HomeMy WebLinkAboutCell Genesys Development Initial Study and Proposed MND 10-2001INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Application Number 01-032
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED BY LAMPHIER-GREGORY
1944 EMBARCADERO WAY
OAKLAND, CA 94606
OCTOBER 2001
LAMPHIER -GREGORY
Errata
Lamphier-Gregory received utility infrastructure information subsequent to printing and binding
of the Cell Genesys Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
A consultant under contract to the City of South San Francisco is currently completing a study
of the sewage collection and transport system for the area, and will provide input for sewage
treatment plant upgrades. The results of this study will help provide definitive information about
any required improvements to utility infrastructure which would be required for the Cell
Genesys Project. When this information is available, it will be possible to determine if the Project
would have a significant impact on the City's infrastructure. The Project's requirements are
shown on the following page.
Any infrastructure improvement requirements shall be paid for on a pro rata basis by the
proponents of the the Cell Genesys development in order to reduce their impact to a less than
significant level.
Lamphier -Gregory • 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606 • Phone 510-535-6690 • FAX 510-535-6699
10/02/2001 15:21 6506296639 SSF PLANNING
DRAWBRIDGElFORBES,
October 1, 2001
1vlr. Thomas C. Sparks
Chief Planner
Department Of Economic And
Community Development
400 Grand Avenue
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, California 94083
o~ r ° ~ Zoos
p~ANJVI/yG
RE: Cell. Genesys Corporate Headquarters and Research facility, located at 500 Forbes
Boulevard, South San Francisco, California.
Dear Mr. Sparks:
In response to the Planning Department's request for the sewage load requirements for
Cell Genesys's new headquarters acrd research faciliry, I have prepared the following
updated summary.
Forbes Wing:
• 190 gpm with 3" water meter, 4" water service, and 6" sanitary sewer to
the Forbes Wing.
• Natural Gas estimate - 10 million btu's at 3psi pressure downstream of
gas meter.
Allerton Wiag:
• 21 S gpm with 3" water meter, 4" water service, and 6" sanitary sewer to
the Allerton Wing.
Natural gas estimate - 12 million btu's at 3-psi pressure downstream of gas
ureter.
Sewage Discharge Volumes:
• 2 million gallons per month discharge.
PAGE 02
LLC
2O L.A FERRERA TERRACE • SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94133
PHONE: 415-391.44J0 • FAx.: 415-391-4430
10/02/2001 15:21 650B296639 SSF PLANNING PAGE 03
I hope this helps clarify Cel] Ger~esy's requirements for the 500 Forbes Boulevazd site. If
you have any questions or need additional information, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Mark Pearson
~ Partner
Cc: Steve Carlson
Barbara Hawkins
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ...............................................................................................5
APPLICATION ................................................................................................................................................. .. 5
APPLICANT ..................................................................................................................................................... .. 5
PROJECT OBJECTIVE ....................................................................................................................................... .. 5
LOCATION ..................................... 5
................................................................................................................. ..
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................... .. 5
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGA'I'ION .................................................................... .. 5
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR POTENIIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ............................................................... .. 7
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .................................................................................. 10
CHIEF PLANNER'S DE'I'ERIviINATION .............................................................................................................. 10
PUBLIC REVIEW ............................................. 11
..................................................................................................
LEAD AGENCY ............................................
. 12
..
.................................................................................................
DETERMINATION ..................................................................................................... 13
.......................................
INITIAL STUDY ........................................................................................................... 14
..............................
GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................ 14
PROJECT SITE DESCRrnTIOIV ........................................................................................................................... 14
Location and Setting ............................................................................................ 14
.......................................
Circulation Characteristics ......................................................................................................................... 14
Zoning .......................................
................................................................................................................ 14
Site Ownership .........................................................................................................
. 15
.
................................
PROJECT CONTEXT AND DESCRII'TION
.......................................................................................................... 15
Required Discretionary Approvals ............................................................................................................. 15
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ..................................................................................................................19
AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................................................... 19
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES ................................................................................................................... 25
AIR QUALITY ......................................................................................................................................... 26
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 32
CULTURAL R.ESOI.IRCES ......................................................................................................................... 37
GEOLOGY AND SOIIS ............................................................................................................................ 39
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............................................................................................. 53
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................... 58
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT • PAGE I
LAND USE AND PLANNING ................................................................................................................... 63
MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 68
NOISE .................................................................................................................................................... 69
POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................................ 74
PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................................................... 75
RECREATION ......................................................................................................................................... 76
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................. 77
UTII.I'TIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................... 86
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................... 89
REFERENCES .....................................................................
.............91
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................ 91
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 92
REPORT AUTHORS .......................................................................................................................................... 92
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................93
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT • PAGE II
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
LIST OF FIGURES
1. PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................................................16
2. PROJECT SITE PLAN .....................................................................................................................................17
3. FRONT OF EXISTING BUII.DING ..................................................................................................................21
4. EXTERIOR OF EXLSTING BUII,DING ..............................................................................................................21
5. INTERIOR OF EXLSTING BUII.DnvG ...............................................................................................................22
b. SOUTHERN PORTION OF EXISTING BUII.DING .............................................................................................22
7. BUII.DING ADJACENT TO PROJECT $TTE ...................................................................................................... 23
8. VEGETATION ON NORTHEAST CORNER OF PROJECT $TTE ......................................................................... 34
9. VEGETATION ON EAST END OF PROJECT STTE ............................................................................................35
10. VEGETATION ALONG FORBES BOUI.EVARD .................................................................................................35
11. VEGETATION AT FORBES /ALLERTON INTERSECTION ................................................................................36
12. VEGETATION AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF PROJECT $TTE .......................................................................... 36
13. TEST BORING LOCATION$ ...........................................................................................................................42
LIST of TABI.Es
1. COMPACTION REQUIItEMENTS ................................................................................................ 46
2. GRADATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPII.LARY BREAK AND $AND ................................................... 48
3. PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN .....................................................................................................................49
INRIAL STUDY / MRIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT • PAGE III
This page was intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT • PAGE IV
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APPLICATION
This Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application Number 01-032) is for the proposed Cell
Genesys corporate headquarters office development.
APPLICANT
The Project Applicant is Cell Genesys, Inc.
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The Project objective is to establish a corporate headquarters complex for Cell Genesys, Inc.
on the site of an abandoned airline storage facility.
LOCATION
The Project site is located in an eastern portion of South San Francisco, east of Highway 101,
at 500 Forbes Boulevard, where Forbes Boulevard intersects with Allerton Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project would involve demolition of an existing building at the Project site and
construction of a new 154,000 square foot corporate headquarters and biotechnology research
building with 435 open at grade parking spaces.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION
The following is a summary of potential Project impacts. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist
and/or Appendix A of this document for a more detailed discussion of these impacts.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE)
SITE OWNERSHII'
Drawbridge Forbes, LLC is the property owner.
PROJECT CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION
The Project Site Platt is shown in Figure 2.
REQUIRED DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
The Project would require a use permit and a tree removal permit.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 'I rJ
0
.~
cc
u
O
/--~
L
U
Q)
O
r
bA
.~
N (`)
V ~._ ~
~ ~
(D
~O ~ ~
W ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ O
m m
-- ~
V '~
~ ~ __ ~ O
~ ~~ yy Dole ~
NNbN~~~b-Y O ° 1N i o~ vs Q°o
2 ~
f ~ Q
oc a ~ O,'
Q J ~
U 1NIOd ~~ m N t U
~dJ` ~ 4 '~ V 31 ~- w
~° °' ~~~. D R ~ O ~~' c
~ s.. ~ ,
i O c~P TAM SNI~SVN
~~~ ~ k 4b Q~ w I ~
RD ' ~ 7 y Ord X~z. T ~1~ 20 ,j, oT ~ 10
~ Q~ ~' 1 ~1 ~ ~,ld, 3113N0[W
3 ";c~p"~~' ~' ~ m ~)~~ .' z)7V9NIH
~ TON
~~~ ~ + ~ ~ r
CO Q o ~ i i'~ ~ 1J ~ '~ E Q I~I Q']
Y
,~ ~j ~ 4
i ,)~ r J r ~ ' T ~ +
, ~ ~~ ~ z
f
f ~~6 / i ~ ~ Y ~ Q
~ F t* ~~ ~ Q
~ I I
r ~ g~pd,
F y T ~' ..
~ cj' ~ o ~ l I ~„ ~ ' a . I,
O ~, ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I I ~~ ~~
3 , ~ • ~okA~~ 001 AM =+"OOZ ~~
Gt,~ ~ ~ ~ 4f~~J~ ~~ "~~~~ a0flbtlH ~
~` r I ~ ^ rf ~ ~ -+ I I
~ / lea
Q . v -~s=~~, a,`~ d~~ ~ ~,~,~er~ '~ b 31b~ s~aadr~~ ~ ~~ ~ = Q
~" ~~ z • ~ '~il~i o ~ ~
tlm o, Q ~~ °Ln>> ~ ssj ~ a~vs~ ~ t
N O~
~ v! 2.
~ v
~ y ,y vp ~~ - Q- ~ u« _, j ~ ~ ~ F ~~ ~
- Q ~ ~
CV c'')
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE ~ 6
-~
25'-0" 14 PKG. SPACES ®B'-6" = 119'-0` 5'- " 10 PKG. SPACES ®8'-6"=B5'-0" 5i- " 11 PKG. SPACES ®8'-6"=102'-0" 5'- " 15 PKG. SPACES ®8'-6'=136'-0" 1'-1"_
88'-0" o
- - a, N 40'00'00" W 526.43'
- .._
Uo °°• °'
. of o a
~" 1 5~-0" ~ 5'-8 I /2" 4 I I j ~
5'-0~ 9 PKG. ACE ®6'-6"=76'-6 _ 13 PKG. SPACES ®B'-6"=110'-6" - ' 30'-0' IS'-0" 25'-6" 2 '-0" 18'-0' IB'-2" 25'-0' 1B'-0" 1B'-0' 25'-0" I w z'
g ~ ~ ~ g
1 o ce _ I _ I Iv m
~ _-- -- ------' ~ - -.o ---------------- ----- ~ I l o ~
--- I I Iv 4
I ' ~ j ~ ° ~ j ~ ' I
I I "I I I I I ~' ~ I ~
I ° I I
1 I s I ~ -I I
x i~ __ I - . + . - . + . + . - . + . - . + . - . + . . 4 I I I I I
-~ I' ~ I I I I I I A I I I I I
I I
II iJ
u ~ I
r
~ I ~ ~ I ~ I I z3o'_d. I I I ; ~ it ~I 'I it
- 20'-0' _ 25' a" i _ ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ _ ~ _ ~ _ ~ I' - I I 1 ~1
I - , 1
1 1 I Im
w i~ r I~ I o I I Ilo'-b" I _ 'I II % 1~1 n
D r I r ....~ ° I i ' I ' ~~
r i I m I I li 'i ~~~ ~ ~~
/ ' c ` I
I \
/ ~` r ~ \ I ~ \ \\ q
r
~ / 1\ 0 19 _0 \ \
/ I I \\ \ $ -0 25.E \\ 1
o- i_ \\ 25_0" 10`0 ` '~- o -"\ Z~Im, \\
I \ '~ • ~\
I ~ b, \ I
\ ~• \ \
~ ~ ~ o. \ ~ o \\ ~ _
\
~ -\ \ \ \a
~ y '~~~.
