) 58.64 86.42 699.36 0.53 112.79 21.19 53,943.16 I ~ 0\ erational Settings: ~ I Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 40 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 liYJ t..2U L Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Day-care center 0.47 1000 sq ft 5.64 2.65 19.77 Quality resturant 89.95 1000 sq ft 7.00 629.65 4,736.23 Regnl shop. center 42.94 1000 sq ft 17.01 730.41 5,399.92 General office building 10.33 1000 sq ft 662.53 6,843.94 55,452.98 Performing Arts 10.00 1000 sq ft 4.13 41.30 305.33 Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 0.01 1000 sq ft 15.01 0.15 1.11 8,248.10 65,915.34 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 55.9 1.1 98.5 0.4 11.9 1.7 95.8 2.5 20.2 0.5 99.5 0.0 6.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 71.4 28.6 0.6 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.8 67.9 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 Page: 9 7/5/2008 9:44:20 PM Land Use Type Product Design Studio Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs I I-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs i--\ 0\ !-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs U1 I~,,:d-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Urban Trip Length (miles) Page: 10 7/5/20089:44:20 PM Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Day-care center Quality resturant I Inl shop. center I-' 0\ leral office building 0\ , I"" forming Arts Product Design Studio Travel Conditions Residential Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other 16.8 7.1 7.9 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 Commercial Commute Non-Work 14.7 6.6 35.0 35.0 5.0 2.5 8.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 35.0 17.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 .0 Customer 6.6 35.0 92.5 88.0 97.0 47.5 97.0 97.0 Page: 7/5/2008 9:46:31 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lois Clarke\My Documents\Lois\Miller Envt Inc\Terrabay\Analysis\Terrabay 2008 R&D SMC.urb924 Project Name: Terrabay Ancillary SMC Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 I I--' 0\ '..J I Page: 2 7/5/2008 9:46:31 PM Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES BQG NUx CQ S.Q2. PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust E.M1O. PM2 5 Dust EMU ~ CQ.2. ~ 2008 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.60 8.22 2.96 0.01 6.56 0.34 6.89 1.37 0.31 1.68 951.48 2009 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 4.22 2.80 6.16 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.20 0.01 0.16 0.17 685.54 2010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 4.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.76 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES I ROG ~ CO ~ E.M1O. PM25 ~ ~ ITALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.89 0.89 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,059.53 00 I OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES BQQ ~ QQ ~ EM1ll EMbQ CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 10.13 12.30 123.70 0.11 20.88 3.92 11,063.61 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES BQG ~ C.Q ~ E.M1O. .!:.M.U QQ2. TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 11.02 13.19 125.27 0.11 20.88 3.92 12,123.14 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ROG ~ .c.Q ~ PM10 Dust PM1 0 Exhaust PM10 PM2 5 Dust PM2 5 Exhaust .!:.M.U QQ2. 951.48 .68 0.31 1.37 6.89 0.34 6.56 0.01 2.96 8.22 0.60 465.30 0.84 0.15 0.69 3.44 0.16 3.28 0.00 .42 3.99 0.28 0.00 60.15 402.60 2.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 465.30 0.84 0.15 0.69 3.44 0.16 3.28 0.00 .42 3.99 0.28 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.68 3.26 0.00 3.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.15 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.75 0.09 402.60 0.12 0.11 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.01 0.00 .01 3.24 0.19 2.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 20.89 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.23 0.03 19.72 17 0.68 0.04 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.26 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.01 0.00 3.26 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 .01 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.75 3.24 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.03 0.00 Page: 3 7/5/2008 9:46:31 PM 2008 Mass Grading 08/04/2008- 09/26/2008 Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Fine Grading 10/06/2008- 11/28/2008 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel I I--' Fine Grading Worker Trips 0\ \0 'renching 12101/2008-01/30/2009 1 Trenching Off Road Diesel Trenching Worker Trips Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.16 Total Phase: Fine Grading Disturbed: 32.66 Acres Default Fine Site Grading Description 10/6/2008 - 11/28/2008 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.76 Architectural Coating 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 4.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.76 2010 4.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.76 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.30 Architectural Coating 3.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 3.62 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.30 I I--" -....:J o I Building Worker Trips 0.14 0.25 4.43 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 394.17 Building Vendor Trips 0.04 0.51 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 97.69 Building Off Road Diesel 0.33 .47 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.10 137.80 Building 04/06/2009-11/27/2009 0.51 2.24 5.78 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.16 0.01 0.12 0.13 629.67 Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.07 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.87 Paving Off Road Diesel 0.05 0.31 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 22.64 Paving Off-Gas Asphalt 02/02/2009-03/27/2009 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 .12 31.58 Trenching Worker Trips Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.21 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 19.98 18.86 Trenching 12/01/2008-01/30/2009 0.02 0.21 0.10 2009 Page: 4 7/5/20089:46:31 PM 4.22 2,80 6,16 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.20 0.01 0.16 0.17 685.54 Page: 5 7/5/2008 9:46:31 PM Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Defaul 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factorfor 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 