Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOak Farms Draft Focused EIR 02-25-2000DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OAK I<'ARMS CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO February 25, 2000 SCH#: 1999112038 DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OAK FARMS CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO February 25, 2004 SCH#: 1999112038 TABLE OF CONTENTS OAK FARMS FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SLTIvIlV1ARY Summary-1 Project Description Summary-1 Overview of Impacts and Mitigations Summary-1 Alternatives to the Project Summary-4 INTRODUCTION 1-1 Overview of the Project 1-1 Purpose of the EIR 1-1 Public Review 1-2 Lead Agency 1-2 Content and Organization 1-3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 Project Location and Description 2-1 Project Objectives 2-2 Project Requirements 2-2 Actions Addressed in the EIR 2-3 Site History 2-2 ENVIRON'v1ENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 3-1 Setting 3-1 Impacts and Mitigations 3-5 IMPACT OVERVIEW 4-1 Growth Inducing Impacts 4-1 Cumulative Impacts 4-1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts 4-3 Effects Found Not to Be Significant 4-3 ALTERNATIVES 5-1 No Project 5-1 Reduced Project Density and Retention of the Barn on the Site 5-2 Environmentally Superior Alternative 5-4 REPORT PREPARERS, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 6-1 City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn TOC-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS OAK FARMS FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A Notice of Preparation State Clearinghouse Letter Comment Letters Town of Colma Pacific Gas and Electric APPENDIX B Initial Study APPENDIX C Hilliard Lau Architects report Historic Evaluation-Architectural Resources Group R.Troust Moving Memorandum LIST OF FIGURES Figure S-1 Project Location Figure 2-2 Site Plan Figure 2-2 Building Elevations Figure 2-3 Landscape Plan Figure 3-1 North West and North East Elevations Figure 3-2 North East and South East Elevations Figure 3-3 South West Elevation Figure 3-4 Facade Details City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn TOC-2 S. SUMMARY OAK FARMS FOCUSED EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would consist of a residential subdivision to create 32 new single family dwelling units on a 2.65 acre site. The project is located at the southeast corner of Oak and Grand Avenues in City of South San Francisco (see Figure S-1). Currently there is a triplex on the property (in the northern corner) which would be retained, therefore the project would result in a 33-lot subdivision. There is an existing two-story single- family structure located on the western portion of the site which would be demolished. The site also includes a pump house, wooden water tank and storage shed which would also be demolished. The Lux Barn, also on the site, would either be demolished or moved. The site has been in limited agricultural use since the 1930's. OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS Architectural Resource Group was retained by the City of South San Francisco to evaluate the historical significance of the Lux Barn (ARG Report).' According to the ARG Report, the Lux Barn is one of the few buildings remaining in South San Francisco that date to the late 1850's. The Lux Barn is associated with two historic contexts: The development of the Lux Mansion, a building dating to the 1850's, and small-scale family farming during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The period of significance for this resource ranges from the late 1850's when the building was used on the Lux Estate, through the 1960's when the Uccelli family was still farming near the Barn site. The table on the following page summarizes project impacts and mitigation measures. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn Summary-1 IMPACT ~ MITIGATION ~ LEVEL OF Impact 3.1-A. Relocation and rehabilitation of the Lux Barn would result in a significant impact to the historic resource in terms of the context of small-scale farming under all three impact criterion. (Significant). Move the Barn to Orange Park, historically rehabilitate the Lux Bam to the 1854 use as a carriage house and place an historical plaque at the project site at Oak Avenue. SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Loss of Historic Structure Dating to the Mid-18S0's Associated with the LUX Mansion: Full historic renovation of the Barn and moving it to another location would result in a less than significant impact. (Less than Significant). Alternative Move the Bam to Orange Park or some other location and rehabilitate the Lux Barn , to a lesser extent than identified above and place an historical plaque at the project site at Oak Avenue. The Bam would be rehabilitated at a minimum extent to slow or prevent its decay and extensive historical restoration would not occur. The Barn would be restored to the historical use of storage, with aless- exacting replication of original building materials, and without the need to rehabilitate to current-day occupancy standards. Note: The cost of this mitigation could exceed $1,00,000 which may render its implementation infeasible. Small Scale Farming Historical Impac7.• The impact would remain significant and unavoidable with respect to the context of small-scale farming. (Significant Unavoidable). Loss of Historic Structure Dating to the Mid-18S0's Associated with t/:e LUX Mansion: Compromises that would be made in the restoration in order to keep the restoration costs down would result in a significant unavoidable impact. (Significant Unavoidable). Small Scale Farming Historical Impact: The impact would remain significant and unavoidable with respect to the context of small-scale farming. (Significant Unavoidable). City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn Summary-2 Impact 3.1-B. Demolition of the Lux Bam would result in a significant impact to the historic resource in terms of the date of the structure (1850's) and its association with the Lux Mansion under all three impact criterion. (Significant). Document and archive the Bam and its context with respect to small-scale farming with photographs and floor plans prior to demolition. Preserve some architectural features of the Barn and display them at the history museum. Documentation of the Barn and the site would be in-keeping with General Plan Policy Guiding Policy 7.5-G-2 which states encourages municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and support for South San Francisco's historic, cultural, and azchaeological resources. Alternative Disassemble the Barn for reassembly and store the Bam until a receiver site is identified. Photographically document the site with respect to small-scale farming. Arrest termites and dry rot. All efforts should be made to locate a receiver site with agricultural uses. Implementation of this mitigation measure would be in- keeping with General Plan Policy Guiding Policy 7.5-G-2 which states encourages municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and support for South San Francisco's historic, cultural, and archaeological resources. Volunteer labor from the community including the trades and schools would assist in keeping the costs of this mitigation measure lower. This measure should be coupled with historic renovation to at least a minimal level which would restore the Barn to a "storage" use. Loss of Historic Structure Dating to the Mid-1850's Associated with the LUX Mansion: Although documentation of the historic features of the Bam is a practice of historic preservation practiced by the U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service, this mitigation measure would not reduce project impacts to the structure. (Significant Unavoidable). Small Scale Farming Historical Impact: The impact would remain significant and unavoidable with respect to the context of small-scale farming. (Significant Unavoidable). Loss ojHistoric Structure Dating to tl:e Mid-I850's Associated with the LUX Mansion: Compromises that would be made in the restoration in order to keep the restoration costs down would result in a significant unavoidable impact. (Significant Unavoidable). Small Scale Farming Historical Impact: The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (Significant Unavoidable). Note: This mitigation measure does preserve the Barn and context of small-scale farming to some extent; it does involve the community in preserving the Barn; and implements General Plan Policy 7.5-G-2, and may be an option for the Lead Agency as it recognizes and furthers community values. A finding of over riding considerations pursuant to CEQA would still be required. The mitigation would need to be craned as a condition of approval and still may be infeasible due to liability and economic constraints. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn Summary-3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT This Focused EIR considers three alternatives including one that provides a reasonable range to full build-out of the project. The No-Project Alternative assumes that the current use of the site would continue. The Reduced Project Density And Retention of the Barn on the Site assumes that the Lux Barn would be retained on the site and rehabilitated and that the project would be reduced in density and redesigned in order to accommodate inclusion of the Lux Barn. The Increased Density And Retention of the Barn on the Site assumes that the Lux Barn would be retained on the site and rehabilitated and that the project would be increased in density to include an apartment complex of 80 units. REFERENCES SUMMARY 1. Historical Evaluation The Lux Barn, Architectural Resource Group, December 7, 1999. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn Summary-4 N Subject Site Figure S-1 Project Location Map CHAPTER 1 IlVTTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT The applicant, Standard Building Company, has applied to the City of South San Francisco for a subdivision and planned unit development to create 32 single-family residential units on a 2.65 acre site. The site is located on the east side of Oak Avenue at the southeast corner of Oak and Grand Avenues. A triplex is currently located on the site which would be retained. A single family residence is also on the site and it would be demolished. Currently the site is used for limited farming and contains a water tower, barn (referred to as the Lux Barn) which has been determined to be historically significant by Architectural Resources Group (December 1999)1, cone-story warehouse and pump house. The Lux Barn (circa 1854) is a two story structure that includes two units of farm worker housing on the second level. Additions to the Lux Barn have occurred over the years including alean-to structure at the rear of the building, concrete stairs to the second level, asbestos and faux brick siding and changes in fenestration from wood-framed to aluminum-framed windows. The Lux Barn is considered historical by Architectural Resources Group in two contexts: Small- scale farming in South San Francisco, and the construction of the Lux Mansion associated with a building that dates to the 1850's ,also in South San Francisco. PURPOSE OF THE EIR The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all governmental bodies in California to consider environmental issues in their decision-making process. This is accomplished through the preparation of a series of environmental documents, beginning with an Initial Study that identifies potentially significant impacts, and then either a Negative Declaration if there is not potential for a significant impact, or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if the potential for a significant impact exists. City of South San Francisco Focused EII2 Lux Barn 1-1 In January 2000, an Initial Study for the proposed project was prepared by the Lead Agency, the City of South San Francisco, Planning Division, concluded that the project has the potential to have a significant effect on the environment and that an Environmental Impact Report (Focused EIR) focusing on historic resources is required. A CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP), which contained a project description, was sent by the City to the Responsible Agencies inclusive of the State Clearinghouse and other interested parties. The purpose of the NOP was to solicit guidance from those agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR (Section 15375 CEQA Guidelines). The City's NOP including the two comment letters received on the NOP are included as Appendix A. The City's Initial Study is included as Appendix B. PUBLIC REVIEW This document constitutes the Draft Focused EIR. Written comments may be submitted on the adequacy of this Draft Focused EIR during the 45-day public review period. Following the close of the written public comment period, responses to w7-itten comments on the environmental effects of the project will be prepared and published in a supplement to this document. The Final Focused EIR (comprised of this Draft Focused EIR and responses to comments on this draft) will then be certified by the City Council if it is determined to be in compliance with CEQA. Following certification of the Focused EIR, the City can approve or deny the project. CEQA also requires that a Lead Agency establish a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) at the time of project approval to ensure that "changes to the project" that are "adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment" are implemented Accordingly, an NIlVIRP will need to be prepared for the project. The NIlVIltP will be considered by the City of South San Francisco Planning Division in conjunction with the project review and will be included as a condition of project approval. LEAD AGENCY The City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development Planning Division is the Lead Agency for the environmental documentation for the proposed project as defined under Section 21067 of the Public Resource Code. This means that the City of South San Francisco is designated as the public agency which has the principal responsibility for approving (or denying) the proposed project and for assessing the likely environmental affects of the proposed project. All written comments on the adequacy of this Focused EIR should be sent to the address and person identified below. Comments must be received during the 45-day public review period in order to be responded to in the Final Focused EIR. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lug Barn 1-2 Send written comments on this document to: City of South San Francisco City Hall Annex Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083 Project Planner: Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner 650 877-8535 FAX 650 829-6639 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT Based upon the findings of the Initial Study, this EIR focuses on historical resources. Two comment letters were received on the scope of the Focused EIR, through the NOP process, which are addressed in the Initial Study and summarized herein. Comments on the Notice of Preparation The Town of Colma requested that the cumulative traffic impacts to the Mission/El Camino Real intersection be addressed in the environmental document. Page 18 of the Initial Study (Appendix A) discusses this intersection. In summary, the project would add two AM peak period trips and three PM peak period trips to the Mission/El Camino Real intersection. The addition of traffic is less-than-significant. Pacific, Gas and Electric requested that the environmental document address cumulative utility impacts associated with the project. Page 17 of the Initial Study discusses cumulative utility impacts. In summary, the City's General Plan and accompanying EIR which assesses cumulative impacts (certified by the City October 13, 1999) found that PG&E has adequate capacity to serve General Plan build-out (PG&E Director of Planning and Engineering, May 11, 1998). It is also important to note that the project proposes less density than that analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Organization of the Document Sections 15122 through 15132 of CEQA Guidelines describe the content requirements of EIRs. The following sections are contained in this Focused EIR pursuant to state law. City of South San Francisco Focused EIl2 Lux Barn 1-3 Project Description including the objectives to be achieved by the project (Chapter 2 of this Focused EIR); Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures to lessen project impacts (Chapter 3 of this document); Impact Overview which includes growth inducing impacts, cumulative impacts and unavoidable significant impacts (Chapter 4 of this document); and, Alternatives to the Project which includes a "no project alternative" (Chapter 5 of this document). This document also includes a Summary chapter; a Reference chapter (Chapter 6) and appendices (including the Initial Study, comment letters on the Notice of Preparation, Moving Report and the Rehabilitation Report). REFERENCES INTRODUCTION 1. Historical Evaluation The Lux Barn, Architectural Resource Group, December 7, 1999. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 1-4 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed project would consist of a residential subdivision to create 32 new single family dwelling units on a 2.65 acre site. The project is located at the southeast corner of Oak and Grand Avenues in City of South San Francisco (see Figure S-1). Currently there is a triplex on the property (in the northern corner) which would be retained, therefore the project would result in a 33-lot subdivision. There is an existing two-story single- family structure located on the western portion of the site which would be demolished. The site also includes a pump house, wooden water tank and storage shed which would also be demolished. The Lux Barn, also on the site, would either be demolished or moved. The site has been in limited agricultural use since the 1930's. The applicant proposes to create 32 new lots for single-family development (see Figure 2-1). The proposed floor plans include two- and three-story units. The two-story homes would consist of 1,320 square feet and include two bedrooms (one of which would be a master bedroom), a kitchen, combined living and eating area, bathroom and two-car garage. The three-story floor plan would consist of 1,790 square feet and include a master bedroom, loft-style bedroom (without a bathroom), a den which could be an optional bedroom (with a bathroom), kitchen/morning room combination, living room and dining room combination, bathroom and a two-car garage (see Figure 2-2). Both floor plans include aground-floor porch. Conceptual architectural drawings include the use of bay windows and dormer-style windows. Fenestration includes divided lights and shutters. Porches include functionaUdecorative columns and railings. Building materials include wood siding and fiberglass asphalt shingles. The three- story Moor plan included three elevation styles while the two-story plan includes one elevation style. The streets would be privately owned and maintained. In addition to the two-car garages and two-car driveway aprons there would also be 14 additional parking spaces positioned throughout the development in four parking bays. The roadway is proposed to be looped off Oak Avenue (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2). City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 2-1 ~ Average lot size (including the triplex lot) would be 2,521 square feet. The triplex lot is 8,383 square feet. The minimum lot size would be 2,160 square feet with a typical dimension of 27' x 80'. Total lot area would be 1.91 acres, public utility, infrastructure (streets) and limited open space would be 0.70 acres. The project would require approximately 1,500 cubic yards of cut, 4,250 cubic yards of fill and 2,750 cubic yards of imported fill. The landscape plan proposes London Plane, Holly Oak and Brazilian Pepper trees as street trees along Oak and Commercial Avenues. Flowering Saucer and cherry trees are proposed as the street trees internal to the project. Shrubs, vines and groundcover, in addition to the internal trees, are proposed for parking, individual lot and open space landscaping (see Figure 2-3). Typical plantings would include Star Jasmine, Dwarf Periwinkle, Creeping Fig, Virginia Creeper, English Lavender, Giant Chain Fern, India Hawthorn, Sweet Olive, Maiden Grass, Evergreen Daylily, Boxleaf Hebe, Wallflower and Glossy Abelia. PROJECT OBJECTIVES Objectives to be achieved as part of the project include: 1. To achieve an environment reflecting ahigher-level of attention for Urban Design, Small Town Community, Architectural Design and Land Use principles. 2. To develop a housing type that is more affordable to various segments of the community in a manner consistent with the housing needs as identified by the Bay Area Association of Governments (ABAG). 3. To provide parking within the development thereby not impacting the existing neighborhood. 4. To facilitate a higher and better use of the site through a unique layout and design with a common walkway (open space) to create a sense of small town (Old South San Francisco) environment. 5. Reducing the "jobs-housing" imbalance identified in the City's recently adopted updated General Plan (October 1999) by providing more housing opportunities in South San Francisco within close proximity (3/4 mile) of the under-construction Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) line. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS The proposed project requires the following entitlement review and approval from the City of South San Francisco. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 2-2 Approval of Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps and Planned Unit Development. 2. Issuance of grading, sewer, storm water and building permits. 3. Provision of five (S) low- to moderate-income units within the project development. 4. Design review approval. S. Approval of a Relocation or Demolition Plan for the Lux Barn. 6. Certification of the Focused EIR ACTIONS ADDRESSED IN THE EIR The following actions are addressed in this Environmental Impact Report. 1. Historic Resources, including the relocation, rehabilitation or demolition of the Lux Barn. 2. Certification of the Focused EIR. All other items have been focused out of this EIR and are processed through the standard entitlement review process of the City of South San Francisco. SITE HISTORY Row crops have been cultivated on the site since the 1930's. The existing two-story single- family structure located on the western portion of the site has been in place prior to 1937, as observed in aerial photographs. The existing pump house, wooden water tank and storage shed were built in 1945.' The existing triplex located in the northern corner of the site has been in place since about mid-1920's.2 The Lux Barn was moved to the site in the 1920's. The building has remained in active use as a barn, limited residential and agricultural storage facility since being moved to Oak Avenue. 3 REFERENCES PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1."Phase I Environmental Site Assessment-Oak Farms Parcel ", ICES, June 10, 1999, page 4. 2. Bob Mantegani, Standard Building Company, January 20, 2000. 3. `Historical Evaluation The Lux Barn ", December 7, 1999, page 3. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 2-3 ,~ ~, '~ ~ l _ ~ is .. -:., / ~ _ - ,: ~. * ~ ff ~ ~ i / . :. ~, _ - i ~, ~ ~~ ~ ~pp Y+ '~. r .`;: l~ ~ ~ ~ `I s . ~ '~ - - - - - ,\ ~ s ~ s ~ s -'~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.,,. , ~ 1~.. .' ~ ~~ ~ ti ~ti ;~ C ' i ~! ~ T ;i ~ .\ ~ ~~• ~,, :4, ~7 ~`ha \'~• \ ~ \~ ~~~ '`~' ~\• ` ,- ,. ,. ~~ >,.. ~ ~ ~. :~. J ,, ~ j a ,. ,may `(~j ~ ~h / i ~;~ ~~,~ ~ '' , C~• r, ~~ `, / ,~ ~. • ;" i~. ^ / . , ~;. . ~ ~~~ ,> A i D -~-- . - u_.__._. to 1 O D D;; r y -~ z C7 Z r m n ~ Z ~ m X Z O p O~ O ~, Z r ~ 1~--~~~ C A X G7 C C V D r A N m v n N r m ~ m;; A rAi Q m D A N; ~m-1 D r r ~' D A D fAl p m p Q alb ~ 1:c: N ~ m~~ O n Z A N D r om n L~ IfC(.., ~ a ~ X 7G A T7 ~7 m O D N N~ G7 A /~ \~ ~ cl ~ = D D D ~ m r D N D ~J ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N n^~ A N N m f1 Z D f ~ ~~~-~ ~ ~A A ~ iI1 x m r' -~ ° ~ ~ vmi ~ ~ (-' m to W Oo m W m A --~ A m a'vivo ~~~ Rev x~~ --~ m r=a, n D ~ \ ~ ~~ D ;~ C N N A ('~ N~~ r~ a o m o r -~ '~ o O m "~~ -c -Z+ m A O N A r D N O ~ ~ D m N~ ~~ ~ ~ ~m m ;< ~ v O ~ p ~ Z ~ .,o m ~ Z m ~ ° O ~ ~ m ° -_i D -A-1 O VIZ ~ p D r $~ ~ ~ O D r\ m v X ~ -~ C N FIGURE 2-1 SITE PLAN ~' 0 . `~ ~~ ~ ~ ,; ~' ~ l 1 Ir • 1"F~ V1 • ~M -J ^~ I ~• O n ._ ~ ~ ~ N _ = JI =z 8 N d C ~ > .~ •~ ~c :: " ~~ ''L7 c N N J0 1 0 x n O Z W a 0 z ~• -~ 0 z l -- N .~ ~ ~ _.~ ' ~ a ~ "I N°pA~M ~ ~ T~1 ~n O C .. __ /V ^I N ° :'~1 y O ~ C - C - ~ z C1 _~~ _ _. ,~+... r y ~ ~ ~ r_ 8 ,~ a . ~ -~ ~ $ o I , 0 ~ b Z '~ ti ~.. e ~{J.. o - -'~--}--F~r-'p~r-- ~ / . y ; ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ,(~~ N C ``. / ~ !n v. ~ ~• ~ V L~ O ~ O ~ a 1 ~ ~~~ w .. ., ~;__ .~ N , I z ~ I ~ I A o +~ I I I* ~ ~ A 8 _- ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~, 1 '~I ( H- rQ+ 1 ......_ --~-__ ... ... _. _._ O ~ J~~.~i_~, ~ ~ r--- '° II r- -~ x ~ ' ~_ ~ ~I ~ ~ H ° I II ~-~ :-, ; - - - I' m 3 jm ~ r I_ FIGURE 2-2 BUILDING ELEVATIONS ~~ £1 1 ~ F _ ~. -- ~,~y ~ i II UUU/ ~h i rb ru _ ~$ A ;~ ~~ I -~_ i ~~ - a ------- ._. o G ~~ ~x 0 ~~~ 0 n ~: 0 ~. w O `1Fi+ p D ~n a~ N A N '~ o.. M ~y ~o . ~ ~ ~. ii n a .l :~\ .; . ~'~~ i j ~ ~~ ~~ . ~ `~ ~ ~~ `\ ~ ~ ~ v ~~ ~ ~ ~s. ~ ~ -~ ~ )~ ~- ~++ 1~l )Np~nD~~ rnOp ~ ~~. ~~ - )n r D~~ D ~ -.d o ~ m ) ,a ~ ~ D .p z z ~~_ ~~ D~~ rSD~ ~ ~ 7r~ £t ~,~~pa~10 ~~ ~ r~fyj i ) p A ~ ~ to A ~= A Y Jo ~_ -~ bry~ -- s h-r ~ ,.. FIGURE 2-3 LANDSCAPE PLANS ~' u -O ~ r r Z r ~~ ~ ~ ~~ rn Z ~ rn _. ----. GOMtiiE~R~G I AL A~VENUE~~~ CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION HISTORICAL RESOURCES Architectural Resource Group was retained by the City of South San Francisco to evaluate the historical significance of the Lux Barn (ARG Report).' The City also retained the services of Hilliard Lau Architects to determine the costs of renovating the Lux Barn 2 and R. Troust Moving to determine the costs of relocating the Barn.3 These reports aze summarized herein and in the Alternatives Section of this Report and are included in the appendices. SETTING Historical Setting South San Francisco is located in a part of the old Rancho Buri Buri. The land was given to Jose Antonio Sanchez as a provisional land grant in 1827 and was confirmed in 1835. The Rancho covered almost 15,000 acres. Sanchez died in 1843 and left his land to his wife and 10 children who, within 25 years, had either sold or lost the land through litigation and debt.4 In 1856, Chazles Lux with his partner Henry Miller bought approximately 1,500 acres of the old Rancho for cattle ranching. Lux built what is known as the Lux Mansion between what is now Oak and Chestnut Avenues. The estate included elaborate manicured gardens and the what is now known as the Lux Barn. The Lux Barn has been referred to as a carriage house, out building, buggy repair shop and a barn. The main house on the estate was demolished in 1923 and the carriage house was moved to its current location at 150 Oak Avenue. Peter Uccelli, Senior, an immigrant to South San Francisco from Genoa, Italy, purchased several acres near the intersection of Oak and Grand Avenue in 1924. The land was used for farming which included grapes for production of wine, and potatoes and vegetables for sale. According to the ARG Report, Alice Mazsili, daughter of Peter Uccelli, remembers her father and three brothers moving the Lux Barn to its current location in the 1930's. Review of the 1925 South San Francisco Sanborn Map shows the Barn at its current location in 1925. Therefore, it appears that the Barn was moved to 150 Oak Avenue in the early 1920's. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 3-1 The Barn has remained in active use as a barn, limited residential and agricultural storage facility since being moved to Oak Avenue. As noted above, the Barn has supported residential land uses. Current Setting The Lux Barn is on a 2.65 acre site of which approximately 2.0 acres is cultivated with vegetable fields. The remaining half-acre consists of the Lux Barn, a black water tower, small storage shack, a triplex and asingle-family residence. Residential land uses lie to the east, south east, west and north west. The County Government Center is south west of the site. Santo Cristo Hall, constructed circa 1900, at 41 Oak Street (the corner of Mission and Oak Streets) and the Weiss Residence at 90 Oak Street, constructed in 1903, is west of the site. The Lux Barn is a two-story, side-gabled, wood-frame building. A one-story, shed-roofed, lean-to has been added to the full width of the south east elevation subsequent to the original construction of the Barn. The entire structure is red with white trim and fascia board (wood siding) (see Figures 3-1 through 3-4). The fascia board has been covered with a layer of asbestos and covered again with composition shingles designed to appear as red brick (see Figure 3-4). The additions to the facade likely occurred in the 1950's or 60's judging from the materials used and the photographs available in the History Room of the South San Francisco Library. The Oak Avenue elevation has two openings for truck loading at the west end. A small door leads to the upstairs, where two illegal sub-standard apartment units were added for farm worker housing. An additional door to serve as a garage area is located near the eastern end of the Oak Avenue elevation. Six one-over-one double-hung windows run along the second~floor elevation. The original wood windows have been replaced with aluminum-framed windows (see Figure 3- 1). The north east elevation includes a single small square window (see Figure 3-2). The original wood-framed window was replaced with analuminum-framed window. The south east elevation includes five double-hung windows, similar to the front facade, which are also aluminum-framed (see Figure 3-2) and two smaller windows. The original windows were wood-framed and over the years replaced with aluminum-framed windows. Asingle-story, shed-roofed, addition runs the entire length of the south east elevation. The addition was probably constructed in the 1920's, as the 1925 Sanborn maps clearly show the one-story shed addition to the Barn. The shed is sided with corrugated metal and painted red to match the remainder of the structure. The south west elevation includes a concrete and metal stair that leads up to the second-floor apartments (see Figure 3-3). The stair was probably added at the time that the second-level was converted (without the benefit of City permits) to living quarters. Three aluminum-framed windows are on the second-level. Two of the windows are double-hung while the gabled-style window is an aluminum slider. The siding on this elevation is T-1-11 (grooved ply board with simulated batting) and painted red to match the three other elevations (see Figure 3-3). City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 3-2 The ground-floor of the Lux Barn, inside the Oak Avenue loading entrance, is a large open area used for cleaning and packing vegetables harvested at this small farm (see Figure 3-4). The majority of the floor has been paved with concrete, although several patches are covered with floor boazds, with open slits between allowing for drainage to a pit below. The rafters and braced-frame wood structure are exposed on the interior. Corrugated metal has been attached over the lower portion of the interior walls to prevent water damage since the south west and rear elevations originally had horizontal wood slat siding with wide groves between each board. A toilet room has been added to the ground-floor. The upstairs was converted into two apartments. The two apartments are sub-standard and do not meet the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code for basic life safety or ceiling heights. The structure has dry rot, rats and termites throughout.s Even the layers of siding that have been added to the building over the past 100 years are in poor condition (see Figure 3-4). Plans, Policies and Regulations Pursuant to Historic Significance City's Historic Resource Survey List In 1985, a Historic Commission was formed by the City of South San Francisco by City Ordinance. The duties and requirements of the Commission are Chaptered in the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC Chapter 2.58). In 1986, the City inventoried its potentially historic buildings and developed a list of over 500 properties. The list contains a brief history of the property, its significance and rating. Potential historic resources aze rated #1 to #5 with #1 being the highest, and thus more significant, to #5 being the lowest and least significant. In accordance with the City procedures outlined in the SSFMC Chapter 2.58, the Historic Preservation Commission upon receipt of an application, shall review and approve any designation of an individual historic resource. There are 27 designated historic resources on the City's survey. The Lux Barn is identified on the City of South San Francisco's Historic Survey list as a "potentially significant historic structure". The Lux Barn is rated as #5; potentially significant with the lowest rating. The City survey also states that in 1986 the building was already used for multi-family residential uses and that the historical significance is associated with the Miller,~i,ux feed lot from 1850 rather than from the Lux Mansion. The Santo Cristo Hall, and the Weiss Residence are also identified as potentially significant historic structures, with a rating of #5. General Plan Historic And Cultural Resources The City recently amended its General Plan (October 1999). The General Plan contains a discussion of historic resources in Chapter 7 "Open Space and Conservation." In particulaz, Guiding Policy 7.5-G-2 states: City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 3-3 Encourage municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and support for South San Francisco's historic, cultural, and archaeological resources. The City currently achieves this policy through the Historic Commission activities including identifying and designating historic resources. Other methods by which the City achieves this objective is through design review, entitlement review and environmental review. Definition of Historic Resources Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act According to CEQA (Guidelines Section 15064.5) the term "historical resource" shall include the following: 1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq). 2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g)of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, record or manuscript which~a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California maybe considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally a resource shall be considered a resource by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (Public Resource Code Section 5021.1 Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following: A. Is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; B Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; or City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 3-4 D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 4. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, not included in a local register of historic resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does nat preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in the Public Resource Code Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. Evaluation of Lux Barn Historic Significance Under Criterion 3.A, above and paraphrased in the following, the Lux Barn meets the criterion of the California Register. "Any, building, structure, site, area, which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural... agricultural... or cultural annals of California maybe considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally a resource shall be considered a resource by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (Public Resource Code Section 5021.1 Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following: Is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage." According to the ARG Report, the Lux Barn is one of the few buildings remaining in South San Francisco that date to the late 1850's. The Lux Barn is associated with two historic contexts: The development of the Lux Mansion and small-scale family farming during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The period of significance for this resource ranges from the late 1850's when the building was used on the Lux Estate, through the 1960's when the Uccelli family was still farming near the Barn site. IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS Definition of Significance Criteria According to CEQA standards, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if it would: City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 3-5 1. Result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource which means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. 2. Impair the significance of an historical resource which would occur when a project results in demolishing or materially altering in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historic resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in a historic resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant. 3. Demolish or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historic resource that convey its historic significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources as defined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. IMPACTS Impact 3.1.A: Relocation and rehabilitation of the Lux Barn would result in a significant impact to the historic resource in terms of the context of small-scale farming under all three impact criterion (Significant). In order to construct the project as proposed, the Lux Barn would be demolished or moved. Demolishing the Barn would remove the structure from our culture. Moving the Barn to another location would preserve the architecture of the structure as an historic resource, however, the setting and context associated with small-scale farming would be lost due to the construction of 32 homes on the site. Mitigation Measure 3.1.A Proposed as Part of the Project None. Identified in this EIR Move the Barn to Orange Park, historically rehabilitate the Lux Barn to the 1854 use as a carnage house and place an historical plaque at the project site at Oak Avenue. The immediate context of the site on Oak Avenue associated with small-scale farming would be lost. Rehabilitating and restoring the Barn to the carnage house architecture would preserve the structure and the historic use as carriage house. Placing a plaque with City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 3-6 a brief history of the Oak Avenue project frontage of the subdivision would memorialize the historic use of the site and this would be in keeping with the name of the subdivision. Costs for relocating the Barn be approximately 535,000 assuming no utility lines would need to be moved or trees trimmed to facilitate the move. The cost estimate excludes any foundation construction, utility escorts, hazardous material removal or disposal, permit fees, no parking signs and renovation (R. Troust Moving). Approximately 15% should be added to the estimate if tree trimming and utility lines are involved in the move, increasing the cost to approximately $40,250.6 The cost to restore and rehabilitate the Barn to the carriage house architecture would be approximately $800,000 (Hilliard Lau Architects). Any change in use of the Barn (as an example, conversion to classrooms or other facilities related to Orange Park) would add further to the cost of restoration and rehabilitation. The costs are high due to the amount of skill and effort required to reconstruct and restore the building to its original integrity. Architectural and design fees commonly exceed 25% of the construction costs. Termite extermination and dry rot repair are two other important factors to consider. Carefully stripping the added layers to the facade, and removing and off-hauling the asbestos, as well as re-creating the original siding of the building is costly. The residential interiors would be removed, new foundation and shear walls with hold-downs and new electrical and lighting systems would be required. Potential Impacts Associated with Mitigation Measure 3.I.A Placing the Barn in Orange Park would remove some area from recreational activities at Orange Park (unless the Barn were reconstructed to incorporate recreational uses). Placing the Barn in Orange Park may also require additional land for a buffer area, to protect the structure. The potential impacts associated with the loss of area for recreational uses along with any tree or vegetation removal would require analysis. Security and public safety issues would also have to be analyzed. The Barn would need to be protected from vandalism, and adaptive re-use of the Barn would necessitate historic renovation that preserves the historic value while implementing the requirements of the Uniform Building Code requisite to protect the public safety. Although not required by CEQA, the City may also desire to perform a fiscal analysis should this mitigation be implemented. Both funding sources and potential impacts to goods and services that the City provides the Community may need to be addressed in order to determine the fiscal effect of this mitigation measure. Level of Significance after Mitigation: Full restoration and rehabilitation of the Barn would result in aless-than-significant impact to the structure with respect to its original use as a carriage house and a structure that dates to 1850's. Relocating the Barn to Orange Park would still result in a significant impact with respect to the loss of the context of small-scale farming in South San Francisco. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lu.Y Barn 3-7 Therefore, although implementation of this mitigation measure would preserve the Barn, the historical context would not be preserved to a level that is less-than-significant. Recreational land use impacts, as well as public safety and security issues would also require analysis. Implementation of this mitigation measure may not be feasible due to the high costs as well as the potential secondary impacts associated with the mitigation. Mitigation Measure 3.1.A-Alternative Move the Barn to Orange Park and rehabilitate the Lux Barn (but not to the extent of the historic rehabilitation identified in Mitigation Measure 3.1.A) and place an historical plaque at the project site at Oak Avenue. This alternative assumes that while the Barn would be rehabilitated at a minimum to the extent to slow or prevent its decay, extensive historical restoration would not occur. The Barn would be moved to Orange Park or some other location, possibly a utility yard or a school. The Barn would be restored to the historical use of storage, with ales-exacting replication of original building materials, and without the need to rehabilitate to current-day occupancy standards. The cost of rehabilitation would be approximately $200,000 (Hilliard Lau Architects). Moving costs would be in the vicinity of $40,250. Level of Significance after Mitigation Full implementation of mitigation measure would still result in a significant impact to the historic significance of the structure due to the compromises that would be made in the restoration in order to keep the restoration costs down and due to the loss of the context of small- scale farming. Impact 3.1.B: Demolition of the Lux Barn would result in a significant impact to the historic resource in terms of the date of the structure (1850's), its association with the Lux Mansion under all three impact criterion and its context with small-scale farming (Significant). In order to construct the project as proposed, the Lux Barn would be demolished. Demolishing the Barn would remove the structure from our culture. Mitigation Measure 3.1.B Proposed as Part of the Project None. Identified in this EIR Redrafting floor plans of the Barn, taking photographs of the Barn and archiving this information in the history room of the library would preserve documentation of the Barn. Removing some of the architectural features such as doors, wood, cabinetry and/or molding from the building prior City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 3-8 to demolition, and donating the pieces to the historic museum would preserve aspects of the Barn. Documentation of the Barn could also include documentation ofsmall-scale farming in South San Francisco including the farming activities on the site and the Uccelli farming. Documentation of the Barn and the site would be in keeping with General Plan Policy Guiding Policy 7.5-G-2 which encourages municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and support for South San Francisco's historic, cultural, and archaeological resources. Level of Significance after Mitigation Documentation and preservation of the historic features of the Barn is a practice of historic preservation used by the U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. This mitigation measure, however, would not reduce project impacts to a less than significant level to both the Barn as a structure dating to the 1850's associated with the Lux Mansion and the context of the small-scale farming. Mitigation Measure 3.1.B-Alternative The Barn could be disassembled piece by piece, carefully marked and stored for reassembly at a later date. The Barn could be relocated and reconstructed when a receiver site is identified. During disassembly the Barn could be treated for termites and dry rot to arrest the deterioration of the structure. Photographs should be taken of the site with respect to small-scale farming. All efforts should be made to locate a receiver site with agricultural uses, and barring that, photographs of the current site and photographs of any Uccelli farming, should be displayed in the Barn upon reconstruction. Implementation of this mitigation measure would be inkeeping with General Plan Policy Guiding Policy 7.5-G-2 which encourages municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and support for South San Francisco's historic, cultural, and archaeological resources. Volunteer labor from the community including the trades and schools would assist in keeping the costs of this mitigation measure lower. This measure should be coupled with historic renovation to at least a minimal level which would restore the Barn to a "storage" use ($200,000). Should the City opt for this mitigation measure, or one similar to it, several factors should be noted. This mitigation does not reduce project impacts to ales-than-significant level, and it may pose fiscal impacts upon the proposed project that render the project infeasible. Therefore, the mitigation measure would need to be carefully crafted as a condition of project approval. Even as a condition of project approval the condition maybe infeasible for the following reasons: The presence of asbestos and the potential liability to volunteers with respect to handling the asbestos. The time it takes to disassemble, mark and store the Barn. Volunteer labor could take months to accomplish this task (while demolishing the Barn including the careful treatment of demolition due to the presence of asbestos would take approximately two weeks). The costs of storing the Barn. Storage costs are approximately $1.00/square foot.' The Barn would take approximately 2,500 square feet to store or $2,500/month. Liability insurance for storing the Barn should also be considered in the disassembly costs. Liability for volunteer workers may also need to be considered especially with respect to asbestos exposure. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 3-9 Level of Significance after Mitigation Implementation of this mitigation measure would not reduce project impacts to the structure to a less-than significant level, due to the compromises in renovation necessary to keep the project costs down. The loss of the context of small scale-farming would still remain a significant unavoidable impact. It should be noted however that this mitigation measure does preserve the Barn to some extent; it would involve the community in preserving the Barn and would implement General Plan Policy 7.5-G-2. This mitigation measure may be an option for the Lead Agency as it recognizes and furthers community values, although a finding of overriding consideration pursuant to CEQA would still be required for the impacts to both a structure dating to the 1850's associated with the Lux Mansion and small-scale farming in South San Francisco. REFERENCES HISTORIC RESOURCES 1. Historical Evaluation The Lux Barn, Architectural Resource Group, December 7, 1999. 2. Review of Lux Mansion Carriage House, Hilliard Lau Architects, Inc., January 21, 2000. 3. The Barn Located at 1 SO Oak Avenue in South San Francisco, R. Troust, January 25, 2000. 4. Kaufinan, Linda. South San Francisco. 1976. 5. Dry rot, termites and rat droppings are evident from the site inspections conducted. 6. Frank Vieira, telephone conversation February 18, 2000. 7. Ken Diodati, Diodati Properties. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 3-10 North West Elevation-Aluminum Frame Windows and Aluminum Roll-Up Door Composition Shingle Siding Simulating Brick Over Original Siding North East Elevation-Addition on Back of Lux Barn Row Crops and Housing to South East FIGURE 3-1 City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn Page 3-11 North East Elevation Original Lux Barn with Lean-To Addition on South East Elevation South East Elevation-Aluminum Frame Windows on Lux Barn (Top Level) With Lean-To and Row Crops in Foreground FIGURE 3-2 City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn Page 3-12 South-West Elevation-Stairs to Second-Level Farm Worker Housing with Lean-To Addition on South East Elevation South West Elevation-Aluminum Frame Windows FIGURE 3-3 City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn Page 3-13 =~ Facade Details- Shingle Siding (Faux Brick) Over Asbestos and Original Siding Aluminum Roll-Up Door and Aluminum Windows Above Detail Interior Lux Barn-Produce Loading Area FIGURE 3-4 City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn Page 3-14 CHAPTER 4 IMPACT OVERVIEW GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Section 15120 (g) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a proposed action. Agrowth-inducing impact is defined as one that could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in the definition are public works projects which would remove obstacles to population growth. Any infrastructure project involving the creation of capacity to serve any new level of development maybe growth inducing. The environmental effects of induced growth are secondary, or indirect, impacts of a proposed action. Secondary effects of growth include increases in the demand on community services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, and conversion of agricultural and open space land to developed use. Inducement of disorderly growth that is inconsistent with local land use plans generally causes significant, adverse environmental impacts. The City's comprehensive update to the General Plan was adopted October 14, 1999. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan vas certified by the South San Francisco City Council on October 14, 1999. As part of the comprehensive update to the General Plan, the City designated certain parcels along the El Camino Corridor as office, commercial and medium and high residential in order to promote growth in the area and to provide services for that growth. The project site is also within the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Area within which the City is actively working to promote economic growth and increase residential opportunities to reduce blight in the area. The General Plan and Redevelopment Plan land use designation for the proposed project is high density residential. The proposed project would be developed at alesser-intensity than designated by both plans. The project would implement the policies of both plans and goods and services for residential growth currently exist and are planned for the project area. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines required consideration in an EIR of the potential environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively significant. The cumulative City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 4-1 impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental effect of the project when evaluated in conjunction with other closely-related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The cumulative development considered in conjunction with a project is related to the type of environmental impact evaluated, and the location of probable impacts. Cumulative impacts pertaining to the project would relate to the potential loss of cultural resources that could occur as a result of project approval. According to the City's Historic Survey (1986) there are two other historic resources within close proximity to the project. The Santo Cristo Hall located at 41 Oak Avenue, and the Weiss Residence at 90 Oak Avenue, both which are identified as potentially significant historic resources. The property in the area, including the subject project site, and along Oak Avenue is zoned residential. The Weiss residence is used as a residence and is well kept. The home was constructed in 1903 and is on a 50 x 100 foot lot. A portion of this home was used as the kitchen for the Lux Mansion. The Santo Cristo Hall, constructed around 1900, is on a 40 by 90 foot lot and is relatively well kept. The Hall is a meeting place for the Portugese Community in South San Francisco. The center portion of the Hall was originally used as a boarding house for employees of W. P. Fuller Paint Company. At a date unknown, a group of local Portugese leaders moved the Hall to its present location. When evaluating if there would be a cumulative loss of cultural resources due to a certain approval action by a Lead Agency it is important to consider: • The location and condition of the cultural resource. Where is the resource located with respect to comparable or competing land uses? What is the structural condition of the resource? • The location and condition of other cultural resources within the area. Where are other resources located with respect to comparable or competing land uses? What is the structural condition of these resources? • The size of the parcels on which the cultural resources are located, including the zoning, existing use and surrounding land uses. Will the size of the parcel foster a change or assist in maintaining the status quo in land use particularly in light of the zoning and general plan and surrounding land uses? • Typical actions of the Lead Agency with respect to cultural and historic preservation. What policies does the Lead Agency have with respect to historic preservation and over what period of time? What is the Lead Agency's record with respect to these policies? The Lux Barn is an agricultural use surrounded by residential land uses. The Barn has not been maintained well and does not meet the minium requirements of the Uniform Building Code for structural soundness, let alone habitation. The site is approximately 2.5 acres is size, a relatively City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 4-2 large lot for the neighborhood and one that lends itself to intensification in land use. The conversion of anon-conforming agricultural use to residential land use in conformance with the General Plan and zoning ordinance is more likely to be proposed for a large parcel of land than a smaller one and is more inviting if the subject parcel contains poorly maintained structures. As a point of comparison, the two other potentially significant historic resources in the area are on small lots 3,600 square feet and 5,000 square feet with relatively well maintained structures, one being residential. Smaller lots do not lend themselves to significant changes in land use as the area is not available to construct much more than asingle-family residence. There is also less incentive to affect existing structures when they are in relatively good shape, and they conform with the surrounding land uses and zoning. It is highly unlikely that approval of the proposed project would result in a cumulative loss of historic resources. Additionally, over the past two years the City of South San Francisco Historic Commission has place two buildings on the local historic resource list; 425 Baden Avenue and 643 Grand Avenue. Both buildings were constructed in 1892 and are residential structures. Two local resources that are included on the National Register are Sign Hill and the Metropolitan Hotel. The City is currently considering adding 429 Baden (constructed 1900) to the local list. The Southern Pacific Train Station (constructed 1933), a locally significant resource, was demolished in 1999 to facilitate public transportation improvements and the City approved the demolition of the Hynding Home, also a locally significant resource. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The impacts associated with the proposed project that cannot be reduced to aless-than- significant level, and which will constitute an Unavoidable Significant Impact, are listed below: Cultural Resources-Loss of context of with respect to small-scale farming in South San Francisco. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mineral Resources, Public Resources, Utilities/Service Systems, Agricultural Resources, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, Recreation, Air Quality, Geology/Soils, Land Use Planning, Population/Housing and Transportation/Traffic were found not to be significant based upon the discussion contained in the Initial Study prepared by the City on January 7, 2000, contained in Appendix B of this EIR. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 4-3 CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an evaluation of comparative effects of a range of reasonable alternatives to a project that could feasiblely attain the basic objectives of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)). The range of alternatives is governed by the "rule of reason" requiring the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained or whose implementation is remote and speculative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(5)). Evaluation of a No-Project alternative is required. If the environmentally superior alternative is the "No-Project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2)). The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives capable of avoiding or reducing significant environmental effects, even if the alternatives "...would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(3)). The significant effects of the alternatives shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(4)). This Focused EIR considers three alternatives. A. The No-Project Alternative assumes that the current use of the site would continue. B. The Reduced Project Density And Retention of the Barn on the Site assumes that the Lux Bam would be retained on the site and rehabilitated and that the project would be reduced in density and redesigned in order to accommodate inclusion of the Lux Barn. C. The Increased Density And Retention of the Barn on the Site assumes that the Lux Barn would be retained on the site and rehabilitated and that the project would be increased in density to include an apartment complex of 80 units. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 5-1 NO PROJECT The No-Project Alternative assumes that the current use of the site would continue. Limited farming and limited residential (two substandard fatTn worker units, a triplex and one single- family unit) uses would continue. The Lux Barn would continue in its deteriorated condition. As noted, the building has extensive dry rot, termite and rodent infestation, is structurally unsound and does not meet the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code for structural soundness or habitability. Given this scenario, and with the lack of funding or legal leverage to require the property owner to restore the Lux Barn to its original integrity, the Barn would eventually be lost. Vacant lands in the area, which are zoned and planned for residential land uses, would continue to be built and would continue to encroach on the limited agricultural uses of the site. No housing units, including low to moderate income units, would be constructed on the site. The opportunity to provide housing within close proximity of the BART Station would be reduced. Land available for and planned and zoned for, residential uses would not be constructed with residential units and therefore, would not be available to contribute to reducing the jobs/housing imbalance in the City. REDUCED PROJECT DENSITY AND RETENTION OF THE BARN ON THE SITE This alternative assumes that the Lux Barn would be retained on the site and rehabilitated and that the project would be reduced in density and redesigned in order to accommodate inclusion of the Lux Barn. l In order to maintain the historic significance of the Lux Barn with respect to the context of small- scale farming, some farming would have to be maintained on the site. Additionally, in order to maintain the architectural significance of the building dating back to the 1850's, the architectural integrity would have to be fully restored and the decay of the building arrested. A change in use of the Barn to a day care center and/or community center (Community Center) should be considered in order to incorporate the Barn into a functioning portion of the overall site plan for the project and the neighborhood. Some limited parking would also need to be provided, although it could be assumed that the majority of users for the Community Center would be derived from the Oak Farms neighborhood. The proposed site plan would need to be revised to incorporate the Barn and its use as a Community Center and to incorporate limited farming and parking. Approximately 10 to 12 units of housing would be eliminated to accommodate retention of the Barn, required parking, limited farming and reconfiguration of the internal street pattern. Restoration of the Barn should match the historical context of the Barn as closely as possible to the materials of the 1850's which could cost upwards of $1,000,000 (rehabilitation, restoration and architectural and design fees). Land costs are not included in this estimate. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 5-2 l:n order to accommodate the Barn at its existing location on the site, the internal (northern-most) roadway would need to be relocated further north and closer to the Oak and Grand Avenue intersection. The relocation of the roadway may not be achievable for two reasons. The topography slopes upward as it moves northward; therefore the project street would most likely exceed 12% slope at the intersection of Oak Avenue. As a point of reference, the City usually approves roadways with 5% to 6% slope although exceptions to this requirement have been granted as circumstances warrant. Second, the project roadway would intersect with Oak Avenue further north than currently proposed and too close to the intersection of Oak and Grand Avenues to provide proper sighting and distance to meet City standards. Retaining the Barn on site, surrounded by residential development would remove a good portion of the historical context of the site even if limited farming was retained. The loss of 10 to 12 units of housing would likely also render the project economically infeasible. The ability of the City to meet its economic and housing redevelopment objectives contained in the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and the housing objectives contained in the General Plan may also be jeopardized. The remaining land around the Barn would be less desirable for residential development, due to the site development constraints, and thus less likely to support residential uses that conform with the General and Redevelopment Plans. Ability of Alternative to Meet the Project Objectives Should a limited form of the project be approved, the affordability of the units would be decreased and it is unlikely that the following objectives of the project could be met: To reduce the gobs-housing" imbalance identified in the City's recently adopted updated General Plan (October 1999) by providing more housing opportunities in South San Francisco within close proximity (3/4 mile) of the under-construction Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) line. 2. To achieve an environment reflecting ahigher-level of attention for Urban Design, Small Town Community, Architectural Design and Land Use principles. 3. To develop a housing type that is more affordable to various segments of the community in a manner consistent with the housing needs as identified by the Bay Area Association of Governments (ABAG). INCREASED DENSITY AND RETENTION OF THE BARN ON THE SITE This alternative assumes that the Lux Barn would be retained on the site and rehabilitated and that the project would be increased to 80 units in density and be constructed as an apartment complex or townhomes for purchase. The rehabilitation costs would be the same as that identified for the reduced project, approximately $1,000,000, not including the costs of the land. City of South San Francisco Focused EIIt Lux Barn 5-3 To accommodate 80 units on the remainder of the site (1 to 1.5 acres) it is reasonable to assume a six-story structure (including parking) would be required.Z The size of the units are assumed to average 1,000 square feet; in this assumption there would be smaller and larger units for a variety. The building would likely be placed in the south and south east corner of the site in order to retain the Barn at its present location. Therefore, the six-story multi-family residential structure would be adjacent to the single-family residential development south of the site. This alternative would preserve the Barn and provide for development of a residential project. Potential secondary impacts associated with this alternative include visual impacts as the size and height of the structure would be out of scale with the neighborhood. There may be a loss of light to the single-family one- and two-story structures along the southern property line of the site. A rezoning to R-3 multi-family residential would be required as well as a variance to the height restrictions. Ability of Alternative to Meet the Project Objectives Should ahigher-density project be approved, it is likely that most, but not all, of the project objectives could be met. The following two objects «-ould likely not be met: To achieve an environment reflecting ahigher-level of attention for Urban Design, Small Town Community, Architectural Design and Land Use principles. 2. To facilitate a higher and better use of the site through a unique layout and design with a common walkway (open space) to create a sense of small town (Old South San Francisco). ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to "...evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" and to identify which of the alternatives is environmentally superior (Section 15126 (d)1). If the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." (Section 15126(d)4). Description of Selection Criteria The following issues were considered in selecting the Environmentally Superior Alternative: Which alternative avoids or substantially mitigates project impacts. Which alternative would create impacts that the proposed project would not? Which alternative would result in benefits to the environment that the project would not? City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 5-4 • Which alternative has the ability to meet most or all of the Sponsor's objectives? Discussion Retaining, rehabilitating and restoring the Barn on site and incorporating a higher density project on the site would result in avoiding significant impacts to the Barn. Increasing project density may preserve the economic feasibility of the project. Secondary impacts associated with higher density development would occur which include visual, loss of light, traffic and noise impacts identified above. Therefore, additional environmental impacts would likely occur with the higher density project alternative. The lower-density alternative would likely render the project financially infeasible, as discussed above. The project would likely then revert to the no project alternative. The no project alternative would eventually result in a complete loss of the Barn as it would continue to deteriorate. Environmentally Superior Alternative Proposed Project with Architectural and Photographic Documentation of the Barn Although unusual, in this case the implementation of the proposed project with the mitigation measure to document the Barn prior to demolition, is the environmentally superior development alternative. An architect would be retained by the City and paid for by the developer to provide the documentaion services. The architect would draft floor plans and full color elevations of the Barn, as it originally existed, as well as photograph the site with the context of small-scale farming in mind. During these activities individual architectural features, such as doors or cabinetry, that could be preserved and displayed in the historic museum, would be identified and removed from the Barn. REFERENCES ALTERNATIVES 1. Review of Lux Mansion Carriage House, Hilliard Lau Architects, Inc., January 21, 2000 2. Professional Real Estate Development, Urban Land Institute, Richard Peiser, 1992. City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 5-5 CHAPTER 6 REPORT PREPARERS, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED EIR AUTHORS CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO City Hall: 315 Maple Avenue Mailing: P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Planning Dept:(650) 877-8535 FAX: 829-6639 Contacts: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner EIR CONSULTANTS Allison Knapp Wollam, Consultants Planning, Environmental and Redevelopment 383 Crescent Avenue San Francisco, CA 94110 Project Manager and Author: Allison Knapp Wollam Rehabilitation Consultant: Michael Hilliard, Hilliard Lau Architects PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED Michael Upston, Senior Planner, South San Francisco Planning Division Architectural Resources Group Frank Krol, Troust Moving List of Contacts in the Initial Study List of References at the End of Each Chapter City of South San Francisco Focused EIR Lux Barn 6-1 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF PREPARATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE LETTER COMMENT LETTERS TOWN OF COLMA PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC Notice of Preparation To: Richard Napier C/CAG 555 County Center, 5u' Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 31 S Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Contact: Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner (650) 877-8535 The City of South San Francisco will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the proposed scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency when considering follow-on permits or other approvals for this project. Project Title: Oak Farms Residential Subdivision Project Location: Southeast corner of Oak Avenue and Grand Avenue. The street address is 150 Oak Avenue. Project Description: 32-lot single family residential subdivision on a 2.65 acre site The attached supplement identifies potential environmental effects anticipated to be discussed in the Environmental Impact Report. Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response must be returned at the earliest possible time but not later_than 30 days following receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the contact person identified above. Date: /~ ~/~ Signature: /` ~ Title: Phone: /so g'7?-8"535 ,:-~~~'"~ ST.~1TE OF C.•1LIFOR\IA ~~ - Governor's Office of Planning and Research ;~::,." ••' State Clearinghouse Grav Davis STREET 9DDRESS: 1400 TEXTH STREET ROOM 222 SACRA\IE\TO, CALIFOR\lA 9jSi4 GO\ ERROR ~IAILI~G ADDRESS: P.O. BOS 3044 SACRA~IEXTO, C1 9j312-3044 916-44j-0613 FAS 916-323-3013 ~~~~ZV.opr.ca.go~-,~clearinghouse.html Notice of Preparation November 9, 1999 To: Reviewing Agencies Re: Oak Farms Residential Subdivision SCH# 99112038 Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Oak Farms Residential Subdivision draft Environmental Lmpact Report (ElR). o~~~~ *~~' ~~ ~~~ Loretta Lcnch DI>ECIOR Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at (916)445-0613. Sincerely, ~ ~ . A ~'L~ i Mosie Boyd Project Analyst, State Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Lead Agency ,~ or co - _ - 0 TOWN OF COLMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 November 11, 1999 Susan Kalkin, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Div. P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 1190 EI Camino Real • Colma, California 94014 Phone: (650) 985-2590 • FAX: (650) 985-2578 Re: Notice of Preparation -Draft Environmental Impact Report -Oak Farms Residential Subdivision Dear Ms. Kalkin: Thank you for inviting us to comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Oak Farms Residential Subdivision. We concur with the list of topics you have identified for analysis in the EIR document. The analysis of cumulative traffic impacts attributable to the subdivision should include cumulative traffic projections for Hickey Boulevard after the extension, EI Camino Real and Mission Road. The cumulative traffic projections should factor in other proposed development in the area, including the Costco project and the BART station. The analysis should include impacts to roadways in the Town of Colma especially where Mission Road intersects EI Camino Real. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to receiving the draft EIR when it is ready. Please call me or Michael Laughlin of our staff if you have any questions about the comments in this letter. Sincerely, -. ,; ,~ ;" ~ '~ ~`~~1 ~c-? ~ Malcolm C. Carpenter, AICP City Planner Cc: City Manager City Attorney City Engineer MPL C:mydoeslcolmaUetterslpeneaMalQartn.Itt IAN&I~ Pacific bas and E/ecbic Company November 23, 1999 Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Notice of Preparation Oak Farms Residential Subdivision Oak & Grand Aves. Dear Ms. Kalkin: RECEIVE. N 0'~I 2 9 1~~9 PLANhtNG itt Almaden Boulevard P.O. Box 15005 San Jose, CA 95115-0005 Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Prepazation (NOP) for the proposed Oak Farms Residential Subdivision Project. PG&E has the following comments to offer. PG&E owns and operates gas and electric facilities which aze located within and adjacent to the proposed project. To promote the safe and reliable. maintenance and operation of utility facilities, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility facilities and surrounding objects or construction activities. To ensure compliance with these standazds, project proponents should coordinate with PG&E early in the development of their project plans. Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent easement encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of PG&E's facilities. Developers will be responsible for the costs associated with the relocation of existing PG&E facilities to accommodate *J;eir proposed 3evelopment. Because facilities relocation's require long lead times and are not always feasible, developers should be encouraged to consult with PG&E as early in their planning stages as possible. Relocations of PG&E's electric transmission and substation facilities (50,000 volts and above), if any, could also require formal approval from the California Public Utilities Commission. If required, this approval process could take up to two years to complete. Proponents with development plans which could affect such electric transmission facilities should be referred to PG&E for additional information and assistance in the development of their project schedules- We would also like to note that continued development consistent with your General Plans will have a cumulative impact on PG&E's gas and electric systems and may require on-site and off-site additions and improvements to the facilities which supply these services. Because utility facilities are operated as an integrated system, the presence of an existing gas or electric transmission or distribution facility does not necessarily mean the facility has capacity to connect new loads. Expansion of distribution and transmission lines and related facilities is a necessary consequence of growth and development. In addition to adding new distribution feeders, the range of electric system improvements needed to accommodate growth may include upgrading existing substation and transmission line equipment, expanding existing substations to their ultimate buildout capacity, and building new substations and interconnecting transmission lines. Comparable upgrades or additions needed to accommodate additional load on the gas system could include facilities such as regulator stations, odorizer stations, valve lots, distribution and transmission lines. We would like to recommend that environmental documents for proposed development projects include adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts to utility systems, the utility facilities needed to serve those developments and any potential environmental issues associated with extending utility service to the proposed project. This will assure the project's compliance with CEQA and reduce potential delays to the project schedule. We also encourage the City of South San Francisco,to include information about the issue of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) in the Notice of Preparation. It is PG&E's policy to share information and educate people about the issue of EMF. "Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) exist wherever there is electricity--in appliances, homes, schools and offices, and in power lines. There is no scientific consensus on the actual health effects of EMF exposure, but it is an issue of public concern. If you have questions about EMF, please call your local PG&E office. A package of information which includes materials from the California Department of Health Services and other groups will be sent to you upon your request". PG&E remains committed to working with City of South San Francisco to provide timely, reliable and cost effective gas and electric service to project area. Please contact Alex Bautista at (650) 985-1263 if you have any questions regarding our comments. We would also appreciate being copied on future correspondence regarding this subject as this project develops. The California Constitution vests in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) exclusive power and sole authority with respect to the regulation of privately owned or investor owned public utilities such as PG&E. This exclusive power extends to all aspects of the location, design, construction, maintenance and operation of public utility facilities. Nevertheless, the CPUC has provisions for regulated utilities to work closely with local governments and give due consideration to their concerns. PG&E must balance our commitment to provide due consideration to local concerns with our obligation to provide the public with a safe, reliable, cost-effective energy supply in compliance with the rules and tariffs of the CPUC. Should you require any additional information or have any questions please call me at (408) 282-7106. Sincerely, Thomas J. Zlatunich Land Agent cc: A.Bautista APPENDIX B INITIAL STUDY Prepared for OAK FARMS, OAK FAILtiI LTD., OWNER STANDARD BUILDING COMPANY, APPLICANT PUD-99-067 SA-99-067 JANUARY 10, 2000 by THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Oak Farms 2. Lead Agency name and City of South San Francisco address: 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 3. Contact person and phone Allison Knapp, Consulting Planner number Phone (650) 829-6633/ FAX (650) 829-6639 4. Project location: East side of Oak Avenue/Southeast corner of Oak and Grand Avenue 5. Project sponsor's Standard Building Company name/address: 1900 O'Farrell St. Suite 305 San Mateo, CA 6. General Plan designation: High Density Residential 7. Zoning: Medium Density Residential (R-2-H) density 15 du/acre maximum Description of project: Single-family residential subdivision consisting of 32 units on a 2.65 acre lot. A triplex is currently located on the site and is proposed to be retained (along Oak Avenue at the northeast corner of the project boundary). Asingle-family home is also on the site and it would be demolished. Residential density is proposed to be 13.20 dwelling units per acre (gross). Currently the site is used for farming and has an 1854 barn on the site, which was associated with the construction of the Lux Mansion in South San Francisco. The barn is commonly referred to as the Lux Barn, is two-story and contains two apartments on the second story. The barn would either be moved or demolished. In addition to the Lux Barn, the site includes aone-story warehouse, a water tank and pump house. Row crops have been cultivated on the site since the 1930's. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The site is located at the southeast corner of Oak and Grand Avenue. Surrounding land uses include single- and multi-family residential, governmental (County Government Center), churches and limited vacant land. Grand Avenue is to the north, Oak Avenue to the north west, Commercial Avenue to the south west and Chestnut Avenue is to the east of the project site. 10. Other Public Agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Conditions of Approval associated with any entitlement review and approval are required as a part of the project. The San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health as well as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requirements may also be required. 11. The following documents including the recommended design and construction requirements are proposed as part of the project and incorporated herein by reference: "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development Oak Farm ", Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, Soil Engineers and Engineering Consultants, September 2, 1999. "Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment-Oak Farms Parcel " ICES - Innovative & Creative Environmental Solutions, June 10, 1999. "Phase II Site Investigation-Oak Farms Parcel "ICES -Innovative & Creative Environmental Solutions, July 8, 1999. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, Assessing Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, April 1996, Table 2, page 14. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ^ Aesthetics ^ Agricultural Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Biological Resources ~ Cultural Resources ^ Geology/Soils ^ Haza d & H d M i l ^ ^ r s azar ous ater a s Hydrology /Water Quality Land Use/Planning ^ Mineral Resources ^ Noise ^ Population /Housing ^ Public Services ^ Recreation ^ Transportation/ Traffic ^ Utilities /Service Systems ^ Mandatory Findings of Signi ficance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document ,pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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. Signature ~ Date Thomas C. Sparks City of South San Francisco Printed name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: Mitigation Incorporation a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ ^ ^ (2,3,8) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but ^ ^ ^ not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (2,3,8) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ^ ^ ~ ^ quality of the site and its surroundings? (2,3,8,) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ^ ^ ~ ^ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (2,3,8) The proposed project is not within a scenic comdor and would not add substantial light and glare. The proposed project would be located within a relatively built-out urban environment. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining Potentially Less Than Less Than No whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant significant Significant significant Impact environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Impact with Impact California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Mitigation Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Incorporation Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in Assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would The project: (8) a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ^ ^ ^ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (8) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (8) ^ ^ ^ 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? (8) Although the site is used for limited agricultural uses (row crops) it is not Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Statewide Importance Farmland or Williamson Act lands. Although the project would remove approximately 2.5 acres from agricultural use, the site is zoned for residential use and would not result in removing Farmlands (as defined above) from agricultural use. 6 III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance Potentially Less Than Less Than No criteria established by the applicable air quality Significant Significant Significant Impact management or air pollution control district may be relied Impact with Impact upon to make the following determinations. Would the Mitigation project: Incorporation a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the li bl i ^ ^ ^ app ca e a r quality plan? (6) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (6) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ~ ~ 0 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)? (6) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (6) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ~ ~ ^ number of people? (6) Project Operation As defined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, April 1996 (using Tables 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10) the project would not result in a significant impact to ambient air quality. The threshold of potential significance for air quality impacts associated with single-family development is 375 units. The proposed project is 8.5% of this criteria. (Table 6, page 24, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, April 1996). It is important to understand that the 375 unit threshold is a threshold at which air quality impacts should be quantitavely analyzed to identify if there are project impacts; it is not a guarantee that there are impacts. Project Construction The project would be subject to the appropriate federal, state and local requirements since construction activities could generate significant amounts of dust. Table 2, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, April 1996 (page 14) identifies standard conditions of project approval designed to mitigate construction emissions of PM10. As conditioned as part of the entitlement review, PM10 would not be a significant impact. Table 2 is attached to this Initial Study. The building contains asbestos on the siding and may have asbestos vinyl in the interior. BAAQMD regulations regarding asbestos removal will be followed as part of the building, moving or demolition permit activities. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation 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? (3,8), 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? (3,8) 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? (3,8) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (3,8) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ^ ^ ^ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (3,8) 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? (3,8) The site is developed with a barn, residences, out buildings and is cultivated with row crops and includes paving. The site has been developed since the 1930's and does not support biological resources. 8 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ~ ^ ^ ^ significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? (8,16) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ^ ^ ^ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (8) b) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological Resource or site or unique geologic feature? (8) ^ ^ ^ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ^ ^ ^ outside of formal cemeteries? (8) The Lux Barn has been identified as potentially significant individually eligible structure for the California Register of Historic Places under Criterion I: Resources associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The Lux Barn is one of the few buildings remaining in South San Francisco that date to the 1800's. The barn is associated with two historic contexts: The development of the Lux Mansion and small-scale farming in South San Francisco in the late nineteen and early twentieth centuries. The environmental impact report shall address the historic issues associated with the Lux Barn. There are no known or suspected archaelogical resources on the site. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ^ ^ ~ ^ adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (2,3,8,10,13) c) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on ^ ^ ~ ^ the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (2,3,8,10,13) c) Strong seismic ground shaking? (2,3,8,10,13) ^ ^ ~ ^ 9 d) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (2,3,8,10,13) e) Landslides? (2,3,8,10,13) f) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (2,3,8,10,13) g) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (2,3,8,10,13) h) 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? (2,3,8,10,13) i) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (2,3,8,10,13) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ 0 ^ ^ ^ Q ^ a ^ o ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ A geotechnical investigation "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development Oak Farm ", Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, Soil Engineers and Engineering Consultants, September 2, 1999 was prepared for the project and is an integral part of the project. The report contains standards for grading including the treatment of existing fill on site, existing and proposed underground utilities, new fill slopes, treatment of loose native soils, design and construction of foundation and retaining walls and pavement standards are included as part of the project. The report summarizes the findings of the four boarings taken on the site (August 1999) from depths of 24.5 to 50 feet. Groundwater was encountered at 13 to 18 feet. Artificial fill is on site ranging to four feet below surface and fine to medium grained clayey soils were encountered below the fill to nine feet. Below the clayey surface interbedded layers of native silty and clayey sands, sandy and clayey silts and sandy and silty clays were found. A concrete pipe (12 inches in diameter) was encountered at three feet. The project would remove existing underground utilities and trench their backfill, remove and re-work the existing fills on site and re-work the loose upper native sandy soils in order to reduce future settlements. Additional exploration and verification of conditions under the barn would also be required. The site is within close proximity to the active San Andreas and Gregorio faults (three and eight miles southwest of the project site). The Hayward and Calaveras faults are located 16 and 26 miles to the northeast. The planned buildings are outside the State of California Special Studies Zone for active faults. The requirements of the 1997 UBC would be incorporated into the design of the buildings with respect to seismic zone, factor, soil profile type and seismic source type. Ground rupture, liquefaction, 10 lurching ground subsidence and seismically induced landslide is expected to be low on this site and with incorporation of the design requirements. Groundshaking, as is the case with the seismically active Bay Area, is anticipated to be high at the site. The provisions of the UBC would serve to reduce the affects of groundshaking to property structures. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Potentially Significant Would the project: Impacc a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (3,8,14,15) 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? (3,8,14,15) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (3,8,14,15) 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? (3,8,14,15) Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No Impact 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? (3,8,14,15) 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? (3,8,14,15) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (3,8,14,15) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ^ ^ ^ loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (3,8,14,15) A Phase I and Phase II environmental assessment was performed for the project and both documents are incorporated as part of the project. The documents are: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment-Oak 11 Farms Parcel ICES -Innovative & Creative Environmental Solutions, June 10, 1999 and Phase II Site Investigation-Oak Farms Parcel ICES -Innovative & Creative Environmental Solutions, July 8, 1999. Row crops have been cultivated on the site since the 1930's. Two underground storage tanks (used to store unleaded gasoline) were removed from the site in the 1980's. Ten soil samples were collected on the site and were analyzed for: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and gasoline (TPHg) using EPA Method 5030/GCFID; benzene, toluene, ethylebenzene, xylenes (BTEX) and methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) using EPA Method 8020; and TPH as diesel (TPHd) and TPH as motor oil (TPHo) using EPA Method 8015M and organochlorine pesticides using EPA Method 8080. No petroleum hydocarbons were detected. Organochlorine pesticides were below their detection limits. No remediation is needed. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Potentially Significant Would the project: Impact Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ^ ^ No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (3,8,13 ) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ^ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (3,8,13) 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? (3,8,13) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ^ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (3,8,13) 0 Q ^ 0 ^ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ~ ^ Q the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (3,8,13) fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (3,8,13) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ^ ^ ^ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (3,4,8,13) 12 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ^ ^ which would impede or redirect flood flows? (3,4,8,13) 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? (3,8,13) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (3,8,13) The project will be subject to normal City review and requirements and will have no significant impacts. Best Management Practices and storm water and pollution control conditions will be levied as standard conditions of approval. The project would increase impervious surfaces on the site. Pursuant to City Ordinance, the applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City's Stormwater Coordinator for review and approval. Potentially Less Than Less Than No IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact , Would the project: Mitigation Incorporation a) Physically divide an established community? (2,8) ~ ~ ~ a b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ~ ~ ^ 0 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? (2,8) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (2,8) The site is planned and zoned residential. The land use designation is high-density residential (18.1-30 dwelling units per acre (du/acre)) while the zoning is medium density residential (maximum 15 du/acre per acre). The project proposes 13.20 du/acre. The high density residential land use narrative contained in the General Plan (p 39) states that this designation is intended to permit a full range of housing types subject to the standards of the zoning ordinance and is meant for specific areas where high density may (emphasis added) be appropriate. The Planning Division has determined that the proposed project conforms to the General Plan and Zoning District Regulations (December 14, 1999). The construction of residential units would assist the City in meeting the housing production requirements established by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The City's General Plan speaks 13 to providing a " jobs housing balance." Currently there are more jobs than housing opportunities in the City (page 52, South San Francisco General Plan, Oc[ober 1999). The project would reduce that gap. X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation 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? (8) b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (8) No mineral resources exist on the site. XI. NOISE - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project result in: Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ~ ^ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (2,3,5,8) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ^ ^ ~ ^ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (2,3,5,8) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (2,3,5,8) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ~ ^ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (2,3,5,8,11) 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? (2,3,5,8) 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? (2,3,5,8) 14 Existing Noise Sources The South San Francisco General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report locates the proposed project within the 60 to 65 dBA, CNEL. Ambient noise sources in the area aze predominantly vehiculaz and aircraft. Traffic along Oak Avenue is within the range of 30 to 40 PM peak trips and traffic at the Oak and Grand Avenue intersection in approximately 830 PM peak trips. (Mark Crane, Traffic Engineer Personal communication January 4, 2000). City Noise Ordinance The City noise ordinance exempts construction noise from compliance with noise standards if construction noise is generated between 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM weekdays; 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturdays; and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sundays. Construction noise is allowed outside of these hours if permitted by the City, allowing the noise can meet additional specifications outlined in Section 8.32.050 (d) (1) and (2). The ordinance also states that noise shall not exceed 90 dBA at any place on the property line of a project. The Municipal Code Section 15.08.140 (5) limits the hours of grading and prohibits grading on Saturdays, Sundays and Municipal holidays. Grading is restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM in non-residential areas. Impacts: Project Operation The proposed project would add approximately 32 PM peak hour trips to Oak Avenue. The addition of 32 peak hour trips would add approximately 0.4 CNEL to a background of 60 CNEL (conservative estimate). The resulting noise environment would be 60.4 CNEL a negligable addition to the noise environment. Therefore, the noise environment would remain within the 60-65 dBA, CNEL range with the project which is acceptable for residential development (page 13-14 General Plan Existing Conditions Report). Although no additional noise mitigation measures would be required for the project, window glazing is required (under the UBC) to meet particular energy standazds. The energy standard requirements typically serve to reduce ambient interior noise as much as 30 dBA. Project Construction Project construction would at times generate noise above the 70 dBA Noise Ordinance standazd. As construction noise is unavoidable and short-term in duration, it is not considered significant. Noise levels associated with construction activities such as foundation, excavation, ground clearing and finishing work range from 78-89 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source (Bolt, Bernanak and Newman, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operation, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, 1971). Typically a unique situation must be present to consider construction noise a significant impact. The presence of noise sensitive land uses, such as hospitals, schools and residential units, and unusually long construction period lasting continually for a period of yeazs, or pile driving, are considered unique. 15 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ^ ^ ^ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (2,8) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ~ ^ ^ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (2,8) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (2,8) The site is planned for residential land use. The project would eliminate two units of sub-standard housing and one single-family residence. Additionally, the project would provide 32 units of housing of which five units would be affordable to low to moderate income households. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (2,3,8) ~ ^ ~ ^ Police protection? (2,3,8) a ^ ~ ^ Schools? (2,3,8) Pazks? (2,3,8) ^ ~ ~ ^ Other public facilities? (2,3,8) ~ ^ a ^ 16 The project would be served by the following public service providers: • South San Francisco Fire Department • South San Francisco Police Department • South San Francisco Parks, Recreation and Community Services • Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides natural gas service • PG&E and Enron provide electrical service to industrial users and residents • Pacific Bell provides telephone service • San Mateo County Hazbor District (security agreement, marina utilities, roads, and other infrastructure) The public service impacts of the project are typical of the impacts associated with residential development and would be less than significant. PG&E responded to the Notice of Preparation for the proposed project and requested that cumulative utility impacts be addressed in the environmental document. The City's General Plan update and EIR address potential utility impacts associated with General Plan build-out. The EIR impacts analysis also includes cumulative impacts associated with General Plan build-out. Potential Public Service (utility) impacts are addressed in Section 4.15 of the EIR (June 1999 State Clearinghouse # 97122030 EIR certified October 13, 1999). The Director of Engineering and Planning for PG&E (May 11, 1998) stated that PG&E saw no difficulty in providing services to the City under the build-out scenario identified in the draft General Plan (page 4-1995-1996 General Plan ElR). PG&E had no comments on the draft EIR. It is also important to note that the General Plan EIR based its analysis on high-density residential development of the project site and the proposed project is medium density residential which would result in less utility use than envisioned. XIV. RECREATION -- Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than No Significant Impact Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional pazks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (2,3,8,12) 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? (2,3,8,12) As a condition of entitlement approval pursuant to the state Subdivision Map Act, and local ordinance, the developer will be required to pay a park in-lieu fee for developing and or improving pazks and recreational opportunities near the project area. 17 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project. Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ~ ~ ~ ^ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (2,3,8) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ^ ^ ~ ^ service standard established by the county congestionmanagement agency for designated roads or highways? (2,3,8,11) 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? (2,3,8,11) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (2,3,8,11) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (2,3,8,11) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (1,2,3,8,11) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ~ ~ ~ a supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1,2,3,8,11) Four parking spaces per unit would be provided on each lot (two in the garage and two in the driveway). An additional 14 on street (within the project-related streets) would be provided on street. The project meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance (two garage spaces, and additional parking opportunities on the street) The Town of Colma responded to the NOP circulated for the EIR. The Town requested that El Camino /Mission intersection be analyzed in the environmental document (Malcolm Carpenter, November 11, 1999). Project traffic would add two trips to the Mission/El Camino Real intersection (the nearest Congestion Management Plan intersection) during the AM peak commute and three trips during the PM peak commute period. The additional traffic to this intersection is an insignificant amount. The proposed project would add approximately 32 PM peak hour trips to Oak Avenue a less than significant impact. (Mark Crane Traffic Consultant December 29, 1999). 18 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ^ ^ ~ ^ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (3,8) 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? (3>8) 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? (3,8) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ^ ^ ~ ^ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (3,8) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ^ ^ ~ ^ provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (3,8) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ^ ^ ^ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (3,8) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ^ ^ ^ regulations related to solid waste? (3,8) Tlr'ater Services Water service provided in the area and would be extended to the site at the expense of the applicant. The proposed project would be reviewed and conditioned through the entitlement process. At that time infrastructure upgrades and fees for improvements would be identified, if necessary. The project would be served by the following water providers: • California Water Service Company's Peninsula District • South San Francisco/San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant 19 Waste Water Sewer services are provided in the project area. According the South San Francisco General Plan (p 193), as planned the water and sewer systems in South San Francisco will be able to accommodate General Plan build-out. The project site is planned as residential high-densidy and is proposed to be developed at a lesser density (meduium density); therefore, water and sewer services are adequate to serve the site. Storm Water Refer to the Hydrology section of the Initial Study for a discussion of impacts related to storm water runoff. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Less Than No SIGNIFICANCE -- Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major ' periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ~ ~ ~ 0 limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Dces the project have environmental effects which will ~ ~ ~ 0 cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? LIST OF SOURCES 1. City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance 2. South San Francisco General Plan 3. Staff knowledge, site visits. 