A ~~ ~ \ 1\5~~` 1\ \ \1 a
R \ ~ ~
~ k ~ \ \ \ 1
`s~s\ ~ ~ \~ ~ ~ 130 0 i~k~/ ~" 1\ /\\
i ~ \ ~
~ k I g
~ ~ ti5a ~ ~ ko \ k ' •-16.6 \ \ \
9GF ~ tid'0 `~~ ~ ~ \ `~ _d PKG acES ®$ ,~ a ~ "~ ~
\ ~.k Q 9 0, ~ ~ \v' I 4
~~ ~ ~~ i ~GESaO_fi'1p2_ '/-'~~~~ya~r 1p 9,1?15 6 5;0 .-~,
~ ; " ~- ~ S®0 6 ~ -
~" \ 6 -j6 -
\ - ° ~ ~ \ SP pCE ~ f
~= 5 ', / 9 PKG. m
~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ SPACES 5 -0
®® ~~ ~ SPp
o. ~ 9 PKG.
_ a
m
~// J <121''6 5 ~0
~ AGES 9 6 ,6" $
\ 15 PKG ~'
n
26 } ~
z
apt{ "°- ~ 3 H ~ N N ~ b ~ ,¢py ~ R7
11''~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F.~ N o "gyp ~ j ~ ~l
~iv~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ br'J G~ ~ ~ in ~ ~ Rp a
ro q ao ~ ~
1~~~~ ~~~~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g~ ~~ ~ ~° 2
S a cn ~
~ ~r
~~
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each answer. A
"no impact" response indicates, for example, that no displacement of existing housing would
occur due to the Project, because no housing units now exist within the Project site which
might need to be removed to enable the Project to proceed. A "less than significant" response
indicates that while there may be potential for an environmental impact, there are standard
procedures or regulations in place, or other features of the Project as proposed, which would
limit the extent of this impact to a level of "less than significant." Responses that indicate
that the impact of the project would be "less than significant with mitigation" indicate that
mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be required as a condition of
Project approval in order to effectively reduce potential Project-related environmental effects
to a level of "less than significant."
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mkigation Impact Impact
I. AESTHETICS -Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ( ~ ( ~ ( ~ (/
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ( ~ ( ~ ( ~ (/~
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ( ~ ( ~ ( ~ (/
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or ( ~ ( ~ (/~
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 'I 9
Setting'
South San Francisco's urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well defined
setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and
the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges. The City is
contained in almost a bowl like fashion by hills on three sides. The City's terrain ranges from
the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the
City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain (which is outside City limits) in the distance are
visual landmarks. Much of the City's topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from
many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately
two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west. South San
Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its eastern parts.
Almost two fifths of South San Francisco's land is occupied by industrial and warehousing
uses.
The Project site is located in the East of 101 planning sub-area of South San Francisco. The
East of 101 area was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco about 100
years ago. Since then, the area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial
uses, such as steel manufacturing, and meat packaging gave way to industrial park and
warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate the area in the SOs and 60s. The
recent emergence of modern office buildings marks the third major wave of land use change in
the area. The newly emerging office areas are unique in their uses of consistent and conscious
street tree planting, while the rest of the City, including downtown, is almost bereft of street
trees. Older manufacturing uses, industrial park structures and tilt-up warehousing buildings
can all be found in the area. Blocks are generally very large in size and the area has a very
stark industrial look. Numerous abandoned railroad spurs are present.
The Project site is located at 500 Forbes Boulevard, where Forbes Boulevard intersects with
Allerton Avenue. The shell of an abandoned building currently exists on the site.
Site Description. The existing building's front entrance along Forbes Boulevard is shown in
Figure 3, while Figures 4 and 5 show exterior and interior portions of the remaining
structure. Figure 6 illustrates a southern portion of the Project site. The cyclone fencing
located where the asphalt in the picture ends is the Project site boundary. On the other side
of the fence is an abandoned railroad right-of--way that is the site of a proposed recreational
trail. Figure 7 is a picture of the See's Candies facility adjacent to the Project site. Additional
pictures of the Project site are included in the Biological Resources section of this document.
Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997, p.42, 410, 4
15.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE ZO
Figure 3
~"''
"'.~: ~'=
;x_w~.-_
--- --
Front of Existing Building
Figure 4
Exterior of Existing Building
~in)innil:uuii
. ,,,,,
1
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 2'I
Figure 5
• ~ ' iY1 _
.,
Interior of Existing Building
~` -
.. - - -, ~
_ ~.
__ _ _
~ ~~ \ ~ i -
}* _.
Figure 6 Southern Portion of Project Site
~.,
4 '~ Yt {/ ..~ ~i
1 ~ '• V' G.
~`?a.. ! p
c
~•~ ~=~ a
ar. ~a
_- -- ')
~.
',i "'ri ~' ~Y.
'.si ;y _
} .. r
O ~' L
S L•? ~ ~ ~ r~i• j 4'
-'4 ~.i ~1 NCI
.n t ,~ ~~,
;~~~_:
t .::
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE ZZ
Figure 7 Building Adjacent to Project Site
~-
yf.~ -1
~~
a) Scenic Vistas
Impact
Threshold of Significance: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed project on scenic
vistas, the threshold of significance is exceeded when a project would result in the obstruction
of a designated public vista, or in the placement Of an arguably offensive or negative-appearing
object within such a vista. Any clear conflict with a General Plan policy or other adopted
planning policy regarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially significant
adverse environmental impact.
The Project site is not located within any formally designated scenic vista. Therefore, the
proposed Project would have no impact on a scenic vista.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 23
b) Scenic Resources
Impact
Threshold of Significance: Any Project-related action that would substantially damage scenic
resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway),
would be regarded as a significant environmental impact.
The Project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway since it is
not located on a state scenic highway.
c) Visual Character
Impact
Threshold of Significance.• The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
The proposed Project would be located in an area whose visual characteristics primarily
consist of large industrial and business park uses. The Project, as a large office complex would
improve the visual character of the site or its surroundings. It would replace a vacant
structure with an updated building and provide additional landscaping. Therefore the Project
would have no negative impact on visual character.
d) Light or Glare
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project related creation of any new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would. be regarded as a
significant environmental impact.
Establishment of the Cell Genesys Development and its surrounding grounds would involve
installation of light standards at various locations on the site. Specific lighting design features
have not been determined as of yet. However, lighting designs should employ fixtures that
would cast light in a downward direction, and building materials should not be sources of
substantial glare. If this is done, the amount of light and glare emanating from the Project site
would be considered less than significant. No sources of daytime glare would be associated
with the Project.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE Z4
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Sign~caM with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ~ ~ ~ ~ ( ~ ~ /~
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ /~
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
tonon-agricultural use?
a) Converting Prime Farmland
The Project area is in the midst of an urban area that has already been developed in a mix of
residential and commercial uses. No Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of
Statewide Importance have been identified at the Project site. Project development would not
result in the conversion of any Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of
Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses.
b) Conflict with Agricultural Zoning
There are no areas in the vicinity of the Project site that have been zoned for agricultural uses
and no parcels near the Project site are currently under Williamson Act contracts. Project
development would not result in the conversion of any land currently zoned for agricultural
use or in Williamson Act contracts to non-agricultural uses.
c) Non-Agricultural Use Farmland Conversion
The Project involves no activities that would result in conversion of farmland or other land in
agricultural to non-agricultural uses.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 2rJ
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
AIR QUALIN -Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district maybe
relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
/~
/~
/~
/~
/~
a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan
Settingz
The analysis of the air quality characteristics of South San Francisco, including its climate and
meteorological patterns are derived from the City of South San Francisco General Plan
prepared in 1997, supplemented by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines.' Additional information, such as air quality data for the
years 1993 through 1996, and the current status of Bay Area air quality with regard to federal
standards, was obtained from the BAAQMD Office of Public Information, and its Education
Division.4
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make determinations regarding specific air quality impacts.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 1996, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air
Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District: Summary of Air Pollution in the Bay Area, individual sheets for
1995-1999; and various Press Releases, Office of Public Information, Education Division, August 1997
through January 2001.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 26
Impact
The project is not in conflict with nor obstructs implementation of any applicable air quality
plan. Therefore, there would be no impact from the project on those plans.
b) Air Quality Standards
Setting
The San Francisco Bay Air Basin is currently designated as an "attainment" area for federal
standards for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen dioxide (N02), and is
designated as "non-attainment-unclassified" for federal ozone and particulate matter (PM-10)
standards. Under state standards, the region also has "attainment" status for CO, S02, and
N02, but is "non-attainment" for the state PM-10 standard. For fine-particulate matter
(PM-2.5) national standards, the Bay Area is also "non-attainment-unclassified.i5 The
BAAQMD operates several air quality monitoring stations throughout the Bay Area to
measure air quality and to assess progress on meeting the state and federal standards.
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The BAAQMD considers projects which generate over 550 pounds
per day of CO, or 80 pounds per day of reactive organic gases (ROG, which contributes to
the formation of ozone), nitrogen oxides (NOx, such as N02), or PM-10 as having significant
direct and cumulative air quality impacts (i.e., contributing substantially to the current
exceedances of air quality standards for ozone and PM-10). Consistent with CEQA,
BAAQMD requires all phases of a project to be evaluated for potential impacts, including
impacts associated with construction activity (grading, exhaust from construction equipment,
and any required demolition) and with the operation of the completed project (related to
vehicle exhaust or stationary sources such as from industrial sources). BAAQMD regards
emissions of PM-10 and other pollutants from construction activity to be less than significant
if dust and particulate control measures are implemented, instead of requiring quantitative
analysis of construction activity to determine significance.
^ IMPACT 1: Generation of Particulate Matter. Construction of the proposed Cell
Genesys Development would have short-term air quality effects, primarily due to the
generation of particulate matter (PM-10). PM-10 is normally generated by diesel
construction vehicles .and equipment, the~isturbance of soils ..through excavation and
grading, construction vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces and the tracking of soils onto
paved roads. Failure to implement appropriate dust control measures would be a
s Bay Area Air Quality Management District, "Bay Area Attainment Status" April 1999 (obtained at
BAAQMD website: www.baagmd.gov).