8/4/2008 - 9/26/2008 - Type Your Description Here Total Acres Disturbed: 32.66 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.16 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default I ~ Ibs per acre-day 'It Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 ~ I f-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 12/112008 - 1/30/2009 - Type Your Description Here Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/2/2009 - 3/27/2009 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 8.16 Off-Road Equipment Page: 6 7/5/2008 9:46:31 PM 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 4/6/2009 - 11/27/2009 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day ~ ase: Architectural Coating 12/7/2009 - 1/29/2010 - Default Architectural Coating Description 'lIe: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 tv I Ie: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 111/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 CQ2. ,058.01 0.00 .52 ,059.53 ~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EM1Q 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SQ2. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page:? 7/5/2008 9:46:31 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ~ ROO lli2x CQ Natural Gas 0.06 0.88 0.74 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape 0.07 0.01 0.83 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.76 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.89 0.89 1.57 I Area Source Chanoes to De ~ ~ centage of residences with wood stoves changed from 35% to 0% I Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 55% to 0% Page: 8 7/5/2008 9:46:31 PM Operational Unmitigated Detail Report OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Sl2.urce. RaG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 Day-care center 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 3.26 Quality resturant 0.67 0.87 8.66 0.01 1.48 0.28 780.93 Regnl shop. center 0.77 1.00 9.84 0.01 1.69 0.32 889.23 General office building 8.49 10.20 102.95 0.09 17.32 3.25 9,191.16 Performing Arts 0.05 0.06 0.56 0.00 0.10 0.02 50.28 Product Design Studio 0.14 0.17 1.65 0.00 0.28 0.05 148.75 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 10.13 12.30 123.70 0.11 20.88 3.92 11,063.61 I ~ '-1 erational Settings: ~ I Does not include correction for passby trips Does not Include double counting adjustment for intemal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Sl.u t...Qj Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Day-care center 0.47 1000 sq 11 5.64 2.65 19.77 Quality resturant 89.95 1000 sq ft 7.00 629.65 4,736.23 Regnl shop. center 42.94 1000 sq 11 17.01 730.41 5,399.92 General office building 10.33 1000 sq ft 662.53 6,843.94 55,452.98 Performing Arts 10.00 1000 sq 11 4.13 41.30 305.33 Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 8.14 1000 sq ft 15.01 122.18 903.29 8,370.13 66,817.52 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 55.9 1.1 98.5 0.4 11.9 1.7 95.8 2.5 20.2 0.5 99.5 0.0 6.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 71.4 28.6 0.6 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.8 67.9 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 Page: 9 7/5/2008 9:46:31 PM Land Use Type Product Design Studio Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs I !-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs ~ 'I !-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs U1 l~,cd-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Urban Trip Length (miles) Page: 10 7/5/2008 9:46:31 PM Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Day-care center Quality resturant I ~nl shop. center ~ 'I neral office building 0\ . I _:forming Arts Product Design Studio Travel Conditions Residential Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other 16.8 7.1 7.9 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 Commercial Commute Non-Work 14.7 6.6 35.0 35.0 5.0 2.5 8.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 35.0 17.5 2.0 .0 2.0 .0 Customer 6.6 35.0 92.5 88.0 97.0 47.5 97.0 97.0 Page: 7/5/2008 9:46:01 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (PoundslDay) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lois Clarke\My Documents\Lois\Miller Envt Inc\Terrabay\Analysis\Terrabay 2008 R&D SMC.urb924 Project Name: Terrabay Ancillary SMC Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 I ..... 'I 'I I Page: 2 7/5/2008 9:46:02 PM Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES BQG NUx ~ .s.Q2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust EM1U PM2 5 Dust ~ EMU CQ2 ~ 2008 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 14.22 199.64 71.20 0.19 163.91 8.16 172.07 34.32 7.50 41.82 23,264.78 2009 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 381.10 26.37 68.00 0.06 0.27 1.61 1.88 0.10 1.47 1.56 7,407.90 2010 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 381.09 0.26 4.69 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 453.15 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES I BOO tlQx .QQ ~ EMm PM25 ~ ~ rALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 5.25 4.95 13.33 0.00 0.04 0.04 5,814.15 00 I OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG tlQx .QQ ~ PM10 PM25 ~ TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 53.57 57.28 662.22 0.63 114.34 21.48 63,595.35 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx QQ ~ PM10 PM25 ~ TOTALS (Ibs/day. unmitigated) 58.82 62.23 675.55 0.63 114.38 21.52 69,409.50 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated BOO tlQx .QQ ~ PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust EMm PM2 5 Dust PM2 5 Exhaust PM25 ~ Page: 3 7/5/2008 9:46:02 PM 23.264.78 41.82 LID! ~ 17207 B..12 163.91 ~ 71.20 199.64 14..2Z Time Slice 8/4/2008-9/26/2008 Active Days: 40 23,264.78 0.00 3,007.48 41.82 34.08 .87 7.50 0.00 .87 34.32 34.08 0.00 172.07 163.20 2.03 8.16 0.00 2.03 163.91 163.20 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 71.20 0.00 18.93 199.64 0.00 37.73 14.22 0.00 4.62 Mass Grading 08/04/2008- 09/26/2008 Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 20,130.04 5.86 5.63 0.23 6.83 6.12 0.70 0.19 50.70 161.82 9.55 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 127.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 .56 0.09 0.05 Mass Grading Worker Trips 23 264 78 !1..n I..iO. .3YZ 1U.JlZ Mi ~ o...1i I1..2!l ~ ~ Time Slice 10/6/2008-11/28/2008 Active Days: 40 10106/2008- 23,264.78 41.82 7.50 34.32 172.07 8.16 163.91 0.19 71.20 199.64 14.22 Fine Grading 11/28/2008 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 3,007.48 34.08 .87 0.00 .87 34.08 0.00 163.20 2.03 0.00 2.03 163.