4. FEMA Flood Hazard Map 5. City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance 6. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 7. Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map 8. Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report, City of South San Francisco, October 1997 9. Inventory of Potential Historic Resources 10. Uniform Building Code 11. Memorandum, Mark Crane, Traffic Engineer, December 29, 1999 12. South San Francisco Municipal Code 20 13. Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development Oak Farm, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, Soil Engineers and Engineering Consultants, September 2, 1999. 14. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment-Oak Farms Parcel ICES -Innovative & Creative Environmental Solutions, June 10, 1999. I5. Phase II Site Investigation-Oak Farms Parcel ICES -Innovative & Creative Environmental Solutions, July 8, 1999. 16. Historical Evaluation-The Lux Barn, Architectural Resources Group, December 7, 1999. 21 APPENDIX A-1 through A-5 A-1 Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development Oak Farm ", Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, Soil Engineers and Engineering Consultants, September 2, 1999. A-2 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment-Oak Farms Parcel" ICES - Innovative & Creative Environmental Solutions, June 10, 1999. A-3 Phase II Site Investigation-Oak Farms Parcel " ICES -Innovative & Creative Environmental Solutions, July 8, 1999. A-4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, Assessing Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, April 1996, Table 2, page 14. A-5 Historical Evaluation for the Lux Barn, Architectural Resources Group, December 7, 1999. A-6 Project plans. Za 23 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMEi~1T OAK FARM OAK AVENUE AND COMMERCIAL AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA FOR STANDARD BUILDING COMPANY September 2, 1999 Job No. 2374.100 BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS BGC September 2, 1999 Job No. 2374.100 Standard Building Company 1900 O'Farrell Street, Suite 305 San Mateo, California 94403 Attention: Mr. Tom Spencer Subject: GeotechnicalInvestigation Proposed Residential Development Oak Farm Oak Avenue and Commercial Avenue South San Francisco, California Gentlemen: INTRODUCTION BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the subject project. The roughly triangular-shaped site is bounded to the northwest by Oak Avenue, to the southwest by Commercial Avenue and to the southeast and northeast by existing houses. Six existing houses are located adjacent to the southern portion of the site along the flog-leg of Commercial Avenue, however, the northernmost. house is part of this site. The site is shown in relation to the city of South San Francisco on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The majority of the 2.1-acre site is presently being used for growing vegetables and herbs. An area of the site (about 160 feet by 90 feet) adjacent to Oak Avenue is occupied by a barn complex composed of buildings and paved are?s. We understand that the site will be developed into single-family residential houses founded on structural slab foundations along with associated paved access roads and utilities. Fill slopes less than about 10 feet high maybe constructed to provide building pads with proper site drainage. Retaining walls up to about 6 feet high may also be planned for the project. We understand that portions of the house foundations may also act as retaining structures. Cuts and fills up to about 1 foot and 5 feet, respectively, are planned to provide stepped lots for the site. Grading is anticipated to involve import of between 7,000 and 10,000 cubic yards (cy) of soil. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the proposed development with respect to site soil characteristics and to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for site preparation and grading, retaining wall design, foundation design, floor support, utility trench backfill and preliminary pavement design. Our scope of services consisted of a literature search, field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analyses based on field and laboratory data, and preparation of this report. SOIL ENGINEERS • ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS • 5587 SUNOL BOULEVARD • PLEASANTON, CA 94566 • (925) 484-0220 • FAX: (925) 846-9645 September 1, 1999 lob No. 2374.100 Page 2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed on August 13 and 16, 1999 and consisted of drilling four rotary wash borings at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. The borings were drilled using atruck-mounted rotary wash drill rig to depths ranging from 24'fi to 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Ground surface elevations were interpreted based on the elevation contours shown on the Tentative Map. The borings were backfilled with cement slurry. Materials encountered in each boring were visually classified and logged in the field. The boring logs showing soil classifications and blow counts are presented on Plates 3 through 11. A key to the Boring Log Symbols is shown on Plate 12. Laboratory testing consisted of moisture content, dry density, Atterberg Limits, single-point consolidation, sieve analysis and direct shear tests on selected samples. The results of the moisture content and dry density are presented on the individual boring logs. The results of the remaining tests are shown on Plates 13 through 17. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The site, in general, slopes about 20 horizontal to 1 vertical (20H:1V) from north to south. The central portion of the site is about 1 to 5 feet lower than the western and eastern perimeters. An existing barn complex, which is about 160 feet by 90 feet in plan dimensions, including a barn, along with paved areas is located along the middle stretch adjacent to Oak Avenue. The barn area was not accessible during our field exploration. The northernmost house along Commercial Avenue was occupied by residence and not accessible during our field investigation. During the time of our investigation, roughly the eastern 'h of the site had been tilled and/or newly planted while the western '/z was in vegetable/herb crop. The su~cial soils consist of brown to dark brown silty and clayey sands. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Boring B3 encountered fill to a depth of about 4 feet. The fill was loose and consisted of fine to medium grained moist clayey sand. Below the fill at B3 to a depth of about 9 feet and from the surface to the depth of about 3 feet at B 1, 4 feet at B2, and about 6 feet at B4 our borings encountered native silty and clayey sands that were loose. Below the loose native silty and clayey sands, we encountered to the full depth explored (31 feet at B1, 24'/~ feet at B2, 50 feet at B3 and 30 feet at B4) with interbedded layers of native silty and clayey sands, sandy and clayey silts and sandy and silty clays. This interbedded native material consists of sands and sandy silts that were medium dense to very dense while the clays and clayey silts were stiff. For a more detailed description of the soil and ground water conditions encountered, see the individual boring logs shown on Plates 3 through 11. Laboratory test results indicated that Plasticity Indices (P.I.'s) were 16 and 18 on selected samples of native sandy clays indicating moderate expansion potential BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ~ September 1, 1999 Job No. 2374.100 Page 3 r Accurate ground water elevation could not be determined in the borings due to the rotary wash ~• drill method. However, based on sample observation, we estimate the approximate ground water ~ elevation to range between about 13 feet deep at B2 to as much as 18 feet deep at B1. The actual ground water level may fluctuate depending on factors such as seasonal rainfall, leaking r. underground utilities and ground water withdrawal. During the initial drilling of B3 a concrete pipe estimated to be about 12 inches in diameter was encountered at about 2 to 3 feet in depth. Afield inlet was observed near the northeast comer of the existing barn and a metal pipe was observed protruding from a heavily vegetated area behind the existing lots along the dog-leg of Commercial Avenue. Based on these observations and dowsing techniques employed by our driller, we estimate there are underground lines which run from the rear of the barn to the east about 50 feet where another pipe appears to run generally from the north end of the site to about where the metal pipe was observed at the rear of the lots of the houses on the dog-leg of Commercial Avenue. Our estimated location of these underground lines is shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. The above is a general description of soil and ground water conditions encountered at the site in the four borings drilled for this investigation. The barn complex was not accessible to our field exploration at this time. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL From a soil engineering standpoint, we conclude that this project can be constructed essentially as planned, provided the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the project design and construction. Grading considerations for this site include: Removal of existing underground utility lines and their trench backfill. 2. Verification exploration of the portions of the site now occupied by the barn complex and northernmost house along Commercial Avenue, in particular buried structures such as septic tanks, wells, utility lines, basements and foundations. 3. Removal and rework of the existing fills on-site. 4. Rework of the loose upper native sandy soils in order to reduce future settlements. EXISTING FILL As discussed in the "Subsurface" section, the fill up to about 4 feet thick found at the site generally consists of loose clayey sand. It is highly likely that this fill were placed as non- engineered fill. As such, it is our opinion that the existing fill should be removed, processed to remove deleterious material; and reused as engineered fill. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS September 1, 1999 lob No. 2374.100 Page 4 EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY Underground utility and their backfills, if not removed, can cause unanticipated settlements along with conflicts with planned excavations. An existing concrete pipe was encountered near boring B3. This pipe should be located and chased out. Any additional pipe encountered during removal of the known pipe should also be chased out and removed from the site. LOOSE NATIVE SOILS The upper 4 to 6 feet of native sandy soils, some localized areas could be as deep as 9 feet in the vicinity of B-3 area, should be reworked as engineered fill to minimize future settlement. SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING Our general site preparation and grading recommendations follow: The areas to be graded should be cleared of debris, any surface vegetation, pre-existing abandoned utilities or buried structures (i.e., septic and leach fields, pipes, wells, basements, foundations, etc.). 2. Existing fill should be overexcavated and processed to remove deleterious material. The existing fill may then be re-used as engineered fill. 3. The uppermost 4 to 6 feet, some localized spot could be up to 9 feet, should be reworked as engineered fill. 4. If zones of soft or saturated soils are encountered during excavation and compaction, deeper excavations may be required to expose firm soils. This should be determined in the field by the soils engineer. 5. In the areas where engineered fill is planned, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of about 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 2 percent over optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557-91 compaction test procedure. Optimum moisture is the water content (percentage by dry weight) corresponding to the maximum dry density. 6. The on-site soils are generally suitable for engineered fill provided they are free of debris, vegetation, rocks greater than 6 inches in largest dimension and other deleterious matters. All fill and backfill materials should be subject to evaluation by the soils engineer prior to use. 7. Imported fill material should contain no deleterious matter or rock greater than 6 inches in largest dimension and have low expansion potential (P.I. less than 12). Imported BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS September 1, 1999 Job No. 2374.100 Page 5 materials should also be checked for toxic or hazardous material. If the imported materials are free of toxic or hazardous materials, then they can be used for the site. 8. All fill and backfill should be placed in thin lifts (normally 6 to 8 inches depending on the compaction equipment), brought to at least 2 percent over optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. 8. Observations and soil density tests should be carried out during grading to assist the contractor in obtaining the required degree of compaction and proper moisture content. Where the compaction is outside the range required, additional compactive effort and adjustment of moisture content should be made until the specified compaction and moisture conditioning is achieved. 9. The soils engineer should be notified at least 48 hours prior to any grading operations. The procedure and methods of grading may then be discussed between the contractor and the soils engineer. FILL SLOPES Fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H:1~. The face of fill embankments should be compact to minimize erosion and the possibility of slumping. We recommend fill slopes be overbuilt by a minimum 1 foot and trimmed back to expose soil compacted to not less than 90 percent relative compaction. FOUNDATION We understand you will use structural mat slab type foundations for the subject project. Based on our grading recommendations, it is our opinion structural mat foundations would be appropriate for the proposed development. We understand portions of the foundations are anticipated to act as retaining walls up to about 2 to 3 feet high. From a geotechnical standpoint, the structural mat foundations can either bepost-tensioned or steel rebar reinforcement. However, the structural mat foundations should be designed by a structural engineer. We anticipate differential movements across the widths of the buildings will be less than about i~-inch. Structural mat foundation should be designed to accommodate estimated differential movements without experiencing: 1. Structural distress to the mat; and 2. Excessive deflections in the house framing and wall finishes. For design purposes, structural mat foundations for the subject lots should be designed fora 5 foot edge cantilever and 15 foot center span. The mats should have a minimum thickness of 10 inches. The mat foundation should be designed for an allowable uniform soil pressure of 1,200 pounds per square foot (psf); this allowable soil pressure is for dead and live loads, and may be increase by one-third for wind and seismic short-term loads. Resistance to lateral loading should be BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS September 1, 1999 Job No. 2374.100 Page 6 calculated using a base friction factor of 0.35 acting between the mat and the supporting subgrade, and passive resistance pressure of 150 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) of the equivalent fluid pressure developed for the finished grading backfill placed around the mat foundations. Structural mat foundation subgrades should be pre-soaked to at least 4 percent over optimum moisture content to a depth of at least 12 inches. Pre-soaking of the soil should be check prior to concrete slab placement. Soils should not be allowed to dry-out prior to concrete placement. For retaining portions of the slabs the perimeters can be deepened and designed as retaining walls, at-rest condition, in accordance with the following recommendations presented for retaining walls. RETAINIl\TG WALLS We understand that retaining walls ranging up to about 6 feet high will be constructed at the subject site. The retaining walls will likely be constructed of reinforced concrete and supported by either conventional spread foundation or drilled cast-in-place friction piers. The retaining walls should be designed to resist the following applied lateral earth pressures which assume no surcharge, no hydrostatic pore pressure build-up and are based on well drained backfill behind the walls. Applied Lateral Earth Pressure (psf/foot of depth) Design Condition Level ward) 2~1 (UP Normal Normal Active So ~~ At-Rest 65 ~ The determination of which condition, active, or at-rest, is appropriate for design will depend on ~,_ wall flexibility. For walls that are not free to rotate at least 0.1 percent of the wall height at top- of-grade, the at-rest design condition should be chosen. For walls that are free to rotate to this degree, the active conditions should be chosen. Heavy compaction equipment should not be used _ within 18 inches of the back of any wall and where used, it should be used in such a manner as to avoid over-stressing or deflecting the wall. The wall should be properly braced during i backfilling if heavy compaction equipment will be used directly behind the wall or possibility for j excessive lateral pressure surcharge due to compaction is anticipated. The retaining wall should be provided with permanent drainage to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. The drains should consist of a blanket (1 foot minimum thickness) of Class 2 Permeable Material (conforming to Section 68-1.025) State of California Standard Specifications, dated July, 1995, and a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe (SDR 35) near the bottom to carry any collected water to a suitable gravity discharge. The permeable material should be placed from the base of the wall to 1 foot below the top of wall. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS September 1, 1999 lob No. 2374.100 Page 7 ~ If spread foundation is used the foundation of the retaining walls must be founded at least 2 feet below adjacent grade on firm competent soil. The retaining wall foundations should be kept moist L until covered with concrete. We recommend that footings for the retaining walls be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psfJ. This value can be increased by one-third for wind or seismic loading. A passive pressure diagram imposed by an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be used in the design if the area in front of the walls is level for at least 10 feet; passive pressure should be neglected if the area in front of the wall is not level for within 10 feet of the toe of walls. In addition, the uppermost 12 inches of soil should be neglected in passive resistance calculation unless the surface is confined by a slab or pavement. Also, a base friction of 0.35 may be used in the design. If drilled piers are used, drilled piers should be at least 12 inches in diameter, at least 8 feet deep, and a minimum center-to-center spacing of 3 times the pier diameter. An allowable vertical skin friction of 500 psf may be used in the design. Skin friction should be disregarded for the upper 1 foot of embedment. Resistance to lateral loads can be obtained from passive earth pressure against the drilled pier face. Passive resistance can be calculated by using the pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid weighing 300 pcf. If the design equations do not include shape factor, then the passive pressure can be applied over twice the diameter of the pier in the design. Passive pressure should be neglected in the upper 1 foot of embedment at the toe of the wall. Passive pressure should be neglected in the zone that does not have at least 10 feet of soil horizontally from the face of.the pier. The passive pressure may be increased by one-third under wind or seismic loading. Drilled pier shafts should be free of all loose soil and debris prior to placement of concrete_ If water collects in any drilled pier shaft, it should be pumped out immediately prior to placement of concrete. The piers should be drilled and poured on the same day, leaving the pier holes open overnight is not recommended. UTILITY TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL Where trench excavations are more than 5 feet deep, they should be sloped and/or shored. `+ Temporary walls should be sloped no steeper than lifiH:1V. Flatter trench slopes may be required if seepage is encountered during construction or if exposed soil conditions differ from { those encountered by the test borings. All excavations should conform to applicable State and .: Federal industrial safety requirements. J Materials quality, placement procedures and compaction requirements for utility bedding and shading material should meet the City of South San Francisco or utility agency requirements. Utility trench backfill above the shading materials may consist of on-site soils provided they are free of rubble and rock fragments over 4 inches in largest dimension, rubbish, vegetation and other deleterious substances. On-site soils materials should be brought to above optimum moisture content, placed in level lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, per ASTM Designation D 1557-91. No J jetting is permissible on this project. J BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS September 1, 1999 Job No. 2374.100 Page 8 PRELIlVIINARY PAVEMENT SECTIONS For planning purposes R-value of 10 was assumed in the preliminary design. Based on a R-value of 10 and the Caltrans "Design Procedure for Flexible Pavements", we recommend the following asphalt pavement sections. We have assumed that the assigned "T.I.s" include provisions for heavy truck traffic related to construction activities. We recommend the following asphalt pavement sections for planning purposes: T.I. ' Thickness (inches) Asphalt Concrete T e B Aggregate Base Class 2 4.0 2'k '1 5.0 21i4 10 6.0 3 13 7.0 3'k 15 Each T.I. represents a different level of use. The owner or project civil engineer should determine which level of use best reflects the subject road and select appropriate pavement sections in accordance with the requirement set forth by the City of South San Francisco. Prior to subgrade preparation, all utility trench backfill in the pavement areas should be properly placed and compacted as previously recommended. The upper 9 inches of subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted to provide a smooth, unyielding surface compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. subgrade soils should be maintained in a moist and compacted condition until covered with the complete pavement section. Class 2 aggregate base should conform to the requirements in Section 26, Caltrans "Standard ~~ Specifications , (July, 1995). The aggregate base should be placed in thin lifts in a manner to prevent segregation, uniformly moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction to provide a smooth unYieldin>? surface. Where drop inlets or other surface drainage structures are to be installed, slots or weep holes should be provided to allow free drainage of the contiguous base course materials: SEISMIC RISKS SEISMICITY AND FAULTING The site is located in the Coast Range geomorphic province of California and is seismically dominated by the active San Andreas fault system. The San Andreas fault system is the general boundary between the northward moving Pacific Plate and southward moving North American BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ' September 1, 1999 • Job No. 2374.100 Page 9 C Plate. In the San Francisco Bay Area, relative plate motions are distributed across a complex _ system of generally strike-slip, right-lateral, parallel and sub-parallel faults, which include the San ( Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras and San Gregorio faults, among others. The site is located in close proximity to the active San Andreas and San Gregorio faults located about 3 and 8 miles to the southwest, respectively (Jennings, 1994). The Hayward and Calaveras faults are located 16 and 26 miles to the northeast, respectively (Jennings, 1994). Nearby potentially active faults are the Hillside Fault about 1 miles to the northeast, and San Bruno about '/a mile to the southwest (Bonilla, 1971). The currently planned buildings are located outside the State of California Special Studies Zone for active faults (State of California, 1982). In our opinion, there is a low potential for ground rupture at the proposed building sites. GROUND SHAKING The site is located inclose proximity to the San Andreas fault. Considering the potential for large earthquakes on this fault as well as other active faults in the region, the likelihood of significant ground shaking from an earthquake is high. According to the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), the following geotechnical engineering input can be used in the structural design of the buildings: Seismic Zone 4 Seismic Zone Factor Z = 0.40 Soil Profile T e S Seismic Source T e A Closest distance to known Seismic Source 4 Km -~ LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of a saturated, cohesionless loose soil into a viscous liquid during strong ground shaking from a major earthquake. There is no evidence of historic ground failure due to liquefaction on the site (Youd and Hoose, 1978). Based on the grading recommendations presented in this report, in particular rework of the existing loose fill and loose native silty sands within the uppermost 4 to 6 feet of the site surface, the density of the silty and clayey sands at depth and lack of historical evidence to the contrary on this site, it is our opinion that the risk of ground failure related to liquefaction appears to be low. LURCHING Lurching is the sudden swaying, spreading or rolling of the ground during a strong earthquake. Lurching can cause fissures in weak soil on slopes or adjacent to open channels or slopes. Evidence of lateral spreading occurring during the 1906 earthquake near the old area known as BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS September 1, 1999 lob No. 2374.100 Page 10 Baden is documented (Youd and Hoose, 1978). The observations of the evidence of this lateral spreading was associated with marshy ground and channel slopes that existed at the time. Since L the slopes on this project are anticipated to be built with engineered fill composed of compacted silty sands and marshy ground was not encountered during our investigation, it is our opinion that the risk of lurching on this site is low. GROUND SUBSIDENCE Ground subsidence can occur as a result of "shakedown" when dry, cohesionless soils are subjected to earthquake vibrations of high amplitude; as a result of extensive subsurface mining activities; or due to ground water overdrafting. None of these conditions exists on the site; therefore, ground subsidence is not considered a geologic hazard on the property. EARTHQUAKE INDUCED LANDSLIDING L Strong ground shaking during a major earthquake is likely to cause sympathetic reactivation of landslides in parts of the San Francisco Bay Area. The stability of all slopes is lower during L earthquake disturbances than at other times. Grading of slopes in accordance with this report should reduce the risk of seismically induced landsliding at the project. . ADDITIONAL SOIL ENGINEERING SERVICES Prior to construction, we should review the final plans and specifications for conformance with the intent of our recommendations. In the event that changes in the nature, design or location of the structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by us and the conclusions either verified or modified as required. ~ To a degree, the performance of these structures are dependent on the procedures and quality of the construction. Therefore, we should provide on-site soil observations of the contractor's procedures and the exposed soil conditions, together with field and laboratory testing during site r preparation and grading, placement and compaction of fill and backfill and foundation installation. These observations will allow us to check the contractor's work for conformance with the intent of our recommendations and to observe any unanticipated soil conditions that could r require modification of our recommendations. In addition, we would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the contractor prior to the start of grading to discuss the procedures and methods of construction. This can facilitate the performance of the construction operation and minimize possible misunderstandings and construction delays. LIMITATIONS The area of the barn complex was not available for exploration during our field investigation for the subject site. The descriptions of soil conditions described in this report may not be accurate for the area of the barn complex. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS September 1, 1999 Job No. 2374.100 Page 11 The conclusions and recommendations ofthis soil investigation report are based on the information provided to us regarding the proposed development, subsurface conditions encountered at the test boring locations, laboratory tests and professional judgment. The study has been conducted in accordance with current professional geotechnical engineering standards; no other warranty is expressed or implied. The logs of the test borings show subsurface conditions encountered at the locations and dates indicated; it is not warranted that they are representative of such conditions at other locations and times. The location of the test borings and test pits were estimated by pacing from feasible features and should be considered approximate only. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed improvements are planned, or if the subsurface conditions differ from those described herein during construction, then the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should be considered invalid unless the changes are reviewed by us, and the conclusions either confirmed or modified as required. Respectfully submitted, BERLOGAR GEOTEC)E-INICAL CONSULTANTS Woode St hens Philip se Project E gineer Principal Engineer GE 2236, Exp. 6/3 WS/PT:pv Attachments: Plate 1 -Vicinity Map Plate 2 -Site Plan Plates 3 through 11 -Boring Logs Plate 12 -Key to Boring Log Symbols Plate 13 - Atterberg Limits Test Results Plate 14 -Summary of Single-Point Consolidation Tests Plate 15 -Summary of Sieve Analysis/Hydrometer Test Data Plate 16 -#/200 Sieve Test Data Plate 17 -Summary of Direct Shear Test Data . Copies: Addressee (6) wp9/roport/8186 o Q~p"r E 3 sr~yq! yQ~ Q~~~,\P C. rs~ F~ c~ No. 223 R+ c E1~.6-30-Ot ~ ~~ ~ st ~TECHN~~ ~~r ~lE CF CAL\FQ~ BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ~Gptii~.4? ~ .~ a .-BQdTI ~:: t `, ~ ~ ~ X00 ''S°r 1, Sv a t ~ r ~ ~ _: t`t k s+ ~' ~ Z. SC y ' jf ~~ r y try y 5 ~+ !00_x- • ~ ~ , ,a ~ ~ ~~ r7 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ >r Yc; eohou~ ~ti; _: ~ ~ ~~ ~~ • lgu LA ~,.,: ' ` Par ~~ ~ P:rp \-,~~Sch • •® •~ ,ih~ 001. -. ~}1 y' °`~K~~ ~N y `l ,'• s it . ,Y ~S _..T ~,V I ~~ ~~r, r y, , . {Sch ~ h ,~ o~~®.r :, ~ Cie tS4i t 7 fit. `R ~' ~ ~ ` ~ ••t .. CIl ~ I i try Mo~TP S ~ B P~ ` ;1a ~ ~ 1y : . ~ Y ,UlI S \ C ~ COM ~- a~ ~ ~Sy v. ~ ys~rl ~ , ~~~._ >:e t .8 e r 7 ::~i `tis '~S a ,..~ T r~ / .t~f~)•, 1+i ~°°~rx i ~ `"~ p * e ~ ti JV ~~ ~+ ~ 1 j ~ ~ r ~~ \~~ ~ •s~ ORNIA - I~ ~ SCw ~ ~l ~J . Lf u ~ ~ Hi ,.t ` ~ ~ • 7 o a SCALE: 1 "= 2000' VICINITY MAP OAK FARM OAK AVENUE AND COMMERCIAL AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA FOR STANDARD BUILDING COMPANY BASE: PORTION OF U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC OUADRANGLE,SOUTH 3AN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA. PHOTOREVISED 1080, AT A SCALE OF 124,000. PLATE 1 BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS O p A "'~ O ~ S = 1 _ ~ ~< m ~; °>c a~ pa i a r 9 r 111 ~a 1 ~ ~< ai n~ > s ~o oa 0 s ~ C r • o o = • Gf .. ~ *,.S C''~ r_ ~~ ~. ^~' ~ COMMERCIA4 AVENUE <; .. .. -- "r ~,. -:. ~, .. _. ._ i ~ ~ ~+~ ~<: ~`> ~ , r ` ~ ~~~?:~''~~~~ :::~~. m to i/ 1~ ;' • a .,~ f; Z i , .~ ,i~ ~~ ~E; o ~ ~ : ~ ~ +. ~ ~, ~•~ ~ ...~ . . ... :. -. . _, .. ~, _. ~• .~.% :i2~r :~`•~ . ~•}A.Y.}:!•:•titi:, ~ti~ ~ T •::1til.ti•:tii.1•. ~',.ti•!:{4 }}+{ '!:: t 4ti•:•:~ 1 .;k:- ::.k::::::3: a :~.. :~: ' $:~•i ~. \ •::~ 1 ..' m . t~ f { ,~ :::.k.:.}:~:~: ;•::• W ~~~ -~,' Y V: ;:~~';: - ~1 :'r'.•i f. ~'~ { •r,.; :~:* t O f ~. ~~, .~1~~... r 2't t`~:: `:~'>> .:. ::.v:: ti ti..:. ti. r... . i ~~ ~..r...r.. ._ ' F "~ .. ~ .. .K i r^r i ~~. ..x ~ '.i j ~ ~, Y,' 1 1' !~ I~ ~ N ',.A,'I I } . • ~ ~, 4 ~ ," 4. , ,, ' ~.~ 1:' .,;; ~,.. ~. ~ , .,. ~ ~•'~ N O ~ O a = ~~ , n Z° u cro ~ Z a .p ' D m i D O p o m C1 ~o Z ~ ~. ~ N N p ~ ~ ~ m D '~ x o o ~ K • .-. ~ ~ N N ~ -1 ~ T ~ o ~ a z ~+ -p Z ~ a o a Z--.•- z~ ~ m ~ r ~ ~ y T ~• a n ~ ~. ~ Z z n ~ m z Z ss Z ~ O O ~ A C S ° ° Z ~ ~, 3 r z ~ o s . ~ m s o ~ n p, Z ~ O • `^ ~ 2 ~ -+ r* ,~ ~ .. a .s June 10, 1999 Mr. Bob Mantegani Sunstream Homes 1900 O'Farrell Street, Suite 305 San Mateo, California 94403 ICES 2305 Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Oak Farms Parcel South San Francisco, California Dear Bob: Enclosed is the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for the Oak Farms Parcel located in South San Francisco, California. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Le lA Enclosure Engineer innovative 8 restive Environmental Solutions Tel(5t0)E52-3222 Fax(510)652-3555 P. 0. Box 99288 Emeryville G/1 94662-9288 z ~ PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT OAK FARMS PARCEL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA June 10, 1999 ICES 2305 Prepared for: Mr. Bob Mantegani Sunstream Homes 1900 O'Farrell Street, Suite 305 San Mateo, California 94403 y:.,; > <<; ~s Innovative 6 Creative Euvlncix ertal Solutions '.. P. O. Box 99288 Emeryville CA 94662-9288 ... 15 1 01 65 2-3222 ... Y TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES . ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 BACKGROUND 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 4.1 Site Visit 4.2 Drive-By Reconnaissance 5.0 HISTORY OF THE SITE AND VICINITY 5.1 Aerial Photographs Review 5.2 Sanborn Maps Review 6.0 REGIONAL PHYSIOGRAPHY 7.0 RADON POTENTIAL 8.0 REVIEW OF REGULATORY RECORDS 9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 10.0 LIMITATIONS FIGURES APPENDIX A VISTA SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT - MAY 4, 1999 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 8 9 i LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Site Location Schematic Site Plan ii i June 10, 1999 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT OAK FARMS PARCEL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION ICES 2305 At the request of Mr. Bob Mantegani of Sunstream Homes, Innovative and .Creative Environmental Solutions (ICES) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at the Oak Farms Parcel located in South San Francisco, California ("the Site"; Figure 1). This report presents: 1. A summary of relevant information obtained; 2. A description of the methods and sources used to obtain information concerning the Site; 3. Our interpretation of the information,. with respect to potential environmental concerns; and 4. Our professional opinion concerning the likelihood of potential soil, groundwater, or surface-water degradation caused by the presence of hazardous substances, and the need, if any, for sampling and analysis to document site conditions . The objectives of this ESA are to: 1. Assess the potential sources of hazardous substances at the Site as a result of on-site or off-site activities that may have affected site soil or groundwater quality; and 2. Evaluate the presence of chemically-affected soil on the Site to the extent indicated by visual observations, personal interviews, and regulatory records. The ESA investigated past and present site uses, focusing on the use, handling, storage, release, or on-site disposal of hazardous substances, and examined the potential for migration of hazardous substances onto the Site from reported chemical releases, if any, in the site vicinity. The assessment was based solely on a review of available records, visual observations, and personal interviews. Field sampling was not performed as part of this ESA. 1 T 2.0 BACKGROUND Row crops have been cultivated at the Site since the late 1930s. The existing structures at the Site were constructed by 1975. According to the State Uunderground Storage Tank (UST) list, one 500-gallon and one 1,500-gallon USTs, formerly used to store unleaded gasoline, were removed from the Site. Mr. David Uccelli, owner of the Site, reported that the USTs were located along the western perimeter of the Site and were removed from the Site in the mid 1980s by ACCUTITE Tank Testing & Maintenance Services of South San Francisco, California. The State UST list documented that the USTs had been removed and the case is closed. 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK This Phase I ESA included the following tasks: • Review of background information on site setting and history of site usage • Field inspection of the Site and neighboring properties • Review of regulatory records concerning the Site and surrounding area • Data evaluation and report preparation The findings associated with the above tasks are presented below. 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ICES personnel conducted a walk-through site inspection, and performed a drive-by reconnaissance of the adjacent properties and the surrounding area on May 5, 1999. A telephone conversation with Mr. Uccelli was conducted on June 8, 1999. 4.1 Site Visit The Site is located on the south side of Oak Avenue, between Grand and Commercial Avenues. The Site is consisted of the Oak Farms parcel and the residential structure located on lot 19 of Commercial Avenue. The irregular shaped parcel slopes gently in the southeasterly direction. Oak Farms Limited, a produce farm, currently occupies the Site. A two-story structure which houses a parking garage on the first floor and residential units on the second floor is located along the western portion of the Site. An adjoining one-story warehouse is located directly south of the two-story structure. Farm 2 equipment and a tractor are parked in the warehouse. A covered area, wooden water tank, and pump house enclosing a well are located west of the above mentioned structures. The remaining area of the Site is used for agricultural applications. Inspection of the parking garage of the two-story structure indicated that there were no visible oil stains on the intact concrete floor. A wood panel floor approximately 10 feet wide runs through the central portion of the building in the north-south direction. According to Mr. Uccelli, that section of the building was used to wash produce harvested from the farm. Two aboveground storage tanks containing diesel fuel are located northeast of the two-story structure. Mr. Uccelli reported that the tanks are still active and used to fuel the farm equipment. 4.2 Drive-by Reconnaissance A drive-by reconnaissance of the neighboring properties indicated that landuse in the vicinity of the Site is primarily residential. Adjacent developments include residential developments to the north, south, and east of the Site. An undeveloped lot is located west of the Site. Kingshill of Jehovah's Witness is located southwest of the Site. 5.0 HISTORY OF THE SITE AND VICINITY A review of historical aerial photographs and Sanborn Maps aid in identifying past landuses on the Site and in the immediate vicinity which may have contributed to environmental concerns in the area. 5.1 Aerial Photographs Review ICES reviewed historical aerial photographs of the Site and vicinity at Pacific Aerial Surveys in Oakland, California. The dates of the aerial photographs reviewed are listed below: - June 18, 1937 - May 5, 1955 - June 20, 1961 - May 12, 1975 - October 14, 1985 - June 23, 1997 A historical account of the landuse of the Site between 1937 and 1997 based on a review of available aerial photographs is presented below. 3 The Site Row crops were cultivated at the Site since the late 1930s. The existing two-story structure located along the western portion of the Site was observed in the 1937 aerial photograph. The existing pump house, wooden water tank, and storage shed located directly adjacent to the two-story structure were built by 1955. The building located south of the two-story structure which was observed in the 1955 aerial photograph, was removed in 1975. The existing covered area was constructed in place of the building in 1997. Neighboring Area The neighboring parcels were generally used for agricultural applications from the late 1930's through the mid 1950's. Construction of the existing residential structures in the surrounding areas were observed in the 1955, 1961, 1975, 1985, and 1997 aerial photographs. The latest residential development located north of the Site was completed by 1997. 5.2 Sanborn Maps Review A Sanborn Map site search was conducted by Vista Information Solutions, Inc. ("Vista") of San Diego, California. The Vista search indicated that Sanborn Maps are not available for the Site and the immediate surroundings. 6.0 REGIONAL PHYSIOGRAPHY The U.S. Geological Survey San Francisco South Quadrangle indicated that the elevation at the Site is approximately 50 feet above mean sea level and that the topography at the Site slopes in a southeasterly direction. The nearest major body of water is the San Francisco Bay, which lies approximately 3.5 miles east of the Site. 7.0 RADON POTENTIAL The radon data presented in this section is based on the California Statewide Radon Survey Interim Results (CSRSIR) for the County of San Mateo. Radon is a known human carcinogen and is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends that action should be taken to reduce radon levels when indoor radon levels exceed 4 pico curies per liter of air (pCi/1), 4 t The CSRSIR predicts that 5.5 percent of homes in the San Mateo County would exceed 4 pCi/l. Additionally, California ranks as the third lowest state for percentage of homes exceeding 4 pCi/1 of the 34 states participating in the radon survey. These survey results are not intended to predict the radon exposure level measurement in an individual structure since other factors such as climatic conditions, soil permeability, house structure, and soil/house pressures besides geographic location can affect indoor radon levels. Indoor radon levels at the Site can only be obtained by sampling and testing existing or future structures. Radon levels were not measured at the Site. The potential for radon concentrations to exceed 4 pCi/1 at the Site is relatively low based on the small percentage of homes in the County of San Mateo predicted to exceed EPA's recommended exposure limit. 8.0 REVIEW OF REGULATORY RECORDS A governmental records report for the Site and the surrounding areas was prepared by Vista dated May 4, 1999. The geographic database search was conducted following the American Society for Testing Materials standards for a government records review. A copy of the Vista report is included in Appendix A. The record search included sites on governmental environmental lists within an area bounded by a one mile radius extending from the Site. The seventeen governmental lists and sources that were searched by Vista are: DATABASE TYPE OF RECORDS REGULATORY AGENCY Databases searched to 1 mile NPL National Priority List CORRACTS RCRA Corrective Actions SPL State equivalent priority list US EPA US EPA Cal EPA 5 DATABASE TYPE OF RECORDS REGULATORY AGENCY Databases searched to 0.5 mile SCL State equivalent CERCLIS list Cal EPA CERCLIS Sites under review by US EPA US EPA TSD RCRA permitted treatment, storage, US EPA disposal facilities LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Cal EPA SWLF Permitted as solid waste landfills, IWMB incinerators, or transfer stations DEED RSTR Sites with deed restrictions CAL EPA NORTH BAY Sites on North Bay Toxic List RWQCB SOUTH BAY Sites on South Bay Toxic List RWQCB CORTESE State index of properties with OEP/OHM hazardous waste TOXIC PITS Toxic Pits cleanup facilities RWQCB/DLG WATER Federal and State Drinking Water USGS/STATE WELLS Sources Databases searched to 0.25 mile RCRA VIOL RCRA violations/enforcement actions US EPA TRIS Toxic Release Inventory database US EPA UST/AST Registered underground or Cal EPA aboveground storage tanks 6 DATABASE TYPE OF RECORDS REGULATORY AGENCY Databases searched to 0.125 mile ERNS Emergency Response Notification System of spills US EPA GNRTR RCRA registered small or large generators US EPA of hazardous waste Abbreviations: Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency IWMB Integrated Waste Management Board OEP/OHM Office of Environmental Protection, Office of Hazardous Materials RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency RWQCB/DLG Regional Water Quality Control Board, Division of Loans Grants USGS United States Geological Survey A total of fifty-nine cases with possible releases of chemicals of concern to the environment were identified within the area of the search. Vista's regulatory case list review identified • one LUST case; and • two UST/AST cases.; within a one eighth-mile radius from the Site; • four LUST cases; • two CORTESE cases; and • ten UST/AST cases; within a one quarter-mile radius from the Site; • thirteen LUST cases; and • ten CORTESE cases; within a one half-mile radius from the Site; 7 • no cases; within a one mile radius from the Site; and • one CERCLIS case; • five LUST cases; • one SWLF cases; • six CORTESE case; and • four UST/AST cases; were listed as "unmapped" sites. Of the fifty-nine cases, twelve cases are not considered to have impacted the Site because of its no further action (NFA) status, its de-listed status, or because no violations were listed. A NFA status or a de-listed status for a site/case indicates that chemical releases to the environment had not occurred or had been successfully remediated. In addition, sites/cases with a "No Violations" notation have not had known releases of chemicals into the environment. Of the remaining forty-seven cases, all forty-seven cases are not considered to have impacted the Site because of their distance (approximately one-eighth mile or greater) from the Site, and/or their relative location down-gradient (southeast) and cross- gradient from the Site. The local topography suggest that the local groundwater gradient flows in an southeasterly direction. It is, therefore, unlikely that properties situated in the down- gradient locations of the Site could have impacted the Site through groundwater flow. 9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Row crops have been cultivated at the Site since the late 1930s. The existing structures at the Site were constructed by 1975. Two USTs, formerly used to store unleaded gasoline, were removed from the Site in the mid 1980s. The State UST list documented that the USTs had been removed and the case is closed. Based on the findings of this ESA, ICES recommends that a preliminary investigation be initially conducted within the Site to assess the potential presence of contaminants associated with existing and former activities conducted at the Site. Specifically, ICES recommends that the following tasks be initially performed to obtain additional information to adequately characterize the underlying sediments: 8 i ~ 1. Collect soil samples within the Site to assess the potential presence of organochlorine pesticides associated with agricultural activities conducted at the Site; and 2. Collect soil sample adjacent to the ASTs to assess the potential presence of petroleum hydrocarbons. This recommendation is site specific, based on the information available at this time and could be revised if new information necessitating further review of the Site and adjacent facilities becomes available. 10.0 LIMITATIONS The Scope of Work for this Phase I ESA did not include collection or analysis of soil and/or groundwater samples; assessment of the potential presence of asbestos in building materials; testing of electrical equipment for the potential presence of polychlorinated biphenyls; assessment of natural hazards such as naturally occurring asbestos, radon gas, or methane gas; assessment of the potential presence of radionuclides; or assessment of nonchemical hazards, such as the potential for damage from earthquakes or floods or the presence of endangered species or wildlife habitats. Therefore, a full and complete determination of environmental risks was not made. This Phase I ESA also did not include an assessment of the compliance status of the Site, or of the businesses operating at the Site. The observations and conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based on the scope of activities and information obtained through the Phase I ESA described above. Opinions presented herein apply to site conditions at the time of our study, and cannot apply to site conditions or changes of which we are not aware, or which we have not had the opportunity to evaluate. It must be recognized that any conclusions drawn from these data rely on the integrity of the information available to ICES at the time of the investigation. Soil and/or groundwater sampling and analysis would provide additional level of confidence with respect to potential environmental risks at the Site. This report is exclusively for the use of Mr. Bob Mantegani. Any reliance on this report by a third party shall be at such party's sole risk. 9 i July 8, 1999 Mr. Bob Mantegani Sunstream Homes 1900 O'Farrell Street, Suite 305 San Mateo, California 94403 ICES 2305 Subject: Phase II Site Investigation Oak Farms Parcel South San Francisco, California Dear Bob: Enclosed is the Phase II Site Investigation Report for the screening of surficial soil at the Oak Farms Parcel in South San Francisco, California. The sampling activities included collecting a total of ten soil samples and selectively analyzing the samples for organochlorine pesticides and petroleum hydrocarbon constituents. If you have any questions or comments concerning this report, please call us. Sincerely, eng Leon 'ncipa Engineer Enclosure Innovatlva 8 reative Environmental Soltrttons Tel(5t0)652-3222 Fax(510) 652-3555 P. 0. Box 99288 Emeryvill; GA 94662-9288 PHASE II SITE INVESTIGATION OAK FARMS PARCEL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA July 8, 1999 ICES 2305 Prepared for: Mr. Bob Mantegani Sunstream Homes 1900 O'Farrell Street, Suite 305 San Mateo, California 94403 ~~~. ~. ",3 Innovative b Creative .EmrlrorjmenI Solutions ,a;,c.*- P. O. Box 99288 Emeryville CA 94662-9288 ... (510) 652-3221 ... TABLE OF CONTENTS PRGE LIST OF TABLES ii LIST OF FIGURES iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ~. 1 3.0 BACKGROUND 2 4.0 INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES 2 5.0 LABORATORY ANALYSIS 3 6.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS 3 6.1 Field Observations 3 6.2 Laboratory Analytical Results 3 7.0 DISCUSSION 4 8.0 EXCLUSIONS 4 TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX A LABORATORY CERTIFICATES i LIST OF TABLES N[JMBER TITLE 1 Laboratory Analytical Results of Organochlorine Pesticides Detected in Soil 2 Laboratory Analytical Results of Petroleum Hydrocarbons Detected in Soil ii LIST OF FIGURES NUMBER TITLE Site Location Sample Locations iii July 8, 1999 PHASE II SITE INVESTIGATION OAK FARMS PARCEL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION ICES 2305 This report presents the findings of a Phase II site investigation ("the investigation") conducted by Innovative and Creative Environmental Solutions (ICES) at the Oak Farms Parcel located in South San Francisco, California ("the Site"; Figure 1). The investigation was conducted to address the concerns presented in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) performed in June I999. Soil samples were collected to assess the potential presence of: 1. Organochlorine pesticides in the underlying soil associated with past and present activities conducted at the Site; and 2. Petroleum hydrocarbons from the two aboveground storage tanks (AST) located at the northwestern portion of the Site. The investigation was limited to collecting soil samples and selectively analyzing the samples for organochlorine pesticides, and petroleum constituents. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The Site is located on the south side of Oak Avenue, between Grand and Commercial Avenues. The Site consists of the Oak Farms parcel and the residential structure located on Lot 19 of Commercial Avenue. The irregular shaped parcel slopes gently in the southeasterly direction. Oak Farms Limited, a produce farm, currently occupies the Site. A two-story structure which houses a parking garage on the ground floor and residential units on the second floor is located along the western portion of the Site. An adjoining one-story warehouse 1 is located directly south of the two-story structure. Farm equipment and a tractor are parked in the warehouse. A covered area, wooden water tank, and a pump house enclosing a well are located west of the abovementioned structures. The remaining area of the Site is used for agricultural applications. An approximately 10-feet wide wood panel floor oriented in the north- south direction which covered a subsurface concrete box was observed along the central portion of the two-story building. According to Mr. David Uccelli, the current owner of the Site, the concrete box was used to wash produce harvested from the farm. Two ASTs containing diesel fuel are located northeast of the two-story structure. Mr. Uccelli reported that the ASTs are still active and used to fuel the farm equipment. 