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 27
potentially significant environmental impact, and would be inconsistent with the
current Clean Air Plan.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 1: Dust Control Measures. The BAAQMD's CEQA
Guidelines (1999) acknowledges that construction activity emissions vary markedly
from project to project, from day to day, and from one contractor to another. Rather
than focus on a quantification of project-related emissions, the BAAQMD has
developed a menu of mitigation options to control construction activity dust
emissions. The BAAQMD (1999) considers implementation of all applicable dust
control measures (which vary according to project magnitude) as reducing project-
related particulate (PMio) emissions to less-than-significant levels. These measures are
grouped into three categories as follows:
• "Basic Control Measures" apply to all construction sites.
• "Enhanced Control Measures" apply to sites greater than four acres.
• "Optional Control Measures" apply to larger sites near sensitive receptors.
Based on the project's 6.74-acre size, implementation of the Basic and Enhanced
Control Measures listed below would maintain project construction-related impacts at
a less than significant level.
Construction equipment emits carbon monoxide and ozone precursors during
combustion of diesel fuel. The BAAQMD's determination, however, is that these
emissions have been included in the emissions inventory, which was the basis for the
1997 Clean Air Plan and subsequent air quality plans. Since the BAAQMD does not
consider construction-related exhaust emissions to be "new" emissions, they would not
impede attainment or maintenance of ozone or CO standards in the air basin
(BAAQMD, 1999). Therefore, temporary increases in exhaust emissions would be
considered less than significant.
The following measure will be required during project construction to reduce
construction emissions to a less than significant level:
Construction activities must comply with the "Basic Control Measures" and
"Enhanced Control Measures" for dust emissions as outlined in the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines. These requirements are listed as follows:
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE ZS
1. Basic Control Measures
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris 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 areas at construction sites.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas at construction sites.
• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
2. Enhanced Control Measures
• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 would reduce the impact of dust from
construction of the Project to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
c) Cumulative Air Quality Effects
Impact
Threshold of Signifzcance: The Project's impact would be significant if it would result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
The proposed 159,949 square-foot office/Research & Development Project would result in a
net traffic increase of 193 daily trips, with 100 a.m. peak hour trips and 9b p.m. peak hour
trips. Air emissions increases associated with the proposed project would be considered less
than significant since the size of the proposed project would not exceed the Bay Area Air
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 29
Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold levels for potential significance. The
BAAQMD threshold level for potential significance for office park use is 210,000 square feet
or 2,000 vehicle trips per day for any use. Under this project size or traffic volume, a detailed
air quality analysis is not required unless warranted by the specific nature of the project or
project setting. Based on the project size and project-related traffic increases, an air quality
impact assessment would not need to be prepared and submitted to the BAAQMD for review.
d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations
Setting
The BAAQMD defines exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants and risk of
accidental releases of acutely hazardous materials (AHMs) as potential adverse environmental
impacts. Examples of sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, residential areas with
children, and convalescent facilities.
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The threshold of significance for toxic air contaminants is reached if
the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10
in one million. The presence of AHMs near sensitive receptors may be considered a
significant impact if the potential exposure exceeds state guidelines as determined by the Lead
Agency in consultation with the City of South San Francisco Health Services Department.
The impact may also be cumulative if it contributes to a potential exposure to sensitive
receptors. Disturbance of soil contaminated with AHMs as a result of construction may also
be significant. Construction-related air quality impacts are highly localized in nature. Thus, a
one-block radius is an adequate distance within which to consider potential impacts to
sensitive receptors due to construction.
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 (Dust Control Measures) to minimize
disturbance of the on-site soils and generation of dust from the site during construction,
combined with any other requirements of a Site Management Plan for controlling airborne
dust, would reduce the potential for exposure of sensitive receptors to airborne particles or
pollutants during construction activity to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 3O
e) Odors
Setting
There are currently no odor-generating activities at the Project site.
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The BAAQMD defines public exposure to offensive odors as a
potentially significant impact. Potential odor impacts are based on a list of specific types of
facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, refineries, etc.
There are no existing sources of offensive odors located in the vicinity of the Project site and
none would be expected to exist as part of the Project. Therefore, the Project would have no
impact related to the creation of odors.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 3'I
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for potentialy Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Sign cant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly ( ] [ ] [ ] [ /]
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any [ ] ( ] ( ] (/]
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally [ ] [ ] ( ] (/ ]
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any [ ] [ ] [ ] (/]
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ( ] [ / ] [ ] ( ]
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
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?
Items a) through d)
Impact
Cell Genesys' facility would be located in a largely industrial area, on a site that has already
been developed. The-Project would have-no-impact on-any endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats, or to any federally protected wetlands or wildlife corridors.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 32
Items e) and f)
Setting
The Project site is surrounded by various types of landscaping, including low ground covers,
assorted shrub types and small to large trees. Figures 8 to 12 display examples of landscaping
found around the Project site's perimeter, including some trees that are classified as protected
trees under the City of South San Francisco's Tree Preservation Ordinance due to their large
circumference measurements. The tree in the foreground of Figure 8, a protected tree, is
located on the northeast corner of the Project site. Figure 9 shows a group of trees located
along the site's eastern edge, while Figure 10 is a picture of two relatively unhealthy trees
located along Forbes Boulevard. Figure 11 shows a tree located at the intersection of Forbes
Boulevard and Allerton Avenue. Figure 12 displays a few protected trees that are located at
the Project site's northwest corner.
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
^ IMPACT 2: Removal of Protected Trees. Construction of the Cell Genesys
Development would require cutting down thirty-three (33) trees and several
extensively shrubbed areas located on the Project site. Eight (8) of the trees on the site
are considered protected trees under Section 13.30.020(f)(1) of the City of South San
Francisco Municipal Code relating to tree preservation (Tree Ordinance). According
to the Ordinance, a protected tree is defined as the following:
1. Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches
above natural grade; or
2. A tree or stand of trees so designated by the Director based upon findings that it is
unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location,
historical significance or other factor; or
3. A stand of trees in -which the Director-has determined-each tree independent upon
the others for survival.
The eight protected trees on the site are considered protected because their trunk
circumferences measure more than 48 inches above natural grade. Cutting down these
trees would be a potentially significant impact of the Project.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 33
• MITIGATION MEASURE 2: Tree Replacement. According to the Tree
Ordinance, no protected tree shall be removed, pruned, or otherwise materially altered
without a permit except as provided in Section 13.30.030. A tree cutting permit
requires replacement of a tree with three 24-inch box or two 36-inch box minimum
size landscape trees for each tree removed, as described in Section 13.30.080 of the Tree
Ordinance. Adherence to the provisions of the City of South San Francisco Tree
Ordinance would reduce the impact of cutting down eight protected trees on the
Project site to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
Figure 8
Vegetation on Northeast Corner of Project Site
~_
--~
~~,<~=
~.;
.:
~;. .`~~Y~.. ~.
-. fJ+.-.. ~~-i
=" ._...~
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAR,4TION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 34
Figure 11 Vegetation at Forbes/Allerton Intersection
Figure 12 Vegetation at Northwest Corner of Project Site
'~ ~
-~- ,-~ ,i
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENE$YS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 36
Figure 9 Vegetation on Eastern Edge of Project Site
Figure 10
~+-. „
~k
Vegetation Along Forbes Boulevard
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 35
~..~
_. .;# '
,.~
Y ---. ~. _
Environmental Factors and Focused Duestions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ ] [ / ] [ ]
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [ ] [ /] [ ] [ ]
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique [ ] [ ] [ ] [ / ]
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those [ ] [ ] [ ] [ / ]
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
a) Historical Resources
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§ 15064.5.
The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in ~ 15064.5, since the existing building shell on site has no historical value.
The project would have a no impact.
b) Archaeological Resources
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological .resource as
defined in ~ 15064.5.
^ IMPACT 3: Potential Disturbance of Archaeological Resources. The Project site
is a previously disturbed, developed site where no known archaeological sites are
located. However, given that archaeological remains have been found in the Project's
vicinity, the presence of archaeological remains underneath the Project site cannot be
discounted. The Project could have a significant impact on any archaeological
remains discovered at the Project site.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 37
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 3: Monitoring of Grading Process. A certified
archaeologist shall be present at the Project site during the initial grading process to
monitor grading activities and ensure the protection and preservation of any
archaeological resources discovered at the Project site. This would reduce the impact
of the Project on archaeological resources to a level of less than significant with
mitigation.
c) Paleontological Resources/Unique Geologic Features
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature.
No unique paleontological or geologic features have been nor are expected to be identified at
the Project site. Therefore, the Project would be expected to have no impact on
paleontological resources and unique geologic features.
d) Disturbance of Human Remains
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
were to result in the disturbance of any human remains.
No human remains have been identified at the Project site. However, if such remains are
encountered during site preparation associated with the construction of the Cell Genesys
Development, all work shall be halted in the vicinity, and the San Mateo County Coroner
shall be informed to determine if an investigation of the cause of death is required, and to
determine if the remains are of Native American origin. If such remains are of Native
American origin, the nearest tribal relatives as determined by the state Native American
Heritage Commission shall be contacted to obtain recommendations for treating or removal
of such remains, including grave goods, with appropriate dignity, as required under Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. This would reduce the potential impact associated with the
discovery of human remains at the Project site to a level of less than significant. It is expected
that there would be no impact from the Project related to the disturbance of human remains.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 3S
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Sign cant with Significant No
Impact Mkiaation Impact Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the Project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as [ ] [ ] (/] ( ]
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ /] ( ] ( ]
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including [ ] [ ] ( ] (/]
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? ( ] ( ] (/ ] ( ]
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of [ ] [ ] ( ] (/ ]
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ( ] [ ] (/ ] [ ]
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the Project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ( ] [ ] (/] ( ]
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting [ ] ( ] ( ] (/ ]
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
Setting6
The relative stability and composition of different types of soils can contribute to hazard risks
by amplifying earthquake waves, increasing susceptibility to liquefaction and landslides, and
affecting flood levels. South San Francisco occupies three general topographic zones: the
lowland zone, the upland zone and the hillside zone.' The Project site is located within the
Upland Zone, at an altitude of about 125 feet mean sea level.
b Most of the information in this section is derived from: Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnicallnvestigation: Cell
Generys, Inc. Corporate Headquarters fr Research Center, S00 Forbes Avenue, August 8, 2001.
Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 8J
EPLAN.DWG
(D
CD
7
n
CD
D
r
-1
D
D
C7
to
\.
o
W . ..
_~
__ _ 3 o N
~~ J ~
~ /
~~
,,~
ca d - ~ \ /
_~ 8 ~~~ /~F J \ /
~ ~e `~~
~t_ • ~ ~
O ~
N
m
v
~ ~~ ~ ;, c
._.~ + r ~ ~
__., •.
1. .J VI
T~ ~ I
N W ~
W O 0
C
r
r~
< ~
D
~ ~ .,.~.~
m ~„ r~ T ~"
s No > o N • ~
~>
'~ 1
-• F
m
x
-1
Z
G1
C
r
v
z
L7
z
0
m
~ O
O
_x
w
m ~ o.
~ ~~
w
~ ~
o
m
N _.