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.93 0.00 37.73 0.00 4.62 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel I ..... '1 \0 1 20,130.04 5.86 5.63 0.23 6.83 6.12 0.70 0.19 50.70 161.82 9.55 127.26 ,816.45 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.01 .01 0.00 .00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 .56 9.71 0.09 20.19 0.05 2.37 Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 12/1/2008-12/31/2008 Active Days: 23 Trenching 12/01/2008-01/30/2009 ,816.45 0.92 0.92 0.00 .01 .00 0.00 0.00 9.71 20.19 2.37 ,714.64 0.92 0.92 0.00 .00 .00 0.00 0.00 8.46 20.12 2.33 Trenching Off Road Diesel 101.81 ,816.50 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.94 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .25 9.47 0.07 18.96 0.04 2.22 Trenching Worker Trips Time Slice 1/1/2009-1/30/2009 Active Days: 22 Trenching 12/01/2008-01/30/2009 ,816.50 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.94 0.93 0.00 0.00 9.47 18.96 2.22 ,714.64 101.86 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.01 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.32 15 18.90 0.07 2.18 0.04 Trenching Off Road Diesel Trenching Worker Trips Phase: Fine Grading 10/6/2008 - 11/28/2008 Total Acres Disturbed: 32.66 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.16 Default Fine Site Grading Description e Coating Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.69 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 453.15 Architectural Coating Time Slice 1/1/2010-1/29/2010 Active Days: 21 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 380.94 381 .09 0.00 0.26 0.00 4.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 453.15 ID..Q.9. .Q...2.6. ~ Q.QQ. Q.JlZ QJtl Q.Q.J. QJtl QJll .QJ!2. ~ Coating Worker Trips 0.17 0.29 5.09 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 452.87 Architectural Coating I ~ Trips 00 o 1e Slice 12/7/2009-12/31/2009 .'._;ive Days: 19 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 380.94 381 10 0.00 0.29 0.00 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 452.87 illj2 0.29 5.09 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 452.87 Building Worker .71 2.98 52.15 0.05 0.23 0.11 0.34 0.08 0.09 0.17 4,637.35 Building Vendor Trips 0.42 6.05 4.35 0.01 0.04 0.22 0.27 0.01 0.20 0.22 1,149.35 Building Off Road Diesel Time Slice 4/6/2009-11/27/2009 Active Days: 170 Building 04/06/2009-11/27/2009 3.87 6.00 17.35 26.37 11.50 68.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.27 .28 .61 .28 .88 0.00 0.10 17 .47 1.17 .56 ,621.20 7,407.90 6.00 ~ .2a...QQ Q.Q6. Q.n 1M .1.M Q.1Q. 1& 1.QQ ~ Paving Worker Trips 0.07 0.13 2.29 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 203.73 Paving On Road Diesel 0.11 .81 0.56 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.06 243.48 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.62 15.62 8.36 0.00 0.00 .33 1.33 0.00 .22 .22 ,131.92 Paving Off-Gas Time Slice 2/2/2009-3/27/2009 Active Days: 40 Asphalt 02/0212009-03/27/2009 0.53 3.34 0.00 17.56 0.00 11.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 .40 0.00 1.42 0.00 0.01 0.00 .29 0.00 .29 0.00 1,579.12 Page: 4 7/5/2008 9:46:02 PM 3.34 17.56 11.21 0.00 0.02 .40 1.42 0.01 .29 .29 ,579,12 Page: 5 7/5/2008 9:46:02 PM Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Defaul 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 8/4/2008 - 9/26/2008 - Type Your Description Here Total Acres Disturbed: 32.66 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.16 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default I ~ Ibs per acre-day 00 Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 ~ I -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 12/1/2008 - 1/30/2009 - Type Your Description Here Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/2/2009 - 3/27/2009 - Defauii Paving Descripiion Acres to be Paved: 8.16 Off-Road Equipment: Page: 6 7/5/2008 9:46:02 PM 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 4/6/2009 - 11/27/2009 - Default Building Construction Descnption Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day ~ ~se: Architectural Coating 12/7/2009 - 1/29/2010 - Default Architectural Coating Description 00 e: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of250 N 1- .e: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a vac of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 ~ 5,797.30 16.85 5,814.15 EMU 0.01 0.03 0.04 E.M1.Q 0.01 0.03 0.04 SQ2. 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page:? 7/5/2008 9:46:02 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ~ RQ.G N.Qx co. Natural Gas 0.35 4.83 4.06 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.74 0.12 9.27 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 4.16 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 5.25 4.95 13.33 I Area Source Chanoe ~ ~ rcentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 35% to 0% I Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 55% to 0% Page: 8 7/5/2008 9:46:02 PM Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ~ ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 Day-care center 0.06 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.03 0.01 18.73 Quality resturant 3.39 4.07 46.15 0.04 8.10 1.52 4,489.81 Regnl shop. center 3.93 4.65 52.34 0.05 9.24 1.73 5,112.76 General office building 45.17 47.50 551.82 0.53 94.90 17.83 52,829.71 Performing Arts 0.25 0.26 2.96 0.00 0.52 0.10 289.09 Product Design Studio 0.77 0.78 8.76 0.01 1.55 0.29 855.25 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 53.57 57.28 662.22 0.63 114.34 21.48 63,595.35 I ..... 00 erational Settings: ~ I Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 .fuu { of Land Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Day-care center 0.47 1000 sq fI 5.64 2.65 19.77 Quality resturant 89.95 1000 sq fI 7.00 629.65 4,736.23 Regnl shop. center 42.94 1000 sq fI 17.01 730.41 5,399.92 General office building 10.33 1000 sq fI 662.53 6,843.94 55,452.98 Performing Arts 10.00 1000 sq fI 4.13 41.30 305.33 Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 8.14 1000 sq ft 15.01 122.18 903.29 8,370.13 66,817.52 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 55.9 1.1 98.5 0.4 11.9 1.7 95.8 2.5 20.2 0.5 99.5 0.0 6.