3.0 BACI{GROUND Row crops have been cultivated at the Site since the late 1930s. Vegetables are currently being planted in the open field. The existing structures at the Site were constructed by 1975. According to the State Underground Storage Tank (UST) list, one 500-gallon and 'one 1,500-gallon USTs, formerly used to store unleaded gasoline, were removed from the~Site. Mr. Uccelli reported that the USTs were located along the western perimeter of the Site and were removed from the Site in the mid 1980s by ACCUTITE Tank Testing & Maintenance Services of South San Francisco, California. The State UST list documented that the USTs had been removed and the case is closed. 4.0 INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES A total of ten soil samples were collected. One soil sample was collected from each of the ten shallow test pits. Eight soil samples (samples S-1 through S-8) were collected in the open field by scraping from the floor of the test pits at a depth of approximately 1 foot below the existing ground surface directly into 4-ounce glass jars. Sample S-9 was collected in a similar manner from the floor of the concrete box. The remaining soil sample (sample AST-1) was collected adjacent to the ASTs by driving a clean brass tube to a depth of approximately 1 foot below the existing ground surface. Figure 2 illustrates the approximate sample locations. The filled brass tube, and 4-ounce glass jars were immediately capped, sealed, labeled, and placed in a chilled cooler containing crushed ice for transportation to the laboratory. Proper documentation and field chain-of-custody procedures were followed. 2 All equipment used during this investigation which came into contact with contaminated materials was thoroughly decontaminated before and after each use. This was accomplished by washing with Alconox (a laboratory-grade detergent) and rinsing with deionized or distilled water. 5.0 LABORATORY ANALYSIS Samples S-1 through S-9 were sent to Caltest Analytical Laboratory of Napa, California, astate-certified laboratory, and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides using EPA Method 8080. Sample AST-1 was sent to McCampbell Analytical Inc. of Pacheco, California, and analyzed for: • Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline (TPHg) using EPA Method 5030/GCFID; • Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX) and methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) using EPA Method 8020; and • TPH as diesel (TPHd) and TPH as motor oil (TPHo) using EPA Method 8015M. These samples were analyzed on a normal 5-day turnaround basis. 6.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS The field observations and laboratory analytical results are presented below. The laboratory analytical results are summarized in Tables .l and 2. Laboratory certificates are presented in Appendix A. 6.1 Field Observations The Site was underlain by light tan to brown silty-sand to the total depth of the test pits. Groundwater was not encountered at the floor of the test pits. 6.2 Laboratory Analytical Results The laboratory analytical results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Laboratory certificates are presented in Appendix A. The results are as follows: Analysis of the soil samples indicated that: 3 Organochlorine Pesticides • The organochlorine pesticides analyzed using EPA Method 8080 were below their respective detection limits. Petroleum Hydrocarbons • TPHg concentration was less than 1.0 mg/kg (not detected). • Benzene concentration was less than 0.005 mg/kg (not detected). • Toluene concentration was less than 0.005 mg/kg (not detected). • Ethylbenzene concentration was less than 0.005 mg/kg (not detected). • Xylenes concentration was less than 0.005 mg/kg (not detected). • MTBE concentration was less than 0.050 mg/kg (not detected). • TPHd concentration was 1.4 mg/kg. • TPHo concentration was 11 mg/kg. 7.0 DISCUSSION Laboratory analytical results indicated that the soil samples collected in the open field and from the floor of the concrete box inside the two-story structure contained non-detectable concentrations of organochlorine pesticides. The soil sample collected adjacent to the ASTs contained non-detectable concentrations of TPHg, BTEX, and MTBE; and low concentrations of TPHd and TPHo. Based on the laboratory analytical results, it appears that surficial soil within the Site is not impacted with organochlorine pesticides. Additionally, the surficial soil within the ASTs is not significantly impacted by petroleum constituents. 8.0 EXCLUSIONS The evaluations and recommendations presented in this report are based on the limited site investigation results available at this time and could be revised if new information necessitating further 4 review of the Site becomes available. The above evaluations are only valid for the time during which the guidelines on which the evaluations were based are considered acceptable by the relevant regulatory agencies. ICES assumes no responsibility or liability for the reliance hereon or use hereof of information contained in this report by anyone other than the party to whom it is addressed. 5 BAAQNID CEQA GUIDELINES 14 April, 1996 ' TABLE 2 . FEASIBLE CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS OF PMio Basic Contra111'teasures. The #'o~loR~ing contrdls should be implemented at all constriction sites '.: , • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging azeas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking azeas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streeu daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carved onto adjacent public streets. Enhanced Control'Measnres ; The ~oilostiing measures should be implemented at .. , construction sites greater than`#oar acres in area. • All "Basic" control measures listed above. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent sih runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed azeas as quickly as possible. Optional Control 'Measures. - 'The following .control measures :;are strongly: encouraged at construction si#es that are :large in area, located wear sensitive receptors or vrhich ;for ::any .other reason ?:may warrant .additional emissions ,.. .. reductions. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction azeas. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. • Limit the azea subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. FROM ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP (FRI) 1.14'00 10:59/ST.10:58/N0.4861546928 P ~ Historical Evaluation The Lux Barn for The City of South San Francisco South San Francisco, California prepared for the City of South San Francisco Planning Division prepared by Architectural Resources Getup Architects, Platmcrs ~ Conservators, Inc. San Frandsco, California December 7+ 1999 ~~~~ FROM AACHITECTUAAI, AESOUACES GROUP (FAI) 1. 14' 00 10:59/ST. 10:58/N0.4861546928 P Historical Evaluation -lux Barn City of South San Francisco December 7,1999 (revised) Introduction In response to the request of the City of South San Francisco, Architectural Resources Group (A1tG) has prepared a review of the significance of the Lux Barn at 150 Oak Avenue in South San Francisco, California. We have reviewed the historical resource for eligibility for the California Register of Historic Resources (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Sa;tiw 4850). The California Register criteria are linked to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1`Jnder CEQA resources are considered historically significant "if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register..." {Title 14 California Code of Regulations 15064.5 (3)}. On November i5, 1999 ARG staff members visited the site. At that time, the building and surrounding streetscape were photographed. Additionally, ARG researched the history of the building at the South San Francisco Public Library History Room, the San Francisco Public Library lIistory Room and the collection of the San Mateo County Historical Society. As a result of the research conducted for this report, ARG has determined that the Lux Elam is potentially individually eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (California Register) under Criterion 1: resources associated with events or patterns of events that have maclc x significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States_ This is one of the few buildings remaining in South San Francisco that date to the 1850s. It is associated with two historic contexts: the development of the Lux Mansion as well as small-scale family farming in South San Francisco during the late nineteenth aAd early twentieth centuries. The potential for archaeological resources has not been assessed as part of this review. CEtZq and the California Register of Historical Resources . Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) resources are evaluated using California Register criteria. CEQA requires review of discretionary projects by the Lead Agency. Future projects at the Lux Barn site could result in the substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource. The Public Resources Code defines "substantial adverse change" as "demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would he impaired" (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 5020.1q). Historical resources include, but are not limited to, "any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural awls of California" (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 5020.1j). Resources that meet the California Register criteria are considered historical resources under CEQA. The California Register criteria are modeled after the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) criteria; however, the California Register focuses on resources that have contributed to the development of California and its rural and municipal areas. All resources listed in or formally determined eligible for the National Registea are eligible for the California Register. In addition, properties designated under municipal ctr county ordinances are also eligible for listing in the California Register- An historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following criteria that are defined in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850. 1. It is associated with events or patterns of events that have. made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultwal heritage of California or the United States; or ARCHiTECT[JRAL RESOURCES GROUP Architects, Planners f~ Coasrrntors, Inc. FROM ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP (FRI) 1. 14' 00 11:00/ST. 10:58/0.4861546928 P 4 Historical Evaluation - Lwc Barn C'rty of South San Francisco December 7, aggg (revised) Page 2 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. Building Description The Lux Barn, as it is locally known, is situated near Oak Avenue at the edge of approximately two acres of vegetable fields. It is a two-story, side-gabled, wood-frame building. A one-story, shed-roofed lean-to has been added across the full width of the barn's east elevation. The entire structure is red with white trim and fascia board. The Oak Avenue elevation has two large openings for truck loading at the south end, and a small door leading to stairs up to the second-story residential areas on the north end. l:'rvc one-over-one, double- hung windows run along the second floor of this front elevation. A single, small square window pierces the north end of the barn, at the upper level. On the south end, a steel stair with concrete tzcads has been added to the exterior to access tl» second story. One window is located on each side of this entrance. The upper floor has five double-hung windows like the front, plus two small square windows, presumably in the bathrooms. The front and north eiev~tions of the barn are clad with composition shingles patterned to imitate brick, likely installed in the I950s or 1960s. The south and rear elevations have vertical wood slat siding, paroled red. The original barn exterior, visible inside Lhe shed roofed addition, consisted of horizontal woad siding, with wide grooves between each board. Inside the loading entrance is a large open area for cleanuig and packing vegetables harvested at this small farm. The majority of the floor has been paved with concrete, but several patches are covered with floor boards, with open slits between allowing drainage to a pit below. The rafters and braced-frame wcxxi stn~cture are exposed on the interior. Corrugated metal has been attached over the lower portion of the walls, presumably to prevent water damage. A small water closet has been built in one comer of this rc-o~», and a door m the northeastern comer leads to additional storage space. The interior is painted white. There are two separate residential areas upstairs, both of which consist of several small rooms off a central living room. Other structures on the site include a black water tower neaz the southeast corner of the barn, and a small storage shack in the fields further south on Oak Street. This is a simple square structure with a low gable roof, clad entirely in corrugated metal, pnintcd red to match the barn. A tall red picket fence separates the fields from the street south of the barn. Historical Overview In the early 1950s, Chazles Lux, with his partner Henry Miller, purchased approximately 1,500 acres of land for cattle ranching in and around what is now the Ciry of South San Francisco_ On a portion of this land, Lux developed what became swell-known estate, with a famous mansion and elaborate manicured gardens.' The main house on the estate was demolished in 1923. The barn now located at 150 Oak Avenue was originally an outbuilding for the Lux Mansion. There are differing stories as to the building's original purpose-it has been called a carriage house, buggy repair shop, and a bam. Peter Uccelli Sr., an immigrant to South San Francisco from Genoa, Italy, purchased several acres near the intersection of Grand and Oak Avenue in 1924. On this small farm, Uccelli and his family grew their own grapes for wine, and potatoes and vegetables for sale. Alice ARCxrrECrirRAL R>:sotnzc~s GROUP Archicccts, Planners ~ Conservacocs, inc. FROM AACHITECTURAI, RESOURCES GROUP (FRI) 1.14'00 11 :01/ST.10:58/N0.4861546928 P Historical Evaluation -lux Barn City of South San Francisco December 7, a9g9 (revised) Page 3 Marsili, daughter of Peter Uccelli, remembered that her father and three brothers moved the barn themselves from the former Lux estate in the early 1930s. `"They moved it with rollers. You had to have a horse to pull and then they would move these rollers and it took a few days."~ However, the building appears at the Oak Avenue location as early ai the 1925 South San Francisco Sanborn Map. Based on the Sanborn information, the building was likely moved in the early 1920x, perhaps when Peter Uccelli constructed his home at 919 Grand Avenue in 1924, on an adjacent lot to the barn site' The 1925 Sanborn map clearly shows the one story shed addition to the barn. Further as the Lux Mansion was demolished in 1923 the relocation of the barn a year later is a logical chain of events. The building has remained in active use as a barn and agricultural storage facility since its move to Oak Avenue. The upper floor has been used for residential purposes for somC ycazs. George Uccelli, Ms. Marsili's brother, ran the farm after their father passed away. Determination of Eligibility This resource appears to meet Criterion 1 of the California Register. resources that are associated with events or patterns of events that have made a s~gni.ficant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the Llnited States. The Lux 13arn is one of the few buildings remaining in Suuth San Francisco that date to the late 1850s. It is associated with two historic contexts: the development of the Lux Mansion as well as small-scale family farming in South San Francisco during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The period of significance for this resource ranges from 'the late 1850s, when this building was constructed for use on the Lux Estate, through the 1964s when the Uccelli family was still farming neaz the barn site. Since the i960s the acreage of farmed land in South San Francisco has declined to accommodate increased need for housing in the area. 1 ntegrity Once a resource has been identified as significant and potentially eligible for the California Registers, its historic integrity must be evaluated. Integrtty is the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evtdenced by the survival of characteristics t}tat existed during the resources penod of significance. Integrity involves several aspects including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. These aspects closely relate to the resource's significance and must be primarily intact for California Register eligibility. integrity must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. While the Lux Barn has been altered and presently is sided with composition shingles intended to replicate red brick, the original wood siding appears to be present under the outer layer of composition shingles. These earlier alterations have revolved around creating living spaces on the second floor and upgrades to the lower floor agricultural uses. However, it is the opinion of A1ZU that the building retains enough integrity to convey its significance as a remaining resource from the Lux Mansion converted for use on a small farm owned by an important South San Francisco fannily. The California Register regulations have speck language regarding integrity which note: It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register... {California Code of Regulations Title 15, 11.5 (c) } . Alzcl-ilrl:rn~l. RlsoUaa~s G>zoup Architects, Planners £~ Conservators, Inc. FROM AACHITECTUAAI, RESOURCES GROUP IFAII 1. 14' 00 11:01/ST. 10:58/N0.4861546928 P 6 Historical Evaluation -Lux Barn C'rty of South San Francesco Decemise~, sg (reviseei) _ Pa-g~ Project Impacts To Historic Resources Future demolition of the Lux Barn would likely result in a substantial adverse change to historical resotuces. If a future new use for the site does not include the reuse of the Lux Barn, moving the Barn should be considered during environmental review. While moving the resource will not likely lower the impact to the historic resource to a less than significant level, it will result in the retention of a stgnificant building that has been moved previously. Additionally, as the acreage of the Uccelli farm has dwindled and modem housing encroaches on the property, the Lux Barn has lost some of its site context. Although the barn is in poor condition, it appears to be in sufficiently sound structural condition to consider relocation to another site. The wood members appear to be in good condition and the building sits on a concrete slab that likely dates [o the 192Us when it was moved to this location. If the barn is moved, precautions should be taken so that the significannl features of the building are not destroyed in the process of moving. The guidelines and suggestions put forward in the publication Mu>>ing Historic Buildings by john (a. Curtis should aid in this process. If work performed on the building after its move to a new location complied with The Secretary of the Interior's Stc,iclards for Rehahilitatiun, impacts to the building wilt be further lessened. Cost of Moving the Barn The cost of moving the Barn can not be fully determined until a new site is locatcil rind a building mover can be contacted to perform a cost estimate. However, when the cost estimate is developed the following issues (and perhaps others) should be considered in regard to the cost: • type of move: dismantle the resuurce or move in large sections + distance of the relocation • cost of a new foundation • cost of plumbing and electrical installments if necessary • path of travel and any obstructions such as overhead wires, difficult turns, property lines, xnd public right of ways restrictions • hazardous materials abatement Attachments The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation 1925 South San Francisco Sanborn Map ARCI-1tI'EC1•iJR~-L RFSOIJRCES GROUP Architects, Planncis CJ Conservators, Inc. FROM AACHITECTUAAI, RESOURCES GROUP (FAI) 1.14'00 11 :02/ST.10:58/N0.4861546928 P 1 Historical Evaiuatlon -lux Barn Gty of South San Franasco December 7, X999 revised) Page 5 Bibliography Bambtug, Bonnie. Depanment of Parks and Recreation. State Historic Resources Inventory Form on the Loa Barn (150 Oak Avenue). May 1986. Curtis, John Obed. Moving Ilistaric Buildings. Nashville, Tennessee: Atneriean Association of State and Local History. 1979. Gebhard, David. Architecrz~re in San Francisco and Northern California. Salt Lakc City: Peregrine Smith, 1985. Kauffman, Linda. South San Francisco: A History. South San Francisco: 1976- Kirker, Harold. California's Architectural Frontier: Style wul Traclitiun in ~hc: Nineteenth Century. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1973. Pence, Helen Patricia. Charles I.ecx and Nis Snrtth Sccn Franciscan Hone. San Mateo County Historical Association, 1950. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for South San Francisco, 1910, 1925, 1950. San Franci.crn: The. Bay and Its Gibes. Compiled by Workers of the Writers' Progrnm of the Works Progress Administration in Northern California. New York: Hastings House, 1940. San Mateo County Historical Society Archives Collection. ~South San Francisco History Room Vertical Files and Photographs. "The South San Francisco Home of James Lux." La Peninsula. Volume 11, No. 3: October 1957. Treadwell, Edward F. The Cattle King. Western Tanager Press, Santa Cruz: 1981. "'The Uccelli Family" South San Francisco History Room Vertical Files and Photographs. Woodbridge, Sally. San Francisco Architecture. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1992. ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP Architects, Plu~ners t~ Coasavacors, Inc. FROM ARCHITECTURAL, RESOURCES GROUP (FR11 1. 14' 00 11:02/ST. 10:58/N0.4861546928 P 8 Historical Evaluation -Lux Barn • City of South San Francisco December 7. s9g9 ~evlsed) Page 6 Endnote, "The South San Francisco Home of James Lux:' La Peninsula. Volume l I, No. 3: October 1957. 2 '7he Uccelli Family:' SSF Library Historical Projex:t, 1976. page 4. s "The Uccelli Family." SSF Library Historical Project, 1976. page 3. ARCHITECIIJ1tAL RESOURCES GROUP Architects, planners E~ Canscrvators, lnc. APPENDIX C HILLIARD LAU ARCHITECTS REPORT HISTORIC EVALUATION-ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE GROUP R. TROUST MOVING MEMORANDUM 57 Post Street, Suite 5l2 San Francisco, CA 94/04-5020 Tel 41 S 989 6400 Fax 989 3056 January 26, 2000 Ms. Allison Knapp Wollam Planning Department, City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Street South San Francisco, California 94083 Fax: 650 829-6639 RE: Review of the Lux Mansion Carriage House Dear Ms. Wollam: I have inspected the Lux Mansion Carriage House in South San Francisco. Following is a brief description of the building, and two possible scenarios (with associated costs) of what to do with it. Carriage houses in the 1800's were utilitarian structures for storing carriages, tack, feed and sometimes used as stables. A good example of a San Francisco bay area 1800's carriage house/stables kept in original condition that I know of is located at the Dunsmuir House (opened to the public) in Oakland. This building is lavishly ornamented both inside and out. Another carriage house that I am familiar with was located at a private residence in Piedmont. It was on the grounds of an 1800's vintage mansion that (in the 1970's) had the original carriage house in place. This carriage house, while smaller than the Dunsmuir carriage house was beautifully detailed with wood ornament and exquisitely proportioned. It again was a very ' ±I 4 ~ ~ u ~,s utilitarian structure, with the first floor for _"~c`'~'`~ . _," carriage storage and an upper floor for - hay, feed and tack storage. In addition to 3j 4 windows this upper floor had an exterior door with a hoist beam above it, still with a block in place for hoisting hay and feed into the second story. Unfortunately the Lux Mansion Carriage House was picked up and moved to a different location in the 1920's and even more destructive to the building, the use was changed. The first floor of the carriage house was remodeled and expanded into an agricultural storage building and the upper floor was turned into two apartments. The wood framed structure and exterior siding of the original building are buried under a century of renovations and remodeling, but almost all signs or even clues of the original carriage house have disappeared. Even the added layers of siding and wood trim are in poor condition with dry rot apparent in much of the exterior trim including corner trim and roof overhang. The two apartments do not meet minimum basic life safety requirements of the Building Code. The building code requirement '. that would be most difficult to correct f would be the minimum ceiling height requirement, as all of the second floor ceilings are only seven feet high. The required fire separation between the first floor agricultural storage and the apartments is non-existent. The electrical system is an example of one hundred years of patching things together. There is simply not a lot of historic carriage house left to save. SCENARIO ONE The least expensive scenario and perhaps the one most in keeping with the building's heritage, would be to move the building again, to a utility or maintenance yard of a school district, utility company, or transportation company. Once located in the maintenance yard, the building could be "restored" by demolishing the residential interiors, the electrical and r ~,-, , ~, __ 1 1 i'~ ~ ~ ~~~ l~ j r ~ ~ ~ !~f ~ _ -~ . ( j -J i ~ , - ,~ l ~ ~ i plumbing systems, and restoring the building back to its original utilitarian use of storage. Cost of this renovation would be the cost of moving the building (which I understand a house moving company is currently estimating), and demolition of the residential interiors and installation of a new foundation, shear walls with hold-downs, and new electrical and lighting systems. Restricting the amount of "renovation" to match up with available budget I estimate the minimum cost not including moving costs could be kept to $200,000. If a more extensive historical restoration was desired you could spend enormous amounts of time and money on research and careful restoration and rebuilding. Architectural research and design fees for historical restoration projects commonly exceed 25% of the construction costs. Building costs can go offthe charts depending on just how exactly you want to match the original building. If you decide to go this route, you should start with a budget of $800,000. SCENARIO TWO If you decide to leave the building where it is and change the use of the building to a different occupancy, you will trigger a building code requirement to bring the entire building up to current code. This may cost more than demolishing the entire building and building a new building for the following reasons: 1. A restrained and careful demolition of the previous 100 years of "remodeling and renovations" will cost more than an unrestrained demolition of the Page 2 entire building. 