~~ ~ -~
w ~ ~
~ m
~ ~ ~.
o m m
~~~"~
CD
~ Q N
p O N
~ ~ ~
• < w
~ ~
. ~,
o
0 O
X ~
~~ v
. -P
cn7 ~
D- ~
C ~
a'
v
- - - -77.09_ - - ~- ~
I-:
1 .
v
1°
J
o
i
v
m
I
W
. ~
s
a
W -i D ~ -~ D m
a ~
~ ~
~~ ~
O O- O
x _
C O- O
x
o
'
~ ~ .
o
N c
° Z
N~~ ~~
o D
O
000 0o Z
-°ow on~i
~ ~ o'
a~~ ~ o'
~~
o
Tv - o
~
Q ~
~ C O
~1 O
1
N `~ (Q (Q
O O ~ ,Q'
0
0
Subsurface Conditions. Approximately 1.5 to 5.0 feet of fill blankets the site around the
perimeter of the existing building. the fill is primarily aggregate base material and sand placed
for the pavement section or utility trench backfill. Residual soil and bedrock underlie the fill.
Residual soil consists of very stiff to hard sandy clay and was encountered in borings B-1, B-6,
B-7, B-8, B-10, SB-1, SB-2, SB-5, SB-6 and SB-8. Atterberg limits test results indicate the
residual soil is moderately expansive, undergoing volume changes with changes in moisture
content. Bedrock consisting of weathered shale and sandstone of the Franciscan Complex was
encountered beneath the fill and residual soil in each of the borings to the maximum depths
explored. The bedrock is generally gray to black, depending on the extent of weathering.
The weathering and decomposition of the rock vary greatly, and the bedrock ranges from
friable to moderately hard, with the moderately hard rock generally occurring as sandstone
inclusions in a softer shale matrix.
Groundwater was encountered only in boring B-7 at a depth of 27 feet at the time of drilling.
Groundwater beneath the site is likely confined to fractures and pervious zones within the
bedrock. The boring was immediately backfilled after completion. It should be noted that
this may not be the stabilized groundwater level.
a)(i) Exposure of People or Structures to Known Earthquake Fault
Setting
The major active faults in the area are the San Andreas and Hayward Faults, at distances of
about five and 28 kilometers from the site respectively. In 1868 an earthquake with an
estimated Moment magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale occurred on the southern segment of
the Hayward Fault between San Leandro and Fremont. Since 1800, four major earthquakes
have been recorded on the San Andreas Fault with Moment magnitudes ranging from 6.25 to
7.9. in 1999, the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities at the United States
Geologic Survey predicted a 70 percent probability of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake
occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area by 2030.
Impact
Threshold of Signifzcance: The Project would have a sign cant environmental impact if it were
to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the
rupture of a known earthquake fault.
The Project site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the
site. Therefore, the risk of surface faulting is considered to be less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE ~
a)(ii) Exposure of People or Structures to Strong Seismic Shaking
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong
seismic ground shaking.
^ IMPACT 4: Adverse Effects of Seismic Related Ground Shaking. The .proposed
Cell Genesys Development would be occupied by Cell Genesys staff, who could be
exposed to adverse effects related to seismic ground shaking. This would be a
potentially significant impact of the Project.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 4: Adherence to Geotechnical Engineering
Recommendations. Treadwell and Rollo judge the soil and bedrock conditions at the
Project site to be suitable from a geotechnical standpoint for the proposed
construction, provided that their recommendations are incorporated into the Project
plans and implemented during construction. Their recommendations are the
following:
Site Preparation and Grading. Grading operations should commence after
demolition and removal of the existing building, pavements, floor slabs and
underground utilities within the development area. Following demolition, all areas to
receive improvements should be stripped of vegetation and organic topsoil. The
pavement material, including asphalt, may be segregated from organic topsoil and used
as compacted fill, provided it meets the fill requirements presented in a subsequent
section of this report and is acceptable from an environmental standpoint. The
stripped organic soil can be stockpiled for later use in landscaped areas, if approved by
the architect. Organic topsoil should not be used as compacted fill.
The surface exposed by stripping should be scarified to a depth of at least six inches,
moisture-conditioned to above the optimum moisture content and compacted to at
least 90 percent relative compaction.'Z If soft or loose soil is encountered, the
unsuitable material should be overexcavated and replaced with suitable fill material and
similarly compacted and moisture conditioned. The exposed ground surface should be
kept moist during subgrade preparation.
'Z Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry
density of the same material, as determined by the ASTM D1557-91 laboratory compaction procedure.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 45
Select fill should consist of on-site or imported soil that is non-corrosive, free of
organic matter, contains no rocks or lumps larger than three inches in greatest
dimension, has a liquid limit less than 40 and plasticity index less than 12, and is
approved by the geotechnical engineer. In addition, the select fill should contain
between 10 and 25 percent fines (particles passing the No. 200 sieve) to reduce
potential for surface water infiltration. It is likely the surface sand and gravel fill will
meet the select fill criteria. Based on the plasticity and liquid limit criteria, the near-
surface residual soil is not expected to meet the criteria for select fill. A sample of the
on-site and import material to be used as select fill should be submitted to the
geotechnical engineer for testing at least three business days prior to use at the site.
Fill should be placed in horizontal layers not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness,
moisture-conditioned to above the optimum moisture content, and compacted as
presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS
LOCATION REQUIRED COMPACTION
(PERCENT);
MOISTURE REQUIREMENT
Building pad -select fill 95+ Above optimum
General fill -native soil backflll 90 - 93 3% above optimum
General fill -select fill 90 + Above optimum
Utility trench -native soil backflll 90 - 93 3% above optimum
Utility trench -select fill 90 + Above optimum
Utility trench -clean sand or gravel 95 + Above optimum
AC pavement subgrade -native soil 95 Above optimum
AC pavement subgrade -select fill 95+ Above optimum
AC pavement -aggregate base 95+ Above optimum
Concrete paving Same as AC pavement Same as AC pavement
Concrete Flatwork -native soil 90 - 93 3% above optimum
Concrete Flatwork -select fill/AB 90+ Above optimum
Utility Trenches. Excavations for utility trenches can generally be made with a
backhoe. Despite careful site preparation, obstructions and hard rock may be
encountered rendering some of the trenching operations difficult. All trenches should
conform to the current CAL-OSHA requirements.
Backfill for utility trenches and other excavations is also considered fill, and should be
compacted according to the recommendations presented in Table 1. Special care
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 46
should be taken when backfilling utility trenches in pavement areas. Poor compaction
may cause excessive settlements, resulting in damage to the pavement section.
When necessary, trench excavations should be shored and braced to prevent cave-ins in
accordance with all safety regulations. Where sheet piling is used as shoring, and is to
be removed after backfilling, it should be placed a minimum of two feet away from the
pipes or conduits to prevent disturbance to them as the sheet piles are extracted.
Where trenches extend below the groundwater level, it will be necessary to
temporarily dewater them to allow for placement of the pipe and/or conduits, and
backfill.
To provide uniform support, pipes or conduits should be bedded on a minimum of
four inches of sand or fine gravel. After the pipes and conduits are tested, inspected (if
required) and approved, they should be covered to a depth of six inches with sand or
fine gravel, which should be mechanically tamped.
Building Foundations. Provided that settlement of up to 1/z inch is acceptable, the
building may be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on native residual
soil (sandy clay) or the shale and sandstone bedrock. Individual spread footings should
be at least 36 inches square and continuous footings should be at least 24 inches wide
and bottomed in the residual soil or bedrock. All footings should be founded a
minimum of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent soil subgrade and 12 inches into
residual soil or bedrock. The footings may be designed for allowable bearing pressures
of 6,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads and 8,000 psf for total
design loads, including wind or seismic forces.
Lateral loads can be resisted by a combination of passive pressure on the vertical faces
of the footings and friction along the bases of the footings. Passive resistance may be
calculated using a rectangular distribution of 1,500 psf; the upper one-foot of soil
should be ignored unless it is confined by slabs or pavement. Frictional resistance
should be computed using a base friction coefficient of 0.35. If a waterproofing system
is used beneath the footings, the frictional resistance should be reduced to a value of
0.2. These values include a factor of safety of at least 1.5.
The footing excavations should be free of standing water, debris, and disturbed
materials prior to placing concrete. We should check the excavations prior to
placement of reinforcing steel to confirm the exposed residual soil or bedrock is
suitable to support the design bearing pressure
encountered in the excavations, it should
backfilled with lean or structural concrete.
. If loose soil or undesirable material is
be removed and the overexcavation
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 47
Concrete Slab-On-Grade. The slab-on-grade floor should be supported on at least 12
inches of select fill placed as described above in the Site Preparation and Grading
section.
As a minimum, a moisture barrier should be installed beneath the slab-on-grade floor.
The moisture barrier may be included as part of the select fill thickness. Atypical
moisture prevention barrier includes a capillary moisture break consisting of at least a
six-inch-thick layer of clean, free-draining gravel or crushed rock (1/2 to 3/a-inch
gradation) overlain by a moisture-proof membrane at least 10 millimeters thick. The
membrane should be covered with two inches of sand for protection against
puncturing or tearing during construction and to aid in curing the concrete slab. If
the previously compacted soil subgrade is disturbed during footing and utility
excavation, the subgrade should be re-compacted to provide a firm, unyielding surface
prior to placement of the capillary break material. The crushed rock and sand layers
should conform to the gradation requirements presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
GRADATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPILLARY BREAK AND SAND
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING SIEVE
GRAVEL OR CRUSHED ROCK
1 inch 100
314 inch 30-75
1l2inch 5-10
3/flinch 0-2
SAND
No. 4 100
No. 200 0-5
If water vapor moving through the slab is considered detrimental, in lieu of the
moisture barrier, a waterproofing membrane should be installed. The membrane
should consist of apre-applied, self-adhering high-density polyethylene (HDPE).
Seismic Design. The buildings would be designed using the 1997 Uniform Building
Code (UBC). - For design in accordance with the 1997 UBC, Treadwell & Rollo
recommend the following:
• Seismic Zone Factor 4
• Soil profile Type Sa
• Near Source Factors Na and N~ of 1.14 and 1.48, respectively.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 48
Flexible Pavement Design. The State of California flexible pavement design method
was used to develop the recommended asphalt concrete pavement sections. The
geotechnical engineers expect the final soil subgrade in asphalt-paved areas would
generally consist of residual soil comprised of sandy clay. On the basis of laboratory
test results of this soil, Treadwell & Rollo selected an R-value of 20 for design. If the
existing subgrade would be raised in the paved areas, the fill material should have an
equivalent or higher R-value than the native soil. Additional R-value tests should be
performed on any proposed fill to verify its R-value. The pavement design may need
to be revised if material with an adequate R-value cannot be found.