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 71.4 28.6 0.6 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.8 67.9 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 Page: 9 7/5/2008 9:46:02 PM Land Use Type Product Design Studio Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs I-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs ~ OO-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs OJ 1.I,cd-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Urban Trip Length (miles) Page: 10 7/5/2008 9:46:02 PM Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % ofTrips - Commercial (by land use) Day-care center Quality resturant I Jnl shop. center ...... 00 neral office building 0\ ,I ~.forming Arts Product Design Studio Travel Conditions Residential Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other 16.8 7.1 7.9 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 Commercial Commute Non-Work 14.7 6.6 35.0 35.0 5.0 2.5 8.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 35.0 17.5 2.0 .0 2.0 .0 Customer 6.6 35.0 92.5 88.0 97.0 47.5 97.0 97.0 Page: 7/5/20089:46:18 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lois Clarke\My Documents\Lois\Miller Envt Inc\Terrabay\Analysis\Terrabay 2008 R&D SMC.urb924 Project Name: Terrabay Ancillary SMC Project Location: San Mateo County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 I I-" 00 'I I Page: 2 7/5/20089:46:18 PM Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES .B..QG NQx CQ ~ PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust E.M1Q PM2 5 Dust eMU ~ ~ Exhaust 2008 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 14.22 199.64 71.20 0.19 163.91 8.16 172.07 34.32 7.50 41.82 23,264.78 2009 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 381.10 26.37 68.00 0.06 0.27 1.61 1.88 0.10 1.47 1.56 7,407.90 2010 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 381.09 0.26 4.69 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 453.15 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES 1 ROG ~ CQ ~ PM10 ~ CQ2 ~ TALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 4.51 4.83 4.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 5,797.30 C1J I OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES .B..QG ~ CQ ~ EM.1Q PM25 CQ2 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 59.45 87.61 708.91 0.54 114.34 21.48 54,676.95 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NQx CQ ~ PM10 PM2.5 .QQl TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 63.96 92.44 712.97 0.54 114.35 21.49 60,474.25 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated .B..QG ~ CQ ~ PM10 Dust PMl 0 Exhaust PM10 PM2 5 Dust PM2 5 Exhaust ~ ~ Page: 3 7/5/20089:46:18 PM 23 264 78 ~ Z&O. 3432 172 07 8...12 163.91 ~ IUQ mM ~ Time Slice 8/4/2008-9/26/2008 Active Days: 40 23,264.78 41.82 7.50 34.32 172.07 8.16 163.91 0.19 71.20 199.64 14.22 Mass Grading 08/04/2008- 09/26/2008 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 34.08 0.00 34.08 163.20 0.00 163.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,007.48 1.87 .87 0.00 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 18.93 37.73 4.62 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 20,130.04 5.86 5.63 0.23 6.83 6.12 0.70 0.19 50.70 161.82 9.55 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 127.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 .56 0.09 0.05 Mass Grading Worker Trips 23 264 78 ~ Z&O. ll.n lli.JIT 8...16. mM ~ I1.Zll mM ll..2.2. Time Slice 10/6/2008-11/28/2008 Active Days: 40 10/06/2008- 23,264.78 41.82 7.50 34.32 172.07 8.16 163.91 0.19 71.20 199.64 14.22 Fine Grading 11/28/2008 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 34.08 0.00 34.08 163.20 0.00 163.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,007.48 .87 .87 0.00 2.03 2.03 0.00 0.00 18.93 37.73 4.62 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 20,130.04 5.86 5.63 0.23 6.83 6.12 0.70 0.19 50.70 161.82 9.55 Fine Grading On Road Diesel I-' 00 \0 I 127.26 ,816.45 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.01 0.00 .00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 .56 9.71 0.09 20.19 0.05 2.37 Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 12/1/2008-12/31/2008 Active Days: 23 Trenching 12101/2008-01/30/2009 ,816.45 0.92 0.92 0.00 .01 .00 0.00 0.00 9.71 20.19 2.37 ,714.64 0.92 0.92 0.00 1.00 .00 0.00 0.00 8.46 20.12 2.33 Trenching Off Road Diesel 101.81 ,816.50 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.94 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .25 9.47 0.07 18.96 0.04 2.22 Trenching Worker Trips Time Slice 1/1/2009-1/30/2009 Active Days: 22 Trenching 12/01/2008-01/30/2009 ,816.50 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.94 0.93 0.00 0.00 9.47 8.96 2.22 ,714.64 101.86 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.01 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.32 15 18.90 0.07 2.18 0.04 Trenching Off Road Diesel Trenching Worker Trips Fine Grading Acres Disturbed: 32.66 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.16 Phase: Total 10/6/2008 - 11/28/2008 Default Fine Site Grading Description Pha Coating Worker Trips 0.15 0.26 4.69 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 453.15 Architectural Coating Time Slice 1/1/2010-1/29/2010 Active Days: 21 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 380.94 381.09 0.00 0.26 0.00 4.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 453.15 ~ Q.2Q ~ Q,QQ Q.Q.2. Q..Q1 Q..Q.3. Q..Q1 Q..Q1 Q.Q.2. ~ Coating Worker Trips 0.17 0.29 5.09 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 452.87 Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I ...... Trips \0 o Ie Slice 12/7/2009-12/31/2009 . Uve Days: 19 Coating 12/07/2009-01/29/2010 380.94 381.10 0.00 0.29 0.00 5.09 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 452.87 381.10 0.29 5.09 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 452.87 Building Worker .71 2.98 52.15 0.05 0.23 0.11 0.34 0.08 0.09 0.17 4,637.35 Building Vendor Trips 0.42 6.05 4.35 0.01 0.04 0.22 0.27 0.01 0.20 0.22 49.35 Building Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 .28 1.28 0.00 17 .17 ,621.20 Time Slice 4/6/2009-11/27/2009 Active Days: 170 Building 04/06/2009-11/27/2009 3.87 6.00 17.35 26.37 11.50 68.00 0.06 0.27 .61 .88 0.10 .47 1.56 7,407.90 6.00 2Q...3l M..Q.Q Q..!26. .Q...21. 1M 1...8.S. !Wl .1AI .1.M ~ Paving Worker Trips 0.07 0.13 2.29 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 203.73 Paving On Road Diesel 0.11 .81 0.56 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.06 243.48 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.62 15.62 8.36 0.00 0.00 .33 .33 0.00 .22 .22 ,131.92 Paving Off-Gas Time Slice 2/2/2009-3/27/2009 Active Days: 40 Asphalt 02/02/2009-03/27/2009 0.53 3.34 0.00 17.56 0.00 11.