2. New foundations will likely be required. Having to work around the existing building to demolish the existing foundations and to build new ones will cost more. 3. It will cost more to work with and around the existing exterior siding and structure than new construction. The building could be changed to a variety of other uses, other than residential (second floor ceilings are too low): Day care center. Small community center with a variety of programs such as senior lunch programs, after school youth activities, community art classes. Considering the difficulty of working around, in and under an existing building to provide a new fully code compliant use for the building, you should budget $800,000. to complete the work. It is unfortunate that the Lux Mansion wasn't moved along with the Lux Carriage House in the 1920's, it would have given us more to work with in the 2000's. Sincerely, Michael R. Hilliard, AIA Principal Page 3 R. TROST MOVING, INC. P.O. BOX 191 PlTTS9URG, CA 94565 PHONE: (925) 777-0273 FAX: (925) 777-p275 January 25, 2000 Architectural Resource Group pier 4, The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA 94111 Attention: rs. Bridget Maley RE: the barn located at t50 Dak Avenue in South San Francisco, A xepresentative of R. Trost Moving, Inc. has visited and inspect- ' ed the structure located at 150 Oak Avenue in South San Francisco, we are pleased to present the following range price to relocate the above named structure. opTloN "A": Relocate the Darn in one piece. Range Price: S 15,000 to S 20,000. SNr7.rmr_S ~'HE ,~OLLO~+],~NG t - The relocation cost of the structure only. Having good access to the propo9ed site. - The relocation distance is short. For example thG vacant lot on the opposite side of the road. - Able to accomplish this relocation operation without disconnecting/reconnecting the utility lines from the power poles. LxcLUDES THE FOLLOWING: - Utility escorts - Foundation construction . - Interior renovation - Hazardous material rpsnoval or disposal - Permit fees - No pa=King signs -- Tree cutting or pruning OPTION "B": Relocate the barn in tWO sections. Range price: ~ 30,400 to = 35,U0~. - Relocation GOSt of the structure only. - Relocation distance expanded to a one mile radius. - Bracing the perimeter walls a! the structure from ground level to the eaves. - Cutting the roof from the structure 2tt the rafter .line. - Remove the root from thQ structure Dy using a crane. - Structurally reconnect the tvo building sections. - Moving both sections of the structure at one time in a convoy to the proposed site. EXCLUDES THE FOLLOWING: - Utility escorts - Foundation construction Interior renovation - Hazardous materis-1 removal or disposal - Permit fees - No parking signs - Tree cutting or pruning Sincerely, Frank J. Krol ~ereral Manager Por: Ted A. Waterman President R. Trost Moving, Inc. Historical Evaluation The Lux Barn for The City of South San Francisco South San Francisco, California ... ................................................................................... prepared for the City of South San Francisco Planning Division prepared by Architectural Resources Group Architects, Planners £~ Conservators, Inc. San Francisco, California ...................................................................................... December ~, iggg (revised) Historical Evaluation -Lux Barn City of South San Francisco December 7,1999 (revised) Introduction In response to the request of the City of South San Francisco, Architectural Resources Group (ARG) has prepared a review of the significance of the Lux Barn at 150 Oak Avenue in South San Francisco, California. We have reviewed the historical resource for eligibility for the California Register of Historic Resources (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850). The California Register criteria are linked to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA resources are considered historically significant "if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the Califomia Register..." {Title 14 California Code of Regulations 15064.5 (3)}. On November 15, 1999 ARG staff members visited the site. At that time, the building and surrounding streetscape were photographed. Additionally, ARG researched the history of the building at the South San Francisco Public Library History Room, the San Francisco Public Library History Room and the collection of the San Mateo County Historical Society. As a result of the research conducted for this report, ARG has determined that the Lux Barn is potentially individually eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (California Register) under Criterion 1: resources associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution.to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. This is one of the few buildings remaining in South San Francisco that date to the 1850s. It is associated with two historic contexts: the development of the Lux Mansion as well as small-scale family farming in South San Francisco during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The potential for archaeological resources has not been assessed as part of this review. CEQq and the California Register of Historical Resources Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) resources are evaluated using Califomia Register criteria. CEQA requires review of discretionary projects by the Lead Agency. Future projects at the Lux Barn site could result in the substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource. The Public Resources Code defines "substantial adverse change" as "demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired" (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 5020.1q). Historical resources include, but are not limited to, "any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California" (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 5020.1 j). Resources that meet the California Register criteria are considered historical resources under CEQA. The California Register criteria are modeled after the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) criteria; however, the California Register focuses on resources that have contributed to the development of California and its rural and municipal areas. All resources listed in or formally determined eligible for the National Register are eligible for the California Register. In addition, properties designated under municipal or county ordinances are also eligible for listing in the California Register. An historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following criteria that are defined in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850. 1. It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or ARCHITECTCTRAL RESOURCES GROUP Arclutecu, Planners £~ Conservators, Inc. Historical Evaluation -Lux Barn City of South San Francisco December 7,1999 (revised) Page ~ 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. Building Description The Lux Barn, as it is locally known, is situated near Oak Avenue at the edge of approximately two acres of vegetable fields. It is a two-story, side-gabled, wood-frame building. A one-story, shed-roofed lean-to has been added across the full width of the barn's east elevation. The entire structure is red with white trim and fascia board. The Oak Avenue elevation has two large openings for truck loading at the south end, and a small door leading to stairs up to the second-story residential areas on the north end. Five one-over-one, double- hung windows run along the second floor of this front elevation. A single, small square window pierces the north end of the barn, at the upper level. On the south end, a steel stair with concrete treads has been added to the exterior to access the second story. One window is located on each side of this entrance. The upper floor has five double-hung windows like the front, plus two small square windows, presumably in the bathrooms. The front and north elevations of the bam are clad with composition shingles patterned to imitate brick, likely installed in the 1950s or 1960s. The south and rear elevations have vertical wood slat siding, painted red. The original barn exterior, visible inside the shed roofed addition, consisted of horizontal wood siding, with wide grooves between each board. Inside the loading entrance is a large open area for cleaning arni packing vegetables harvested at this small farm. The majority of the floor has been paved with concrete, but several patches are covered with floor boards, with open slits between allowing drainage to a pit below. The rafters and braced-frame wood structure are exposed on the interior. Corrugated metal has been attached over the lower portion of the walls, presumably to prevent water damage. A small water closet has been built in one corner of this room, and a door in the northeastern corner leads to additional storage space. The interior is painted white. There are two separate residential areas upstairs, both of which consist of several small rooms off a central living room. Other structures on the site include a black water tower near the southeast corner of the barn, and a small storage shack in the fields further south on Oak Street. This is a simple square structure with a low gable roof, clad entirely in corrugated metal, painted red to match the barn. A tall red picket fence separates the fields from the street south of the barn. Historical Ov In the early 950 ,Charles Lux, with his partner Henry Miller, purchased approximately 1,500 acres o d for cattle ranching in and around what is now the City of South San Francisco. On a portion of this land, Lux developed what became awell-known estate, with a famous mansion and elaborate manicured gardens.' The main house on the estate was demolished in 1923. The barn now located at 150 Oak Avenue was originally an outbuilding for the Lux Mansion. There are differing stories as to the building's original purpose-it has been called a carriage house, buggy repair shop, and a barn. Peter Uccelli Sr., an immigrant to South San Francisco from Genoa, Italy, purchased several acres near the intersection of Grand and Oak Avenue in 1924. On this small farm, Uccelli and his family grew their own grapes for wine, and potatoes and vegetables for sale. Alice ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP Architects, Planners ~ Conservators, Inc. Historical Evaluation -Lux Barn City of South San Francisco December 7,1999 (revised) Page 3 Marsili, daughter of Peter Uccelli, remembered that her father and three brothers moved the barn themselves from the former Lux estate in the early 1930s. "They moved it with rollers. You had to have a horse to pull and then they would move these rollers and it took a few days."Z However, the building appears at the Oak Avenue location as early as the 1925 South San Francisco Sanborn Map. Based on the Sanborn information, the building was likely moved in the early 1920s, perhaps when Peter Uccelli constructed his home at 919 Grand Avenue in 1924, on an adjacent lot to the barn site.' The 1925 Sanborn map clearly shows the one story shed addition to the barn. Further as the Lux Mansion was demolished in 1923 the relocation of the barn a year later is a logical chain of events. The building has remained in active use as a barn and agricultural storage facility since its move to Oak Avenue. The upper floor has been used for residential purposes for some years. George Uccelli, Ms. Marsili's brother, ran the farm after their father passed away. Determination of Eligibility This resource appears to meet Criterion 1 of the California Register: resources that are associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The Lux Barn is one of the few buildings remaining in South San Francisco that date to the late 1850s. It is associated with two historic contexts: the development of the Lux Mansion as well as small-scale family farming in South San Francisco during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The period of significance for this resource ranges from the late 1850s, when this building was constructed for use on the Lux Estate, through the 1960s when the Uccelli family was still farming near the barn site. Since the 1960s the acreage of farmed land in South San Francisco has declined to accommodate increased need for housing in the area. Integrity Once a resource has been identified as significant and potentially eligible for the California Registers, its historic integrity must be evaluated. Integrity is the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resources period of significance. Integrity involves several aspects including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. These aspects closely relate to the resource's significance and must be primarily intact for California Register eligibility. Integrity must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. While the Lux Barn has been. altered and presently is sided with composition shingles intended to replicate red brick, the original wood siding appears to be present under the outer layer of composition shingles. These earlier alterations have revolved around creating living spaces on the second floor and upgrades to the lower floor agricultural uses. However, it is the opinion of ARG that the building retains enough integrity to convey its significance as a remaining resource from the Lux Mansion converted for use on a small farm owned by an important South San Francisco family. The California Register regulations have specific language regarding integrity which note: It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register... {California Code of Regulations Title 15, 11.5 (c)}. ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP Architects, Planners ~ Conservators, Inc. Historical Evaluation -Lux Barn City of South San Francisco December 7,1999 (revised) Page 4 Project Impacts To Historic Resources Future demolition of the Lux Barn would likely result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources. If a future new use for the site does not include the reuse of the Lux Barn, moving the Barn should be considered during environmental review. While moving the resource will not likely lower the impact to the historic resource to a less than significant level, it will result in the retention of a significant building that has been moved previously. Additionally, as the acreage of the Uccelli farm has dwindled and modern housing encroaches on the property, the Lux Barn has lost some of its site context_ Although the barn is in poor condition, it appears to be in sufficiently sound structural condition to consider relocation to another site. The wood members appear to be in good condition and the building sits on a concrete slab that likely dates to the 1920s when it was moved to this location. If the barn is moved, precautions should be taken so that the significant features of the building are not destroyed in the process of moving. The guidelines and suggestions put forward in the publication Moving Historic Buildings by John O. Curtis should aid in this process. If work performed on the building after its move to a new location complied with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, impacts to the building will be further lessened. Cost of Moving the Barn The cost of moving the Barn can not be fully determined until a new site is located and a building mover can be contacted to perform a cost estimate. However, ur•hen the cost estimate is developed the following issues (and perhaps others) should be considered in regard to the cost: • type of move: dismantle the resource or move in large sections • distance of the relocation • cost of a new foundation • cost of plumbing and electrical installments if necessary • path of travel and any obstructions such as overhead wires, difficult turns, property lines, and public right of ways restrictions • hazardous materials abatement Attachments The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation 1925 South San Francisco Sanborn Map ARCHITECr[TRAL RESOURCES GROUP Architects, Planners f~ Conservators, Inc. Historical Evaluation -Lux Barn City of South San Francisco December 7,1999 (revised) Page 5 Bibliography Bamburg, Bonnie. Department of Parks and Recreation. State Historic Resources Inventory Form on the Lux Barn (150 Oak Avenue). May 1986. Curtis, John Obed. Moving Historic Buildings. Nashville, Tennessee: American Association of State and Local History. 1979. Gebhard, David. Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1985. Kauffman, Linda. South San Francisco: A History. South San Francisco: 1976. Kirker, Harold. California's Architectural Frontier: Style and Tradition in the Nineteenth Century. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1973. Pence, Helen Patricia. Charles Lux and His South San Franciscan Home. San Mateo County Historical Association, 1950. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for South San Francisco, 1910, 1925, 1950. San Francisco: The Bay and Its Cities. Compiled by Workers of the Writers' Program of the Works Progress Administration in Northern California. New York: Hastings House, 1940. San Mateo County Historical Society Archives Collection. South San Francisco History Room Vertical Files and Photographs. "The South San Francisco Home of James Lux." La Peninsula. Volume 11, No. 3: October 1957. Treadwell, Edward F. The Cattle King. Western Tanager Press, Santa Cruz: 1981. "The Uccelli Family." South San Francisco History Room Vertical Files and Photographs. Woodbridge, Sally. San Francisco Architecture. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1992. ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP Architects, Planners £~ Conservators, Inc. Historical Evaluation -Lux Barn City of South San Francisco December 7,1999 (revised) Page 6 Endnotes `"The South San Francisco Home of James Lux." La Peninsula. Volume 11, No. 3: October 1957. z "The Uccelli Family." SSF Library Historical Project, 1976. page 4. 3 "The Uccelli Family." SSF Library Historical Project, 1976. page 3. ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP Architects, Planners E~ Conservators, Inc. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards For Rehabilitation (I) A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. (2) The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. (3) Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. (4) Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. (5) Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property will be preserved. (6) Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. (7) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic properties will not be used. (8) Archaeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. (9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, and proportion, and massing to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. revised 1995 --:.a.,.. r..~'•:..T• ._; I ~ I I I .~ }il.l`~I. ~' ... I I!.I I~ I II•~ 4i. I -I~1 ~1_ i~ .il ~ ` ~,!(il.•+1.+ :~~~:r ~'ttr~ `~y ~j! „III i.. 'Ij i i ~ I .' ~ , i I ~•) i ~. •I~ I' , •'~ ( ' •I• - II+ + I .,la ~.•.~~1 `~t~'1 ~ 1 ~ r~~~„'4+'}~t~ICfF~tl.~ t' h,r J 1 . , r ' ~ 6 I ~I~ ! r,,, ' ~ ' ' .. I : ,1+ ~ ~i. }N .Io Y. f~l .,, I .~ I .! I '•I I ~ },t. 1~ ! i ~ .!I I I' .I ~ + +,. i•br fx~~itik: 4;M U~1«l•.L~•,k,j ll,aa'•iS ~I I~:.~~,,:i,, •, ~, I: .I~ ~ 1i,. 1. •,, f ~.I.I S .~i ~, •i• I ~' i• ! ~ '~II t ~ t( '7 i I' ~ ''~nT r I f. ) : L. •,~• r I, I •. .. L. .I'. I,:I I' .I. II , i I I'. P ., ),I .4.,,L 1 .. III{. ,1 Ist s•~i; Y,NS .~... ~, • ~: + ~ I ~ ( ,~' ~' ,.•c. n.oA,~~ ~ I Nry C A /.' I .I I i - I. .w t`• .d0 ~/)~•~ I„~ ii.....%Y H,'L ~'~i~ ~ 'i i 'I: ~ i I.I I. I' .I' ,I Ii I D r I :'•'I;• + _.,, ' ~ ~ y r /!',~I I cu~~n~N~, rrl,cti• J~Fnc'~ ~ r I I! ! i. i t ! ' I I . I ! {, j (~ ~' / s~ ur. ..M...•~i 'I: j• I ~ ! ,il I ~ I i! i ,I 1+4 I I~l•' ,•1i•;1 +;~ .`•~ ~ ' !! I i 'P .,t. ~ !' I r f ~ I I . 'll ~ ! I ~ ( PRIL' IBi'_6 .I ~ I '';y. `(~~ f`/~ ! A I r`" I I I ~ I , I I : 11 ~.1 'I' 'll' i' tnl N ~ ` '~,~ ~~u ft Ir i I' I i i I;. I I I, i 1 ~ I rv~f' i~Il\' !• i I fr , I i' I I I '! ' I I~i CAL.i ' i;+. I I~ I 1 ~ 9~ t-~;~ ~,% i ~ l< • ' ,i ~1 .I, •, I I il:i ~! ! III • } i I 11I tl I I i, I I' ' r { :!•• i...,, I of , I, I } I• II i 1 1 1 I 1. ~ I ~ C i t 2d~.. ! .. ' I, •~n '' i. / '' ( , I~/j'~`i 1 I I' I'• 1 i t , I' i ,I rll a• ,. - :•, r .... .I. ...-..1.. ~i 1 ~tti~'('7~ Irl 'J~ i 11• I• I !':~ ~ I Ii I i. i' t lt.' N;.1s: I i,`•~ 1 .. •~ I .I A I ~''~: '. \'I•1U ;\ I '~ I,,~ ~ + I ,,il Li .r' I I ~ (I Ili •I I. Ij I! ; j I ~•' 'I "1'• ~ ;~ 1 , ~•i !~ ~' ~ 'ti .''• „( t I ~ !111 ~~11 ~ ' I I~~1 '' I +.( 'I ail .I I~ I!, II 1 ;'J:. ~r 17 I 1 ~ •}r ,Ir ' + .•unr~'.. rr r.~: .'•. I' I. `~-W" ' 1 I '' ~ '9 I t it '', i i I! 'I DJ I it ~ ~ t r ,~ ,, j, I I'/ I ~. cll,ll I I , 'c,-- II ,I ~ ! !I.~ ,I ''i `- .I' `I.~ ; 1 I - iF- ';'j~ j 1. tv ,~ 1 ' I' I .I ~ I • ' .•~.t 'i'' I i , I •l I II I .C7 I ~: ! w I I~~I~ ~ .y •1 i .1 I~1 •l ~ '• ~. ~' ''I , ~i Inl' Irli ICI j .r^ °' ~ n' i, ~, I ji i I ,' '.~' ,I ,I ~ . •I .I~~ ~ I S'; '1 '~;~ ir' I; .I: ' ,• r: ' !., l• ', ~ 'Ii :I t i~l I' •I .III I ,It . ~ ~. " ;! I !I • ~ m I ;I . i I 1~ r: '~r ,,, •„•-"'` •I ~i I ' ,~ !.~ --'7p-;-7._., R ,rio J ic0 I , .. ^A~''a'~'j yr ~; .Q~ N.. d r .I. ' '~ ~ ly'- .1. _ I„-i ~ i l• ICU _ _- -+_ I , I ~i I ~ _ ~ ~_1 f _ _ _ + 'I I !'~ '~; i:.• 1,. , •1 I I: ~I{. 't '~• I,'. "''o'er '~ .I; 1.'a' II `'.~4'i ~ ,~i-~{,i ! I Ir.I VrJ/M. , ., i, I ,~{I II ii I'- II ~! ' i.~ '-I^ ~i 1 '~ .;AI'~ ~'{~'~'~: L, • ~, ~ ' ,: r '!i ,! :, I ~I I I' :GRAND ,,. AV.. I . I' ,i f ; ^' .. I i ~ ,, Ir ,.1:,. ~!`,r,.;, ~.~ : t. ;;r.. ,~y ,~ • I' ;f:l; ` ; I .~ ; ; .I~ I: I ~ I "'l' L ~ ~ ;; I ~, I i .~! ,I • ., .;. ~~ '' I~!t 1 + ;I ~'~'j l II. Iji,''1 r .,; !i .I i~jl~' I ib•nr i, ':~~; _ •I~ !' I :i •j~I`" :'i:;Ii~l'~~, ' ~ ;~'S.' I ' ,r~ I I, '~1 y~ ,~iYl II I Y~ ~ ~r'i I 't 1 II j. •ll` ~,r I ,! ^'j:n Il;tl I , 1 1- I ,'II . ! -1 1 i,{.. t~'I•I' 1: ~ ~~~ I .I. ,.~ ;I> d•i:'• ;,Ali _ X,' 1 ~ I ~~' +~ i' '•'I •! 3-~'plll 'Ii r, v' 1.1+ ,:, , Ill II. ~ III,, t ~,/%~ F ,,` 1 ~~~, ~ I '', •~!+ ~ .If ~.1 i; .• ' ,•.I!i n' ' I ,~~~~ „ •I.i 7~/ iil '~i} j ~ ' ~ ~ •II I •'I i:~l' i~ II';I ~•I~. ~J/ ,/,'~ I. ~ti ;I,I li~ .L~ 1.I I,I!I +-~ I i, 'I... i iii I 'I 1 I~I'• •~ II ~I I` j• ~..~ I• , I1I.'~..'I T• I ,I r ~ , ~Iad. •11 II, Lj'•I I .} I II PII •,..t I, ' I t 1 (,I II :,! i ~ lil j ;, I•I .I ;'(/ '+ , i. ~,, t ;! i. i~ ,; I ;i- ; ~ I ;! l „ " •{j I,., ~ ; ,,I '~ :I: ,;• L' 1. , '~ :: .' .L. I~ ~ l 1. ~ ~ I I.. I , ,, ;.~ , ~ I, , S, I '.I.rI , I,1 f ~ I i. I {I I1 I ! I' ' I I~.I' , I I ,1 •~ I I ,'r '~ ~ {. :.. } • .I I, .t ,. '' : 1 '1 Ii , ~, .I i I '~ l I I I ~il. , tl I 11 ''• , ~~'.r 1 }.(•d i rl~ • 1,/ •,qc;r•.j, ! .I I~ •~:.II j.:!~ , ,I~, i 'I.I'•i II.!('II it I1. .i,. c,D,. .I! II~ .i' 1~~ ,llj; I'' '' 1~ III ,' ~' 'I ~' l L,r;~'~' ~['. , ~ . ; ~.. :, , „ I 3;L1 r ~Ir . + 'I I ~! °I• , I' _ , :I ~~ ~ ' • ~ I' ~ j I ~ 1 i • .I ~ 1 ~~(, ~ ~' , .•.r' ;~1: it { Ir'tr, .I' ~, II` ~y ,I ~ ii~"''l;l!;C A -I'' 1 z~•7~'~f i~ I I ~ lij Si ,I. ( I 't •I i ~•'~•I_I,. ±t, ,. I. 'yG 1 ;I I,I , ~ :.Y i• I ~ I' ~ I i Ii~ .I• Lf I} l D ' •r. I !~, : , , I I ;l I ~ I r f+ ~ I I P ~ y~ ' 'II; ijl i,.l' ':I,A•ty l: ' ~, ' i { , I !. i ,I III" I j. `i I '~I II I .P~ ~~ i. ~ .4. ~~~} , ~i 1 ,~ Yf YYY I ; 9 ~ ;I I I {I 'j; 1 I •,': •'' •~ E~. li •al , ~ I I• ~ I' I •' J - I I. :' d I..•! y't• ~.`.`,•• • ~f t I i:, ~ ~~ I ~ I .i it I I, i ^. I ~ II. .• I i ', .I ' ,, I I ~ I I s$~ Y. }~,(~.~, •1 1 I ~ is Ir{, ILx~~;os ~~ ! 'Ii l i ,,I Ill I: I i' 'i rI. 1 - Q R , '' ~ ;I, l: .~ , l .-i ; •:I ... ! I~: I -=1 '~_-~-. ~ __ - - I -- r ± i9t.~POS.I ~ • • `ro 111 'll • 1 ~ l r ~ ~1 4: I ~1 I.11 i ~ ~~ ,. . i j;'. .:~ 1 ii .I ;I ti,t i I 11 ift ' I r '' I' - !' I ilI' •I I I ,) ~ Il~j 11~ 1 ~~ I ~ 'I• I 7: }! }' ~:IL. 't i 'I 1• >~ :; . I I ;I I I' I' '•I!I a i • ~,• + ' . r. I ' i :, ~ • h !i,1=1 ~~ 1 ~ I . ,I . , I ' . ' II; , I i`~ ~ , I~.'j'tl I' i;.: r~ I , ,.,I .; ,, ,~ I' , i .'I .~~ ;, ,I f~ ;, r ~ ;' I •, .. i ' 1 ! 'i ! + , • • '! }. i .~I I i it 1.' :( '+ `!~.u 1 ~ i 1 7 ~,, ! 'I I' II; +. I I I .I' I:I ~I~S ~ ~ I ''~~• I'~I I ' a i t ~ I I :II' I I• I .?I ,yl I I ~ I 'j ' ,~i~f I v ,,i i, .. I ,I ~~ ! ~, ( I' fill I ~ ~ II I ~11•'!t •' I-_ ,I'~ __ I ~ .Iyl~•~! ,• ; i r r. I !' I , I~ i I. ' IIi I 1 r i~ r ,y ' ± ~': O I ~ t I, I ;t: .I!1' I• I M~ I , /.~ I ~ .ic~ii ~' ' I I p'ar1.1'~ •d10 '!, '' • I ~ 'j• , ~ I jl !I ' li. ; y'I, p' ~~'~. .iiJl'I I -~ ~ ~ rf I,, h. i~{ •Il ~~\ I I I i i. • ! I ;' I, ,•. P, • i :~5 :I~+• ' i ~I i •I~ 11+~ .:N. ,~: ~ •i ~ I ~ ~. ; i r ' I r ' II ' '1/ II ,I ~' i ~ I' II `,I i j I I I•. ~ i;.:'I;L''1 ff1~1 t l ~, !:; j ~. I: ~ !r ~I~' ~~~ i, '1','• !..••!i t I• ~ ~I a .t~~f Y 1 ,' I~ i ' r I I I' , ~'i li ,~ '• I I I! f~ I ,s I ••• f t ' I l I ,~i% I I ~ G ~ ~ ., t 'I it I I ' ~ , t . I, ~" ,,, ~ r .' ! , '4 i1• • .~-I I I _ -, I, 'I ~ 'l'I . : _ _ _-. . I I I,~P:~i ~ • . 1. I II' ,' •,I ~ .j I.,1 .'• i 1.,.. I is •'...I r y. :"'r ~ J'. ,.. _ •r.~- ~.: _. -- I . i I " I I ^'''" I. ; I I • !.' ~ I , , ; Iv.,. ; I,, .III ,,' I ! it ' •I'•t I' t' I'f ' •^',i 'y ,~ ~ ,Ij ! L I ! I I ', ,~II ~•I '• ~t 1 .I ' 1 'tl• ,i:1• li~ti1 n..l. I '~ oy,f. _~~.. -a'' -~fl, ' II I~ I I+ { I I~i~;j Irl' I r •~. .Iij•, i }.I,I I,I 1~ , - ` -A d. I I II I i •1 I. ~ , ~ 111 ~ I ,I :~, ! I' , Ids' ~1f#4 •., I! '. I nl ,I: ' ij ~ A II ;I I I ~ ,li.; •~.;.l•~I •2JUL •1,. I II '~ '' I::1; rt('F ~'„ • . • • ,, ~ I ~; ~~ ~ . ~-. :. ,.I ••II .. , • I• .• • ,;I ~. ;, I '; art , i i I , I i ; i r y ,;.:,. .,I~ :~~~ ,, Ir is ,: 1 ;~ r I ~ S; i ~,~ ~ ' ~i I,i ~ I r c ~~ I Sule of ifaet::,..~' I j. ,1f;,'.'C'; ;;;';~r'r: .~t1p.~l,T1 , I ~• ( i' !i ~ I! ~ j I• •~~.. ,- .p .~.M;~ .jl; I• ue ir:.., t Ili Vii' :I,ii' , 'I I + : a,,,, 'I, I 1 .1 ...•,.~., w ,T• il.' 'r•a I I• j~~'.'i ,r_+:+.- i I ' II t r •r ; I I -.! •, : i d ~ I ~ ~. ~; 1 1'~'r 1. :~ 1;•(cY'. ' •%/.• I ',l`' ' •i ~ ~^ ( ,f i I tIl .,1. I,I I j I' I },.' ~. •I: :IIi t ,~`' 7 i, )~~. i . , . •I'~4 ~ . I. .I I ~ i . I ': .. i \ I l ~ III .I I, '' ~ ,~ )I ' r, t I~' t !r ~ ~. !YO/rI a.~lXl,~ I •~ ! ~~`~~'• ' ~ I v. !~r<oil ;li' i I • I~~r'I{t •-I• I1• -JI. ' ~1 1r ~, t ~,•f fj , , 1 '~ I '~ -I' ri: , -,,• "I :I ~' f ..~ I.1jII I'•' 1' ~~ a ,. ~~1~ I,-,:y :I,,, ~j~. t. .r•!'l i'I li'1 ' ~ a I, ~ II ,' '~ ,~• Illy I F. ' ,> ~,.. .I l 1, il.'~d ••, ~ 1 ~'• , 'I t'II•I~~t 'Ti t,\{ f .,,AwJlltr~4., ~'1,/71i •~ w .~~ I , ;••: L. .r~ l~ , C• .. '~ !,- ~-I. ,. I I'~, j ^III; I `,'~~M~ >+''~~ 4~'JI ~~3;fi' ~~,. !. I ',~ .I !• .i, 'I i '' ,l•'•' I ,: ~ I~ i i ~•.~ •~ 1' I:i{~: jj'C) j i•!' ~•i I 1 '° 11IrI ~•'~Yii r J' .'i .IL~'1 %i •1.' A .I I I •,. .fl. .- I '.I .I, .. I ~ 'I i. .1' .:ll I' 1 ~ ly. .1.. ''r• t :.r• 1r, ;r: 1 ~,AI.~ •1 r ,I!.' ,i c. I. ,` .. i I' r Ii •i' .'l' I I•:. I:} .jU: .r 1. ,, '{ ti! 1=~7i. 'i;'t;,y ~~ ;.I'. ,~~ ..,„~~ =',., .I'', II::..II' •~; ~ { i .i~ !I' I~~'~I• (..;. .I I.• I: , 'I. I• r. ~~ l ~ .. ~:_.r.. ,. .. ~J'iI i ~ ~r,. t.., .I : i ~ r,t' •C ~, ~. ~~A I k _s_, >~~ ~~'