Treadwell & Rollo presented design alternatives for three traffic indices (TI), 5.0, 5.5,
and 6.0. For comparison, a TI of 5.0 assumes passenger car traffic with occasional
trucks. Selection of the appropriate TI for design should be confirmed by the project
civil engineer. If additional traffic indexes (TIs) are required for the project, the
geotechnical engineers could assist the design team with the associated pavement
recommendations. Table 3 presents flexible pavement section recommendations for
the three TI values.
TABLE 3
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN
TRAFFIC
INDEX
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
INCHES CLASS 2 AGGREGATE. BASE
R = 78
INCITES
5.0 2.5 8.5
5.5 3.0 9.0
6.0 3.0 10.5
Pavement components should conform to the current Caltrans Standard
Specifications. The upper six inches of the soil subgrade in pavement areas should be
moisture-conditioned to above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least
95 percent relative compaction where either native soil or imported fill is exposed at
subgrade level. Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction.
To prevent irrigation water from entering the pavement section, vertical curbs
adjacent to landscaped areas should extend at least three inches into the underlying
clay.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 49
Corrosivity Evaluation. Based on the resistivity measurements, 1,000 to 1,400 ohms-
cm, the soil samples tested are classified as "corrosive". All buried iron, steel, cast iron,
ductile iron, galvanized steel and dielectric coated steel or iron placed at the site should
be properly protected against corrosion depending upon the critical nature of the
structures. In addition, all buried metallic pressure piping such as ductile iron
firewater pipelines should be protected against corrosion.
Both the chloride and sulfate ion concentrations, with ranges of none detected to 31
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 120 to 190 mg/kg, respectively, were determined
to be insufficient to attack steel embedded in a concrete mortar coating. The hydrogen
ion activity (pH) of the soil samples tested is not corrosive to buried iron, steel,
mortar-coated steel and reinforced concrete structures. The redox potential of the soil
samples tested indicates potentially "slightly corrosive" soils resulting from anaerobic
soil conditions.
Treadwell & Rollo should review the final foundation plans and specifications to
check that they are in general conformance with the intent of their recommendations.
They should observe fill placement and compaction, and perform field density test to
check that adequate fill compaction has been achieved. During construction, the
geotechnical engineers should observe the installation of the foundation system.
Footing excavations should be checked to verify the foundation soil and rock are as
anticipated. These observations would allow comparison of actual and anticipated soil
conditions, check that the contractor's work conforms to the geotechnical aspects of
the plans and specifications, and ensure that the building would perform as planned.
These mitigation measures would reduce the impact of seismic ground shaking to
people who would occupy the Cell Genesys Development to a level of less than
significant with mitigation.
a)(iii) Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-
related ground failure, including liquefaction.
Soil liquefaction is typically caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research
and historical data indicate that soil liquefaction occurs in saturated, loose granular soil
(primarily fine to medium grained clean sand deposits) during or after strong seismic ground
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 5O
shaking. Liquefaction is typified by a near total loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer,
thereby causing the soil to flow as a liquid. The potential hazards associated with soil
liquefaction below or near a structure are loss of foundation support, lateral spreading, sand
boils and areal and differential settlements.
Saturated, cohesionless soil can liquefy as it experiences a temporary loss of shear strength due
to a transient rise in excess pore pressure generated by strong ground motion. Treadwell &
Rollo found clean sand at random locations around the site (B-2, B-7, B-10, SB-3, SB-5, SB-6
and SB-8). These deposits were judged to be localized fill deposits placed during initial site
grading. In addition, the groundwater level is below this material. Therefore, there would be
no impact related to liquefaction induced settlement and lateral spreading at the Project site.
a)(iv) Exposure of People or Structures to Landslides
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
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.
The Project site is located on land that is relatively flat, but that is sloped slightly near its
northwestern corner. The risk of landsliding on the Project site is considered less than
signi fzcant.
There is a hill located off site along the site's eastern side. Treadwell & Rollo did not study
the hill's landslide potential since it was not within the scope of their analysis. However,
according to Treadwell & Rollo, the hill appears to be stable.
b) Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it
were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil.
Site soils are covered with either asphalt paving or concrete and have no exposure to water or
wind erosion forces, though temporary erosion may occur during construction. However,
standard erosion control measures can be employed to reduce this erosion to negligible levels
during construction. Local jurisdictional rules governing erosion protection should be
followed during construction in order to ensure no impact from the Project.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 5'I
c) Unstable Geological Conditions
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if
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.
Strong ground shaking can cause unsaturated sand above the groundwater table to densify and
settle. Treadwell & Rollo believes that only portions of streets, parking lots and sidewalks,
which rest on loose sands could have earthquake induced settlements, and that these could be
on the order of one inch. The residual soil, consisting of sandy clay, and the weathered shale
and sandstone bedrock that are present beneath the proposed building location are capable of
supporting moderate foundation loads. Shallow, spread type footings may be used. Properly
installed footings gaining support in residual soil and bedrock should experience settlement of
less that 0.5 inches.g This would be a less than significant impact of the Project. The
potential for subsidence to occur at the site is considered to be low, as the site has not been
subject to fluid withdrawal.
d) Expansive Soils
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located
on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property.
The Project site is subject to expansive surface soil due to volume changes during seasonal
fluctuations in moisture content. These volume changes can cause foundation and floor slab
cracking. Therefore, foundations and slabs should be designed and constructed to resist the
effects of moderately expansive residual soil. The nature of design and construction at the
Project site is discussed in more detail above in section a) ii). Adherence to recommended
design and construction techniques would reduce the impact of expansive soils to a level of
less than significant.
a Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation: Cell Generys, Inc. Corporate Headquarters ~ Research Center,
p.10, August 8, 2001.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 5Z
Setting
Colma Creek, the City's main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a water shed
of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center
of the City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in the County. The basin
is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by
Skyline Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two
relatively straight mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a
low ridge at the northern boundary of the area. The valley enclosed by the ridges widens
toward the southeast where it drains into San Francisco Bay.
a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to result in any violation of existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,
thereby presenting no impact.
b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
substantially depletes 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.
The proposed Project would be located in an urban area and would receive its water supply
from existing local infrastructure, thereby not depleting the local groundwater supply. The
proposed building structure would be an impervious surface over the land that would to some
degree impede recharging of local groundwater. However, since groundwater resources are
not used in this area, this impact would be less than significant.
c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result
in substantial erosion or siltation.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE ~J9
The Cell Genesys Development would be built on an already developed site in an urban area.
There would be no impact related to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the Project site.
d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Flooding Effects
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site.
It is not expected that the proposed Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site, nor would it increase the amount of surface runoff, since the site is currently developed
with impervious surfaces. Because the Cell Genesys Development would not be built on an
undeveloped, pervious surface there would be no impact related to increased surface runoff.
e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity/Increase Polluted Runoff
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
^ IMPACT 7: Increased Erosion During Construction. The soils at the Project site
may be susceptible to erosion during construction activities when soils are disturbed.
This represents a potentially signifzcant impact associated with the proposed Project.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 7: Erosion Control Measures. The applicant shall
submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control
Plan to the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any grading or construction
of the proposed Project. The SWPPP shall include storm water pollution control
devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm
drain system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval
of the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator.
The Project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of
all storm water quality measures, and for the implementation of such measures.
Failure to comply with the approved construction Best Management Practices (BMPs)
will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a project stop order.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE GO
Plans for the Project shall include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and
debris from entering the storm drain system, in accordance with the regulations
outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to
a level of less than significant with mitigation.
f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to degrade water quality.
The proposed Cell Genesys Development would not increase the amount of impervious
surface area on the Project site, since the site is already developed. Therefore, there would be
no impact on water quality from point source water pollution at the Project site.
g) Place Housing Within A 100-Year Flood Hazard Area
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to place any housing units within a designated 100-year flood hazard area.
No impact would occur from placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, since the
Project does not entail the construction of any housing units.
h) Place Structures Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it
placed any structures in a manner, which would impede or redirect flood flows.
The Project site is not located in a 100-year_flood hazard zone12 _and therefore would have no
impact related to the placement of a structure in such a way that it would impede or redirect
flood flows.
1z Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, adopted July 1994, p.106.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE G1
i) Expose People or Structures to Flooding Hazards
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to result in the exposure of people or structures to flooding hazards.
Development of the Cell Genesys Development at the Project site would not expose any
people or structures to flooding hazards and therefore would have no impact.
j) Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards from Seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
Development of the Cell Genesys Development at the Project site would not expose any
people or structures to hazards from Seiche, tsunami or mudflow and therefore would have no
impact.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 62
Environmental Factors and Focused I]uestions for Potentialy Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Sign cant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
/~
/~
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ~ ~ (~/
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Setting13
South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to initially
locate industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in order to take advantage of
topography and winds on Point San Bruno. Another development trend that shaped the
arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s
and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with single-family housing. As a
result, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the
eastern and southeastern portions of the City, single family homes to the north and west,
commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered
in those same corridors. and on hillsides.
During the 1950s, the City of South San Francisco converted previously unused marshlands
into areas usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting
light industry to the City for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 fora 600-acre
industrial park adjacent to the newly developed Oyster Point Marina. This industrial park
was South San Francisco's first industrial development to incorporate comprehensive
planning, integrated design and performance provisions, and featured a 0.5 Floor Area Ratio.
It supplied ample parking and consistent landscaping and building design.
In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a
slow industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy
industries have largely been replaced by warehousing, research, development and
biotechnology. Because the City's industrial base has continued to evolve as the context for
" City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Genera! Plan, 1999.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 63
industry has changed, industry will continue to play and important role in South San
Francisco's future.
The City's continued status as a goods transportation hub, stemming mainly from proximity
to San Francisco International Airport, is reflected in the presence of large tracts of land,
formerly used for heavy industry, east of US 101. As high technology businesses have moved
into many of these older industrial areas, conflicts, such as between automobile and truck
traffic, and land use and visual character have become increasingly pronounced. The needs of
business centers include, smaller blocks, more through street connections, ancillary facilities
such as restaurants, easier connections to transit, sidewalks and bikeways and higher landscape
standards. These needs are much different than those of warehousing and industrial areas.
The City attempts to balance regional growth objectives with conservation of residential and
industrial neighborhoods.
The East of 101 Area Plan, adopted in 1994, was prepared to maximize the potential of
undeveloped or underused properties in the City's traditional industrial east of U.S. 101.
Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for quality design are important components of the
Plan. In addition to policies relating to land use dispersion, intensities, and transportation, the
Plan includes a Design Element to help achieve high standard development.
a) Dividing an Established Community
The proposed Project would have no impact related to the division of an established
community.
b) Conflict with Land Use Plan
The Project site is currently zoned Planned Industrial (P-1) and is part of the "East of 101"
Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's
General Plan designation is Business and Technology Park. This designation accommodates
campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities,
and offices. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards.14
The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan policies:
Policy 3.5-G-3 Promote campus style biotechnology, high technology and research and
development uses.
Policy 3.5-I-3 Do not permit any residential uses in the East of 101 area.