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 .40 0.00 .42 0.00 0.01 0.00 .29 0.00 .29 0.00 ,579.12 Page: 4 7/5/20089:46:18 PM 3.34 17.56 11.21 0.00 0.02 .40 .42 0.01 .29 1.29 ,579.12 Page: 5 7/5/20089:46:18 PM Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Defaul 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 8/4/2008 - 9/26/2008 - Type Your Description Here Total Acres Disturbed: 32.66 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 8.16 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default I ~ bs per acre-day \0 Road Truck Travel (VMT): 5000 ~ I Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 12/1/2008 - 1/30/2009 - Type Your Description Here Off-Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/2i2009 - 3/27/2009 - Defauit Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 8.16 Off-Road Equipment Page: 6 7/5120089:46:18 PM 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 4/6/2009 - 11/27/2009 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day ~ lse: Architectural Coating 12/7/2009 - 1/29/2010 - Default Architectural Coating Description \0 e: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 N I e: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 111/2005 ends 1213112040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/112005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VQC of 250 ~ 5,797.30 0.00 5,797.30 ~ 0.01 0.00 0.01 EM1Q 0.01 0.00 0.01 ~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page:? 7/5/20089:46:18 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ~ Blli2 b!Qx CO Natural Gas 0.35 4.83 4.06 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 4.16 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 4.51 4.83 4.06 I Area Source Chance ...... ~ centage of residences with wood stoves changed from 35% to 0% I Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 55% to 0% Page: 8 7/5/20089:46:18 PM Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ~ ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 Day-care center 0.02 0.03 0.21 0.00 0.03 0.01 16.09 Quality resturant 4.25 6.22 50.14 0.04 8.10 1.52 3,857.64 Regnl shop. center 4.86 7.09 57.12 0.04 9.24 1.73 4,392.01 General office building 49.24 72.68 588.65 0.45 94.90 17.83 45,428.18 Performing Arts 0.27 0.40 3.23 0.00 0.52 0.10 248.34 Product Design Studio 0.81 1.19 9.56 0.01 1.55 0.29 734.69 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 59.45 87.61 708.91 0.54 114.34 21.48 54,676.95 I ...... \0 erational Settings: ~ I Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 40 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 S!.u ill L Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Day-care center 0.47 1000 sq ft 5.64 2.65 19.77 Quality resturant 89.95 1000 sq ft 7.00 629.65 4,736.23 Regnl shop. center 42.94 1000 sq ft 17.01 730.41 5,399.92 General office building 10.33 1000 sq ft 662.53 6,843.94 55,452.98 Performing Arts 10.00 1000 sq ft 4.13 41.30 305.33 Summa Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 8.14 1000 sq ft 15.01 122.18 903.29 8,370.13 66,817.52 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 55.9 1.1 98.5 0.4 11.9 1.7 95.8 2.5 20.2 0.5 99.5 0.0 6.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 71.4 28.6 0.6 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.8 67.9 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 Page: 9 7/5/20089:46:18 PM Land Use Type Product Design Studio Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs I ,-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs ~ '-0 ,-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs Ul ,JIt:ld-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Urban Trip Length (miles) Page: 10 7/5/20089:46:18 PM Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % ofTrips - Commercial (by land use) Day-care center Quality resturant I }nl shop. center ~ '-0 1eral office building 0\ ,'."forming Arts Product Design Studio Travel Conditions Residential Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other 16.8 7.1 7.9 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 Commercial Commute Non-Work 14.7 6.6 35.0 35.0 5.0 2.5 8.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 35.0 17.5 2.0 .0 2.0 .0 Customer 6.6 35.0 92.5 88.0 97.0 47.5 97.0 97.0 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 2621 E. Windrim Court Elk Grove, CA 95758 (916) 647-3406 phone (916) 647-3408fax 6220 Bay View A venue El Sobrante, CA 94806 (510) 236-9375 phone (510) 236-1091 fax MEMORANDUM TO: Allison Knapp (Allison.knaoo@ssf.net; aknaoo@ix.netcom.com) FROM: Mark D. Crane, P .E. DATE: June 30, 2008 RE: TERRABAY TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Allison: Here are two comparisons of the net change in gross trip generation for the Terrabay Phase 3 office/retail development. Alt 1 assumes that the new design studio's 15,007 square feet will have the same trip gl~neration potential as R&D uses. In addition, there will be 1,000 less square feet of specialty retail commercial use and 2,500 less square feet of office use. As you will see, this results in overall higher year 2008 proposed project trip generation, even with less office and less specialty retail. Trip rates are the same as those utilized in the 2006 SEIR, from Trip Generation, 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2003. Alt 2 assumes the same development plan as Alt 1, except that the new design studio has no trip generation associated with it. This is probable to liberal an assumption, but it results in less overall generation from the 2008 proposed project. ALT 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON (PRODUCT DESIGN STUDIO WITH R&D TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS) DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PROJECT 2-WAY TRIPS IN OUT 2008 Addendum 8370 841 121 2006 SEIR 8312 829 119 Difference +58 +12 +2 2008 vs. 2006 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN OUT 203 787 204 Ti8 (-1) +9 Source: Crane Transportation Group Assuming that the new design studio square footage would have the same trip generation potential as R&D uses, daily two-way trip generation would be increased by 58 trips (or about -197- 6/30/08 Memo to Allison Knapp Page 2 ': :t9T8~_ CRANE, P.E. . CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Mark Even with the minor increase in peak hour traffic associated with the assumption of the design studio square footage having R&D use trip generation, there would be no new year 2010 or 2020 circulation system significant impacts. With the design studio square footage having no trip generation potential, the project's overall daily two-way trip generation should be reduced by 64 trips (or about 0.8%), with AM peak hour generation r1educed by 5 trips (or about 0.5%) and PM peak trip generation reduced by 8 trips (or about 0.8%). DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PROJECT 2-WAY TRIPS IN OUT IN OUT 2008 Addendum 8248 825 118 201 773 2006 SEIR 8312 829 119 204 778 Difference (-64) (-4) (-1) (-3) (-5) 2008 vs. 2006 Source: Crane Transportation Group ALT 2 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON (NO NEW GENERATION FOR PRODUCT DESIGN STUDIO) 0.7%) with the AM peak hour generation increased by 14 trips (or about 1.5%) and PM peak hour generation increased by 8 trips (or about 0.8%). Exbibit B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General Pursuant to Public Resources Code ~ 21081 and CEQA Guidelines ~ 15093, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco nlakes the following Re-Statenlent of Overriding Considerations relating to its reconllnendation of approval of the proposed Product Design Studio ("2008 Project"). The 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendunl (supplelnenting the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR) analyzed Phase III ilnpacts on a project EIR level which is a lnuch greater level than required for cunlulative ilnpacts under CEQA. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the 2008 Project to the City against the one adverse inlpact identified in the 2005 SEIR pertaining to air quality which is a re-statelnent of the 1998/99 SEIR identified ilnpact and the three adverse inlpacts identified in the 1998/99 SEIR peliaining to traffic as significant which have not been elinlinated or nlitigated to a level of insignificance. These inlpacts are: (1) Air Quality hnpact 4.5-3 froln the 1998/99 SEIR Changes in Regional Long-Term Air Quality; (2) Traffic Inlpact 4.4-1 frOln the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway hnpacts; (2) Traffic hllpact 4.4-4 fronl the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway hnpacts; and (3) Traffic hnpact 4.4-5 fronl the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Rmnp hllpacts. The following significant unavoidable ilnpacts identified in the 2005 SEIR do not apply to the 2008 Project as denlonstrated by the 2008 traffic analysis prepared by Crane Transportation Group for the City of South San Francisco and incorporated into the 2008 hlitial Study prepared for the 2008 Project: (1) Traffic Impact 3.1.5: Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing hllpacts; (2) Traffic Inlpact 3.1.6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service hnpacts; and (3) Traffic Ilnpact 3.1.9: Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Inlpacts. The City Council has carefully considered each envirOlUllental impact identified in the 2005 SEIR and the 2006 Addendum, and reviewed the 2008 hlitial Study and 2008 Addendunl in reaching its decision to approve the 2008 Project. The Project sponsor has made reasonable and good faith efforts to lnitigate all poteetial impacts resulting froln the 2008 Project. The City Council has imposed nlitigation lneasures id(;ntified in the 2005 SEIR, 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR as conditions of approval to eliminate or nlitigate to a level of insignificance potential ilnpacts. Although the City Council believes that the three unavoidable traffic envirornnental impacts identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the one air quality impact identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and re-stated in the 2005 SEIR will be substantially lessened by the lnitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR and incorporated into the 2008 Project as conditions of approval, it recognizes that the implementation of the 2008 Project carries with it these four potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. With regard to each of the four significant unavoidable impacts, the City Council specifically nlakes the following findings to the extent that the identified adverse ilnpacts have not been Initigated to a level of insignificance: (l) specific econonlic, social or other considerations nlake infeasible Initigation nleasures or alternatives identified in the 2005, 1998/99 and 1996 SEIR's and the 1982 EIR which Inay reduce the significant unavoidable ilnpacts to less than significant; and (2) there are specific econOlnic, social, environlnental, legal, land use and other benefits of the 2008 Project which Olltweigh the four significant unavoidable effects on the envirOlunent. The City Council fUliher finds that anyone of the oveniding considerations identified hereinafter in subsection 4 is a sufficient basis to approve the 2008 Proj ect. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts and Required Mitigation Measures The following inlpacts CaIU10t be fully nlitigated by changes or alterations to the 2008 Project or the ilnposition of fluiher Initigation Ineasures. The inlpacts associated with the 2008 Project are siInilar to those associated with the approved 2006 Project. The 2008 Project would not increase the severity of any ilnpacts identified in the 1998/99 SEIR or the 2005 SEIR. Three significant and unavoidable ilnpacts relating to traffic and one air quality would continue with inlplementation of the 2008 Project. These inlpacts are: Traffic 111tpact 4.4.1: Year 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts: The 2006 Project would result in the Saine ilnpact associated with the 2000 Project on certain seglnents of US 101 freeway by either increasing traffic volumes by Inore than 1 % or changing the level of service from LOS E to F. Six of the eight identified iInpacted freeway segInents are already operating at LOS F in the year 2000 without the 2006 Project. Phase II and Phase III Cumulative hnpacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips along these segInents of US 101 ofapproxilnately 1.25% to 2.76%. The 1998/99 SEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the roadway of 1 % or Inore due to the Proj ect would be considered a sigIlificant impact. The Phase II and III Cumulative I1npacts will result in an increase that is considered significant. The 2006 Project will contribute over a 1 % increase in peak direction traffic on these segments of US 101 and the 2006 Project cumulative is considered sigIlificant. Feasible Initigation measures identified for the 2006 Project will be incorporated as part of the 2008 Project. The 2006 Project incorporates a bus stop and shelter along Airport