" Ibid , p.43.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 64
Policy 3.5-I-11 Do not permit any new warehousing and distribution north of East Grand Avenue
or in areas designated Business Commercial.
The proposed Project is consistent with the following East of 101 Area Plan policies:
Policy DE-13 New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees and
landscaping to meet the City's specifications for their frontages.
Streetscape planting, irrigation and hardscape should be designed for
minimum maintenance by City staff.
Selection and spacing of street trees shall be approved by the City
Landscape Architect and the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services.
Medians should be cobbled and grouted or landscaped with low
maintenance plants with automatic irrigation.
Policy DE-15 Site design should de-emphasize the visual prominence of parking areas by
separating parking areas into relatively small components and locating parking
behind buildings whenever possible. The standard practice of placing the
majority of the parking between the building and the main street frontage should
be avoided when possible.
Policy DE-22 Developments in the Planned Industrial categories should include on-site open
space as a unifying element and as areas for employee use.
Policy DE-25 The design of front yard landscaped buffers should be integrated with that of
adjacent sites.
Policy DE-27 Parking lots should be shaded with trees and should also include shrubs in most
cases. Trees should be planted along parking lot edges and in planters among
stalls. Design policies for the number of trees and amount in shrubbery in
parking lots are contained in Section D of the Design Element for the individual
land use categories.
Policy DE-28 Plant species chosen for the area should include low maintenance plants and
plants adaptive to the extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant species
and planting design should complement the development's design.
Policy DE-29 Lighting on the exteriors of buildings should be incorporated into the overall
building and landscape design. Security and entry lights should align with, be
centered on, or otherwise coordinate with the building elements.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 65
Policy DE-34 All activities and stored materials in loading, service, storage and trash disposal
areas should be screened from views from public streets, trails, adjacent
properties, and overhead views from adjacent properties, by planting, berms
and/or decorative walls. The screening should be integrated into the design of
structures or the site landscaping, so it does not appear as an appendage added
to the outside of the structure. This policy applies to all types of outdoor storage
areas containing materials, supplies, or equipment, including autos, trucks and
trailers.
Policy DE-37 The installation or replacement of exposed chain link fences, barbed wire, razor
wire or similar material shall not be allowed in those parts of the East of 101 Area
that are visible from public rights-of-way, including roads and trails.
Policy DE-38 The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials and
the selection of landscape materials and street furniture shall consider the overall
context of the Project and promote the development of a sense of identity for the
East of 101 area.
Policy DE-43 Retail, flex and industrial buildings should not exceed 35 feet in height.
Landmark design elements should not exceed 50 feet in height. Office buildings
are not subject to a height limit other than that of the ALUC, as outlined in Policy
LU-23. Additional restrictions on building height in the Coastal Commercial
category are included in Section D of the Design Element. Exceptions to this
policy may be made if warranted by a specific proposed use, or if taller building
heights are included in an approved Master Plan.
Policy DE-52 Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral
architectural elements such as pitched roofs, ornamental parapets, mansards or
low towers.
Policy DE-56 The following additional design policies apply in Planned Industrial areas:
Street Trees: Street trees should be planted within at least 30 feet of
each other and should be selected to match or complement the existing
pines on Allerton Avenue and portions of East Grand Avenue.
Landscape Buffer: Landscape buffers along major arterial streets should
be at least 20 feet wide and along other streets at least 10 feet wide. On
side and rear property lines, they should be six feet wide. All
landscaping shall provide a clear connection between the street and
buildings for pedestrians.
Blank Walls: Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet long.
Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-39. Pedestrian
scale is of particular importance for campus-like developments and
settings.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 66
Building Orientation: Buildings should be oriented with a clear
relationship to the street to create a sense of continuity along it. Inviting
pedestrian linkages from individual buildings shall be provided.
Design Guidelines: New development plans for larger campus-like
projects should include specific design guidelines, developed as an
integral part of master planning efforts.
Parking Lot Shrubs: Medians and bulbs inside the perimeters of a
parking lot shall be planted. A minimum of five percent of the total
parking lot area required to be landscaped shall be planted with shrubs.
Therefore, the proposed Cell Genesys Development would be consistent with and would not
conflict with the above applicable City of South San Francisco General Plan land use policies,
thereby constituting no adverse impact.
^ IMPACT 8: Inconsistency with East of 101 Area Plan. The Project as proposed
would be inconsistent with the following provision of East of 101 Area Plan policy
DE-56:
Parking Lot Trees: Cars should not be parked more than twelve in a row without
a planting island that contains at least one tree.
This inconsistency would be a potentially significant impact of the proposed Project.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 8: Parking Lot Reconfiguration. The proposed
Project parking lot shall be reconfigured in a way that conforms to all provisions of
East of 101 Area Plan policy DE-56. This would reduce the impact to a level of less
than significant with mitigation.
c) Conflict with Conservation Plan
Construction of the Cell Genesys Development would require cutting down thirty-three (33)
trees and several extensively shrubbed areas located on the Project site. Eight (8) of the trees
on the site are considered protected trees under Section 13.30.020(f)(1) of the City of South
San Francisco Municipal Code relating to tree preservation (Tree Ordinance). More
information on this topic is included in the Biological Resources section of this report.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 67
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mkiaation Impact Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Setting
No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified
at the Project site. The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral
recovery site on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any
other land use plan.
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to 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, or if it were to result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan.
The development of the Cell Genesys Development at the Project site would not affect the
availability of and would have no impact on any known mineral resource, or result in the loss
of availability of any locally important resource recovery site.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE ('J8
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentialy Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Signifcanrt Signficant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact lmaact
XI. NOISE -Would the Project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise [ ] [ ] [ / ] [ ]
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ./ ]
excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient [ ] [ ] [ ] [ / ]
noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels
existing without the Project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [ ] [ /] [ ] [ ]
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project?
e) For a Project located within an airport land use [ ] ( ] [ ] [ ./]
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the Project expose
people residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
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?
Setting
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on
when and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the
sound (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive
it is above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it
is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime
noises. During nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels.
However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more
noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion.
Residential and open space recreational uses are generally considered to be noise-sensitive uses
or sensitive receptors. There are no residential uses in the project vicinity, but there is a
planned recreational trail designated along the railroad easement immediately south of the
site. The trail could be located as close as approximately 150 feet from the proposed buildings
and trail users would be subject to noise increases associated with project operation.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 69
However, it is anticipated that project construction would be completed prior to trail
construction. Therefore, trail users would not be affected by project construction.
In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use
criteria for noise-impacted areas. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure
of various land uses in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the
implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less
than 75 dBA (CNEL)15 are acceptable noise levels for industrial and open space uses.
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, Section
8.32.030) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and
industrial land uses. The project site is zoned "M-1, Industrial," and the noise level standard
for this zone is 70 dBA (Lso).16 Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are
allowed, but only for specified periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more
than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for
more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for
any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the
above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the standard.
The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts
construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also
limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the
property line.
15 The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally
sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound
descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA".
CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted
noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB
increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL).
16 The noise limit that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour).
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 7O
a) Exposure of Persons To or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the City of South San Francisco General Plan or the City's Noise Ordinance.
Traffiic. Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic noise levels along local
streets due to project-generated traffic. It is anticipated that traffic-related noise increases
associated with the project would be less than significant due to the low level of project-
related traffic increases on local roadways. In general, a doubling of traffic volumes would be
required to result in a 3-dBA noise increase in atraffic-dominated noise environment, and a 3-
dBA noise increase is barely perceptible to most people. Project-related traffic increases on
local roadways (well below a 100 percent increase) would result in traffic noise increases well
below 3 dBA.
Mechanical Equipment. Implementation of the proposed project would increase ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity due to operation of rooftop mechanical equipment. The noise level
from a single, roof-mounted "package" HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) unit is
typically rated at a sound power level of 8.4 bets. The proposed complex could require a
distributed system of perhaps ten (10) such units, plus smaller heat pumps, fans and other
mechanical equipment. Assuming there is a direct line-of--sight between the HVAC unit and
planned trail and a 180-foot separation is maintained, noise levels could reach 50 dBA (Lso or
Leq)," which would be well below the City Noise Ordinance 70-dBA noise limit (no noise
attenuation assumed from proposed equipment screens and roof edge or parapet). Even if this
unit were assumed to operate 24 hours per day, the 24-hour noise level generated by the HVAC
unit would not exceed the City's 75-dBA (CNEL) land use criteria for industrial and open space
uses. It is anticipated that roof parapets could reduce noise levels by at least 5 dBA. The impact
of the HVAC system would be considered less than significant.
b) Exposure of Persons To or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibrations or
Groundborne Noise Levels
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental effect if it were
to expose people to, or generate, excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise
levels.
" Leq: The energy equivalent noise level; asteady-state energy level which represents the acoustical energy of a
given measurement period that is equal to the actual time-varying sound level measured during the same
period.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 7'I
The development and operation of the Cell Genesys Development at the Project site would
not involve the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. It
would have no impact related to the exposure of those closest to the Project site to excessive
groundborne vibration or excessive groundborne noise levels.
c) Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Impact
Threshold of Signif cance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project.
Although site preparation and the construction of the proposed Cell Genesys Development
would be expected to result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity, the on-going-operation of the Cell Genesys Development at the Project site would
not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, thereby representing no
impact.
d) Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Impact
Threshold of Significance.• The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity above levels existing without the Project.
During site preparation and construction of the Cell Genesys Development at the Project site,
the operation of heavy equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site.
^ IMPACT 9: Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in
temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. This
would represent a potentially significant impact associated with Project development.
Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of
construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for
certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 9: Limitation of Construction Hours/Noise
Abatement. There are no existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity that
would be affected by project-generated construction noise. However, neighboring
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 7Z
businesses would be subjected to high noise levels during site preparation and
construction. Although the highest noise levels would be generated by rock drills and
pile drivers (which can generate noise peaks of approximately 98 and 101 dBA at 50
feet, respectively), such equipment would not be used for this project. If noise controls
are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85
dBA at 25 feet, depending on the type of equipment. Assuming construction noise
levels comply with the 90-dBA noise limit and hourly restrictions specified in the City
Noise Ordinance, construction-related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of less
than significant with mitigation.
e/f) Location in Vicinity of a Public Airport or Private Airstrip
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
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) if it would expose people residing or
working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, or if it were located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip, if it would expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive
noise levels.
The South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and future (2006) airport noise
contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. These
contours indicate the project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future
airport noise contours. Projected contours for road and railroad noise are also included in the
Noise Element. These contours indicate that the project site is located in an area where noise
levels generated by major road and railroad noise sources will continue to be less than 60 dBA
(CNEL). Based on the City's land use criteria, the proposed Project's research and development
type land use would be compatible with future noise level projections in the project vicinity of
less than 60 to 65 dBA (CNEL), thereby representing no impact.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 73
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mkigation Impact Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ( ~ ( ~ ( ~ (/
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ( ~ ( ~ ( ~ (/
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ( ~ ( ~ ( ~ (/
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to induce substantial population growth, or if it were to result in the displacement of
substantial numbers of existing housing units, or in the displacement of substantial numbers
of people living at the Project site.