Boulevard and a Transportation Denland Management Pro grain. The City has constnlcted the Oyster Point Interchange Improvelnents and the Applicant has contributed $8.5 million to these improvements. The 1998/99 SEIR notes that either a 64% reduction in the size of the Proj ect or widening of US 1 01 would reduce this impact to less than sigIlificant. Both of these measures are infeasible. Traffic 111tpact 4.4.4: Year 2010 Base Case Plus Phases and III Freeway Impacts: The 2006 Project would result in the smne in1pact associated with the 2000 Project on certain segInents of US 101 freeway by increasing traffic vohllnes by n10re than 1 0A> at segInents already operating at LOS F. Six of the eight identified in1pacted freeway segI11ents are already operating at LOS F in the year 2000 without the 2006 Project. Phase II and Phase III Cun1ulative l1npacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips along these segn1ents of US 101 of approxin1ately 1.10% to 2.41 %. The 1998/99 SEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the roadway of 1 % or n10re due to the Proj ect would be considered a sigI1ificant impact. The Phase II and III Clllnulative l1npacts will result in an increase that is considered significant. The 2006 Project will contribute over a 1 % increase in peak direction traffic on these segn1ents of US 101 and the 2006 Project cumulative is considered significant. Feasible Initigation measures identified for the 2006 Project will be incorporated as pmi of the 2008 Proj ect. The 2006 Proj ect incorporates a bus stop and shelter along Airport Boulevard and a TranspOliation Den1and Management PrOgI"an1. The City has constructed the Oyster Point Interchange l1nproven1ents and the Applicant has contributed $8.5 Inillion to these ilnprovelnents. The 1998/99 SEIR notes that either a 590/0 reduction in the size of the Proj ect or widening of US 101 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Both of these n1easures are infeasible. The 2006 Project was been reduced in size from that previously analyzed. Traffic 1111pact 4.4-5: 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts: Developlnent of Phase II and III in the year 2010 would cause a sigI1ificant adverse cumulative ilnpact on the PM peak hour operation on the Northbound US 101 on-rmnp from Oyster Point Boulevard. This on ramp would already be operating at over-capacity and unacceptable levels in 2010 without the 2006 Project. Phase II and III CUlnulative l1npacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips by approxilnately 6.8% on this on-rmnp. The 1998/99 SEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the on-ramp of 1 % or n10re due to the Proj ect would be considered a significant ilnpact. The Phase II and III Cun1l11ative Impacts will result in an increase that is considered significant. The 2006 Project will contribute over a 1 % increase in peak direction traffic on this on-rmnp and the 2006 Project cun1ulative is considered sigI1ificant. Feasible Initigation Ineasures identified for the 2006 Project will be incorporated as part of the 2008 Project. The 2006 Project has contributed $8.5 million to traffic ilnprovelnents in the area. The 2006 Proj ect includes a bus stop and shelter along Airport Boulevard as well as and a Transportation Demand Management Progran1. A 85% reduction in the size of the Project would be required to reduce this iInpact to less-than-significant which in light of the whole of the record and the objectives of the Project is infeasible. Air Quality Impact 3.2.3: Regional elnission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PM10. This is the san1e impact identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and remains the same for the 2006 Project. Measures identified in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan incorporate the mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified but not to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation Ineasure 4.5-3 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR shall be ilnplelnented. In addition, the following nlitigation measures have been applied to the project: 1) electric vehicle charging stations shall be provided, 2) the project will include sidewalks and/ or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops and/or a comnlunity-wide network, 3) provision of secure and conveniently located bicycle storage, 4) preferential parking for electric or altenlatively-fueled vehicles. 5) iInplelnentation of feasible TDM nleasures including ride-sharing, coordination with regional ridesharing progranls and provision of transit infonnation, 6) the above-referenced bus tunlouts and benches, and 7) direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access froln project land uses to transit stops and adjacent develoPlnent. 3. Findings of Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures and Altenlatives For Unavoidable Impacts The 2008 Project will not create any significant and unavoidable ilnpacts, however, significant and unavoidable inlpacts identified in cOilllection with previously approved development, including the 2006 Project, will continue. Pursuant to approval of the 2006 Project, the City Councillnade the following findings, which are restated here for reference purposes: a. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures Traffic bllpacts 4.4.1 and 4: Year 2000 and 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts and Traffic Inlpact 4.4.52010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramps An overall reduction in project size between 64% to 85% would be required in order to reach a less than significant inlpact. A reduction of this nature would render the proj ect econOlnically infeasible. The econOlnic benefit realized through a critical Inass of office and cOlnmercial retail uses in order to capitalize the 2006 Project and the tax retunl to the City would not be realized. Reductions in the 2006 Project is infeasible because of the extensive and costly public amenities and infrastructure improvelnents required for the 2006 Project and those already built for Phase I and II, the need for a critical mass of office and retail to finance the proj ect and provide a tax benefit to the City and the fixed cost of constructing infrastnlcture necessary to serve the 2006 Project. The develoPlnent of the Terrabay Project, including the 2006 Project is subject to extensive conditions of approval under the HCP, Developnlent Agreelnent and Specific Plan as amended. These documents require 1) the restoration and dedication of over 400 acres of property to the County and the City as open space; 2) funding HCP maintenance and monitoring; 3) constnlction of a fire station (built as part of Phase I); 4) construction of a recreation center (built as part of Phase I); 5) construction of a child-care facility; 6) construction of a 200 seat Perfonning Arts Center 7) construction of32 moderate income housing units off-site at 120% of the median; 8) completion of the Hillside Boulevard extension (built as part of Phase I); 9) a $8.5 Inillion financial contribution to the construction of the hook ranlps; 10) construction of the water tanl\:: and distribution lines and the Terrabaypunlp station as a part of Phase I; 11) construction of the sound wall along Sister Cities Boulevard; 12) construction of recreational iInprovements to Hillside School; and, 13) and other iInprovelnents and fees. The costs of these improvements are spread throughout the entire project, including the 2006 Project. The constnlction of required infrastructure in the 2006 Project are fixed costs that must be spread over the mnount of square footage constructed. A 60 -840/0 reduction in density to reduce inlpacts to a less than significant level could not suppoli the developnlent costs of the 2006 Project and would render the 2006 Project economically infeasible. Based on the foregoing and other infonnation in the record, widening of US 101 or a reduction of the size of the 2006 Project are not feasible. (4) Air Quality Inlpact 3.2.3: Regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAOMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PMlQ~ Reduction of the 2006 Project as identified above (approxilnately by 75%) could potentially reduce this inlpact to a less than significant level. The 2006 Project would be econolnically infeasible, as noted above, with such a reduction. The benefits of the 2006 Project would then not be realized. b. Infeasibility of Altenlatives Which Would Reduce Impacts Since the significant unavoidable impacts will be caused by buildout of the 2006 Project, the only alternative identified in the 2005, 1998/99, 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR that would reduce this impact to less than significant is the No Developlnent Alternative. In light of the foregoing, the only altenlative that would reduce the cumulative iInpacts of building out the project as proposed in the 2006 Project is the No Developlnent Alternative for the reInaining parcels of Phase III. This alternative is infeasible. The Terrabay Proj ect already incorporates Inany of the altenlatives proposed under the 1998-99 SEIR. First, the Proj ect provides for a 25+ acre of preserve land (The Preservation Parcel) for the protection of endangered species habitat and a 6.3 acre parcel offered to the City for recreational purposes (The Recreation Parcel). Additionally, a buffer area is proposed to shield the archeological site froln the proposed development. The project also incorporates more area into the HCP. The Project has contributed 8.5 IniJ1ion to transportation improvelnents the majority of which mitigates impacts associated with Phase III developlnent. As a result of the foregoing, the developable footprint on the remaining parcel has been significantly reduced (from 47 to 10 acres). Moreover, the benefits of the Project to the City are derived fro In the Project as a whole. The goals and objectives of the Project may only be met if each phase is built as proposed in the 2006 Project. Furthennore, the benefits under the HCP are based on the development of each phase. Therefore, since the No Developnlent Alternative for Phase III does not accOlnplish lnost of the objectives of the Project, the City Council finds that this altenlative is infeasible and, therefore, rejects this alternative as it relates to the remaining parcels of Phase III. 4. Statelnent of Overriding Considerations The City Council considered the public record of proceedings on the 2006 Project and found that the approval and ilnplelnentation of the 2006 Project entitlenlents would result in the following substantial public benefits that outweigh the four significant, unavoidable cunlulative ilnpacts of the Terrabay 2006 Project: · Provide econonlic growth and enlployInent opportunities in the City and surrounding region, by the creation of new jobs on the site and in the construction - related industries; Provide a tax benefit to the City by increasing tax base and revenues to the City through property and sales tax revenues; · Provide below market rate housing; · Reduce overall enviromnental ilnpacts and preserve open space by building on 10 acres of land out of the original 47 acres of Phase III most of which was previously disturbed by transportation and utility-related grading while preserving 26 plus acres as species habitat, wetlands and open space; · Further the goals of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan by allowing the 2006 Project to be built within the developable area of the Mountain vested by the HCP, to continue to fund the HCP by the homeowner and cOlnmercial fees prescribed by the HCP, by the restoration and conveyance to the County of San Mateo the relnainder parcels adjacent to the Phase III site, by the creation of a fire buffer around the perilneter of the site and the planting of a carefully plmmed landscape plan utilizing non-invasive and drought resistive plantings; · Develop the "Buffer Parcel" with roads and landscaping pursuant to the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreenlent between the City, Myers Developnlent Company, San Bruno Mountain Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity; · Create a transition area between the urbanized potion of the City and San Bruno Mountain Park; The City Council finds that the benefits of the 2006 Project continue to outweigh the project's significant and unavoidable impacts. The 2008 Project will enhance many of the benefits of the 2006 Proj ect and make the overall commercial development more marketable. Additionally, as a support use for the adjoining office use, and because the Product Design Studio will require conversion of SOlne of the retail space to a circulation area, the 2008 Proj ect Inay result in fewer vehicle trips to the site. In any case, any increase in vehicle trips to the site as a result of the 2008 Project will not be substantial. For the reasons stated, the City Council finds that the benefits of the 2008 Project, in conjunction with previously approved development of the site, outweigh the continuing significant and unavoidable impacts. 1122703.1