Development of the Cell Genesys Development at the Project site would not entail the
extension of infrastructure that could support additional residential or commercial
development. It would not involve the construction of any new housing, and would not
require the displacement of any existing residential units or persons living on-site. Therefore,
the Project would have no impact on population and housing in the area.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 74
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Sign cant Significant with Significant No
Imaad Mkination Impact Imoad
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered govemmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
/~
/~
/~
/~
/~
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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 fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational
facilities, or other government facilities.
The proposed Project would place a less than signiftcant increased demand on City of South
San Francisco public services.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE T5
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentialy Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mkigation Impact Impact
XIV. RECREATION -
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing ( ] [ ] ( ] (~/ ]
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the Project include recreational facilities ( ] ( ] [ ] [ ~/]
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact
Threshold of Signifzcance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to result in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to
include recreational facilities, the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on
the environment.
The Project would have no impact on parks or recreational facilities since it does not involve
any development that would result in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational
facilities, and does not incorporate their construction.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 76
Environmental Factow and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC -Would the Project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial ( ] ( ] (/] ( ]
in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion
at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a ( ] ( ] ( ] (/ ]
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ( ] ( ] ( ] (/ ]
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ( ] (/] ( ] ( ]
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] ( ] (/ ]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ( ] ( ] (/] ( ]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ( ] ( ] ( ] (/ ]
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Setting
ROADWAYS
The project site is served directly by Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue. Additional local
area access is also provided by Eccles Avenue, as shown in Figure 1 of the traffic analysis
included as Appendix B. Each roadway is briefly described below while a schematic
presentation of intersection approach lanes and intersection control are presented in Figure 2
of Appendix B.
Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane roadway running in a general east-west direction along the
north side of the project site. Each travel lane is 12 feet wide. It has a raised landscaped
median with median breaks at intersections and driveways. The posted speed limit is 35 miles
per hour and on-street parking is prohibited (there is no room for on-street parking within the
existing lane widths). Forbes Boulevard is all-way-stop controlled at Eccles Avenue, but is not
signal or stop sign controlled on the approaches to Allerton Avenue. Left turn deceleration
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE TT
lanes are not provided on the approaches to Allerton Avenue or driveways in the vicinity of
the project site. Curb, gutter and sidewalk are provided along the north side of the street
while curb and gutter only are provided on the south (Project) side of the street.
Allerton Avenue is a two-lane, 40-foot-wide roadway extending southerly from Forbes
Boulevard for about half a mile before ending at East Grand Avenue. The Allerton Avenue
approaches to both Forbes Avenue and East Grand Avenue are stop sign controlled while the
posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. Curb, gutter and sidewalk are provided along the
west side of the street while curb and gutter only are provided along the east (project) side of
the street. Left turn lanes are not provided on the approach to any intersection or driveway.
On-street parking is prohibited along both sides of the street in the vicinity of the project.
Eccles Avenue is a two-lane, 40-foot-wide roadway extending northerly from Forbes
Boulevard for about half a mile to a connection with Oyster Point Boulevard. It has an all-
way-stop intersection with Forbes Boulevard and a signalized intersection with Oyster Point
Boulevard. A single track industrial spur railroad line extends through the Eccles
Avenue/Forbes Boulevard intersection.
VOLUMES
Weekday AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM) vehicle, pedestrian and
bicycle counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group on June 27, 2001 at the
Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue and Forbes Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersections. The
peak hours were determined to be 7:45 to 8:45 AM and 4:45 to 5:45 PM. Resultant AM and
PM peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 3 of the traffic analysis included as
Appendix B. Only minor levels of pedestrians and bike riders were observed at either
intersection during either survey period. During the two-hour AM peak period seven bike
riders passed through both the Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue and Forbes
Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersections, while only one pedestrian crossed Forbes Boulevard
at Allerton Avenue. During the two-hour PM peak period six bike riders passed through the
Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue intersection while 13 bike riders passed through the
Forbes Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection. Only one pedestrian crossed Forbes Boulevard
at Allerton Avenue during the PM peak period.
INTERSECTION OPERATION
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE TS
1. Analysis Methodology
Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections,
are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized
intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a
grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating
uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant
congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also
associated with an average vehicle delay tabulation (1994 Highway Capacity Manual [HCM]
operations method) at each intersection. The vehicle delay designation allows a more detailed
examination of the impacts of a particular project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/delay
relationship is provided in the Appendix of Crane Transportation Group's traffic analysis.
Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using
the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are
determined using a methodology outlined in the 1994 update of the Highway Capacity Manual
(TRB Circular 209). Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS
designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average vehicle delay values are
also calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled are also evaluated
using the LOS and delay scales using a methodology outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity
Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and delay
designations pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and
delay designations are computed for stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and
through movements rather than for the entire intersection. The Appendix provides greater
detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies.
2. Standards
The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest
acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections and LOS E to be the poorest
acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has
no standards for turn movements from private driveways.
3. Existing Operating Conditions
Table 1 of the traffic analysis included as Appendix B shows that currently the all-way-stop
Forbes Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection is operating at acceptable levels of service
during both commute periods (LOS C during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours). At
the Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue intersection, movements from the stop sign
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 79
controlled Allerton Avenue approach are also operating acceptably during both commute
periods (LOS B during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours).
D. INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION REQUIREMENTS
Traffic signals are used to provide an orderly flow of traffic through an intersection. Many
times they are needed to offer side street traffic an opportunity to access a major road where
high volumes and/or high vehicle speeds block crossing or turn movements. They do not,
however, increase the capacity of an intersection (i.e., increase the overall intersection's ability
to accommodate additional vehicles) and, in fact, often slightly reduce the number of total
vehicles that can pass through an intersection in a given period of time. Signals can also cause
an increase in traffic accidents if installed at inappropriate locations.
There are 11 possible tests for determining whether a traffic signal should be considered for
installation. These tests, called "warrants", consider criteria such as actual traffic volume,
pedestrian volume, presence of school children, and accident history. Usually, two or more
warrants must be met before a signal is installed. In this report, the test for Peak Hour
Volumes (Warrant #11) has been applied. When Warrant 11 is met there is a strong indication
that a detailed signal warrant analysis covering all possible warrants is appropriate. These
rigorous analyses are described in Chapter 9 of the Caltrans Traffic Manual while Warrant 11
is presented in the Appendix within Crane Transportation Group's traffic analysis.
Currently, neither the Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue nor the Forbes Boulevard/Eccles
Avenue intersections have AM or PM peak hour volumes meeting peak hour signal warrant
criteria levels.
E. OBSERVED SAFETY CONCERNS
The Forbes Boulevard pavement is deteriorated in several locations. In addition, uneven
pavement covering past trenching in the eastbound and westbound curb travel lanes creates
uncomfortable driving conditions and a safety hazard for bicycle riders.
The lack of an exclusive left turn lane on the Forbes Boulevard westbound approach to
Allerton Avenue increases the chances for rear-end accidents between a vehicle slowing or
stopped waiting to turn left and a higher speed through vehicle. The wide median break along
Forbes Boulevard at this location does, however, provide an informal storage (refuge) area for
turning vehicles.
F. PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE SO
There are plans to repave Forbes Boulevard by the end of August, 200118 and the Forbes
Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection is programmed to be signalized by the end of 2002.19
a) Cause an Increase in Traffic, Which is Substantial in Relation to Existing Traffic Load
and Capacity of the Street System
Impact
Threshold of Significance: City of South San Francisco policy defines a significant impact as
one where signalized and all-way-stop intersections operate below Level of Service D (LOS D)
or below LOS E for unsignalized City street intersection turn movements. The City has no
standards for turn movements from private driveways.
Existing + Approved Development (Base Case) Operating Conditions
Volumes. AM and PM peak hour trip generation and distribution projections were
developed for currently approved or under construction developments in South San Francisco
to the east of the U.S.101 freeway. Approved projects and their expected trip generation are
presented in Table 2 of the traffic analysis included as Appendix B. Both trip rates and
regional distribution patterns applied to each approved development are contained in the
April 2001 Draft Supplemental EIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment
and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. At the request of City Planning staff,
peak hour trip generation from each approved project has been reduced by 35% to reflect
implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures.20 Resultant
existing + approved development (Base Case) AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented
in Figure 4 of the traffic analysis included as Appendix B.
Intersection Operation. For Base Case analysis purposes, the Forbes Boulevard/Eccles
Avenue intersection has been assumed to be signalized. Table 1 of the traffic analysis shows
that a signalized Forbes Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection would operate at good levels of
service as an all-way-stop with Base Case volumes (LOS A during both the AM and PM peak
traffic hours). At the Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue intersection, the stop sign
controlled Allerton Avenue approach would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service
during both commute periods (LOS B during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours).
1e Steve Carlson, Senior Planner, City of South San Francisco Planning Department.
19 Richard Harmon, Development Review Coordinator, South San Francisco Public Works Department.
20 Measures could include (but not be limited to) provision of birycle lockers and racks as well as showers and
changing rooms, operation of a shuttle to BART and Caltrain, subsidizing transit tickets for employees,
creation of preferential parking for car and vanpoolers, implementation of a vanpool program, facilitating
employee telecommuting, flexible work hours, provision of child care services, etc.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE H'I
Volumes at this location would not be increased to meet peak hour signal warrant criteria
levels with the addition of approved development traffic.
Trip Generation. Table 3 of the traffic analysis shows that the Project's 154,000 square feet
of research and development space (in two buildings) would be expected to generate 83
inbound and 17 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 14 inbound and 79 outbound
trips during the PM peak hour. These projections are based upon trip rates from existing
research and development facilities in the East of 101 area and do not include any significant
reduction in peak hour trip generation due to TDM measures. Should Cell Genesys develop a
significant TDM program and reach the City's desired goal of 35 percent reduction in peak
hour traffic, trip generation would be reduced to 54 inbound and 11 outbound trips during
the AM peak hour with 9 inbound and 52 outbound trips during the PM peak hour.
Trip Distribution. Project traffic was distributed to the subregional roadway network based
upon East of 101 development traffic patterns contained in the April 2001 Draft SEIR for the
South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance.
Overall, about 62 percent of Project traffic should be destined to/from south and southwest
of the site, with 38 percent destined to/from the north and northwest. However, it is likely
that some Project drivers destined to/from the south on the U.S. 101 freeway would choose
to access the freeway via Oyster Point Boulevard, which is north of the site. Project traffic is
shown distributed to the local roadway network with Base Case volumes in Figure 4 for AM
and PM peak hour conditions, while Figure 5 of the traffic analysis included as Appendix B
presents expected Project traffic turn movements at each of the site driveways.
Intersection Impacts. Table 1 of the traffic analysis shows that a signalized Forbes
Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection would continue to operate at good levels of service as
an all-way-stop with Base Case + project volumes (LOS A during both the AM and PM peak
traffic hours). Project traffic would increase average vehicle delay about two tenths of a
second during the AM peak hour and not produce a measurable change in delay during the
PM peak hour. At the Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue intersection, the stop sign
controlled Allerton Avenue approach would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service
during both commute periods (LOS B during the AM peak hour and changing from LOS B to
an acceptable LOS C during the PM peak hour). The Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue
intersection would not have volumes increased to meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels
with the addition of Project traffic to Base Case volumes.
The Project would place a less than signftcant demand on the existing street system.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE HZ
b) Direct or Cumulative Increase in Traffic Which Causes a Congestion Management
Agency Standard to be Exceeded
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to result in a direct increase in traffic that would cause a Congestion Management Agency
standard to be exceeded, or contribute substantially to a cumulative increase in traffic that
would cause a Congestion Management Agency standard to be exceeded.
The Project would have no impact related to an exceedance of a Congestion Management
Agency level of service standard.
c) Change in Air Traffic Patterns
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to result in a change in air traffic patterns that results in substantial safety risks.
The Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns.
d) .Hazards Due to Design Features
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
^ IMPACT 10: Blocked Sight Lines. Access to the Project site would be provided via
one driveway connection to Forbes Boulevard about 25 feet from the east end of the
Project frontage and one driveway connection to Allerton Avenue about 25 feet from
the south end of the Project frontage. At the Forbes Boulevard driveway intersection
the sight line to the west to see eastbound traffic is about 450 feet, while the sight line
to the east to see westbound traffic is greater than 500 feet. However, the height of the
berm and landscaping in the two 75-foot-long raised medians just east of the proposed
site driveway along Forbes Boulevard could partially block sight lines between drivers
leaving the Project site and westbound traffic on Forbes Boulevard, particularly for
cars riding low to the ground. This would be a potentially significant impact of the
Project.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE H3
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 10: Berm Height Reduction. The height of the berm
in the two median islands along Forbes Boulevard should be reduced just east of the
proposed Project driveway. Landscaping should be replaced as required. This would
reduce the impact of blocked sight lines to a level of less than significant with
mitigation.
At the Allerton Avenue driveway, the sight line to the north extends about 375 feet to the
Forbes Boulevard intersection, while the sight line to the south extends more than 500 feet.
Observed vehicle speeds on Forbes Boulevard ranged as high as 45 miles per hour. An
acceptable stopping sight distance at this speed is 360 feet.21 Along Allerton Avenue, observed
speeds ranged as high as 40 miles per hour. An acceptable stopping sight distance at this speed
is 305 feet. Therefore, sight lines at both driveways should be adequate, with the concern
detailed above that the height of the two raised medians along Forbes Boulevard just east of
the Project driveway could partially block sight lines for low riding vehicles.
^ IMPACT 11: Forbes Boulevard Median. Figure 6 of the traffic analysis included as
Appendix B shows that a 75 foot-long landscaped median is in place along Forbes
Boulevard at the location of the proposed Project driveway. The driveway and/or the
island's location would preclude direct left turn movements to/from the Project
driveway and would result in a significant number of U-turns at either end of the
island. This would create significant traffic safety and operational concerns as Project
drivers would slow to conduct U-turns in the higher speed through travel lanes of
Forbes Boulevard. In addition, the island's 12-foot width would not be great enough
to provide refuge for the entire length of most U-turning vehicles. This would be a
potentially significant impact of the Project.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 11: Street Re-Configuration. The raised median along
Forbes Boulevard at the location of the proposed Project driveway should be removed.
In addition, a continuous two-way left turn lane should be striped that would extend
easterly from the Project driveway to serve the existing driveway on the adjacent
property about 50 feet to the east. This would reduce the impact to a level of less than
significant with mitigation.
In addition, in Base Case (without Project) conditions, a left turn deceleration lane on the
westbound Forbes Boulevard approach to Allerton Avenue should be provided. This would
require removal of the 75-foot long raised median that starts about 30 feet east of the Allerton
Avenue intersection.
21 A policy on geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fourth Edition, AASHTO, 2001.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE H4
e) Emergency Access
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to provide inadequate emergency access to the Project site.
The Cell Genesys Development would be built in a manner consistent with City of South San
Francisco building codes. There would be no impact related to inadequate emergency access
to the site.
f) Parking Capacity
Impact
Threshold of Significance: the Project's impact on parking shall be considered significant if the
Project does not meet the City of South San Francisco's parking space requirements and/or
the proposed parking plan is not adequate in number or design to serve the proposed Project.
The Project would provide 1 parking space per 360 square feet of building space, based on the
Project's 154,000 of building space and 427 planned parking spaces. The City requirement
for this type of building is one space per 354 square feet of building space. The Project is not
in compliance with the City requirement. However, even a marginal compliance with the
City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance would offset the shortfall in required
parking spaces on site by reducing the demand for parking, thereby representing a less than
significant impact.
g) Alternative Transportation
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.
The Project would have no impact on alternative transportation.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 8rJ
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XVI. UTI LITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the
Project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of (~ ] ( ] [ ] [ / ]
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new ( ] [ ] [ ] [ / ]
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new [ ] [ ] [ ] [ / ]
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve [ ] [ ] [ ] [ / ]
the Project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater [ ] ( ] [ / ] [ ]
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the Project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the Project's Projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted [ ] [ ] (/ ] ( ]
capacity to accommodate the Project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes [ ] [ ] [ ] [ /]
and regulations related to solid waste?
a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards
Impact
Threshold of Signifzcance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
The project would have no impact related to an exceedance of wastewater treatment
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE H6
b) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
The Project would have no impact .related to the construction or expansion of water or
wastewater treatment facilities.
c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
The Project would have no impact related to the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or their expansion.
d) Water Supply
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and
resources.
The Project would utilize existing water entitlements and resources, having no impact on
other water resources.
e) Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which may serve the
Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE H7
The Project would place a less than significant demand on the area's wastewater treatment
provider and would not prevent it from fulfilling its existing commitments.
f) Solid Waste Disposal Capacity
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to be served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's
solid waste disposal needs.
The construction and operation of the Cell Genesys Development at the Project site would
generate a less than signifzcant amount of solid waste.
g) Compliance With Solid Waste Regulations
Impact
Threshold of Significance: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste.
The operation of the proposed Cell Genesys Development at the Project site would be
expected to be in full compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste, thereby having no impact.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 8H
Environmental Factors and focused Questions for Fotentialy Less Than Less Than
Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Signficant No
Impact Mkiaation Impact Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -
a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade [ ] [ /] [ ] [ ]
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the Project have impacts that are ( ] [ ] ( ] (/]
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a Project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past Projects, the effects of
other current Projects, and the effects of
probable future Projects.)
c) Does the Project have environmental effects, ( ] [ /] [ ] [ ]
which will.cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Quality of the Environment
Implementation of the Project does not 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 major periods of California history or prehistory. There
are no Project-related environmental impacts that would not be reduced to a level of less than
significant through the implementation of the mitigation measures identified above.
b) Cumulative Impacts
The Project does not involve environmental impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. There are no
Project-related cumulative impacts.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE H9
c) Adverse Environmental Effects on Human Beings
The Project would not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the Project is consistent and
compatible with agricultural land uses in the surrounding area. The implementation of the
mitigation measures identified above would reduce potentially significant Project-related
environmental impacts to a level of less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 9O
REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air
Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, April 1996.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, p.23,24.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, "Bay Area Attainment Status" April 1999
(obtained at BAAQMD website: www.baagmd.gov).
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Summary of Air Pollution in the Bay Area,
individual sheets for 1995-1999; and various Press Releases, Office of Public Information,
Education Division, August 1997 through January 2001.
Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, adopted July 1994.
City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Municipal Code Relating to Tree
Preservation, adopted June 28, 2000.
Crane Transportation Group, Tra~c Impact Study: Cell Genesys RFSD Off ce Building in
South San Francisco, August 2, 2001.
Dyett &Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999.
Dyett &Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues,
prepared for the City of South San Francisco, September 1997.
Geier & Geier Consulting, Air and Noise Analyses for Cell Genesys Development, August
2001.
Treadwell & Rollo, Environmental Site Characterization: Cell Genesys, Inc. Corporate
Headquarters and Research Center, S00 Forbes Boulevard, August 8, 2001.
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 9'I
Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation: Cell Genesys, Inc. Corporate Headquarters ~
Research Center, S00 Forbes Boulevard, August 8, 2001.
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Steve Carlson, Senior Planner, City of South San Francisco.
John Cavanaugh, Project Manager, Cell Genesys, Inc.
Theresa Eckert and Tahee Lee, WHL Architects.
Paul Reed, Reed Associates Landscape Architecture.
REPORT AUTHORS
Joan Lamphier, Principal
John Courtney, Senior Planner
Rudy Calderon, Planner
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 92
APPENDICES
Appendix A List of Mitigation Measures ..........................................................................A-1
Appendix B Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................. B-1
INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CELL GENESYS DEVELOPMENT PAGE 93
APPENDIX A
LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES
,~
^ IMPACT 1: Generation of Particulate Matter. Construction of the proposed Cell
Genesys Development would have short-term air quality effects, primarily due to the
generation of particulate matter (PM-10). PM-10 is normally generated by diesel
construction vehicles and equipment, the disturbance of soils through excavation and
grading, construction vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces and the tracking of soils onto
paved roads. Failure to implement appropriate dust control measures would be a
potentially significant environmental impact, and would be inconsistent with the
current Clean Air Plan.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 1: Dust Control Measures. The BAAQMD's CEQA
Guidelines (1999) acknowledges that construction activity emissions vary markedly
from project to project, from day to day, and from one contractor to another. Rather
than focus on a quantification of project-related emissions, the BAAQMD has
developed a menu of mitigation options to control construction activity dust
emissions. The BAAQMD (1999) considers implementation of all applicable dust
control measures (which vary according to project magnitude) as reducing project-
related particulate (I'Mio) emissions to less-than-significant levels. These measures are
grouped into three categories as follows:
• "Basic Control Measures" apply to all construction sites.
• "Enhanced Control Measures" apply to sites greater than four acres.
• "Optional Control Measures" apply to larger sites near sensitive receptors.
Based on the project's 6.74-acre size, implementation of the Basic and Enhanced
Control Measures listed below would maintain project construction-related impacts at
a less than significant level.
Construction equipment emits carbon monoxide and ozone precursors during
combustion of diesel fuel. The BAAQMD's determination, however, is that these
emissions have been included in the emissions inventory, which was the basis for the
1997 Clean Air Plan and subsequent air quality plans. Since the BAAQMD does not
consider construction-related exhaust emissions to be "new" emissions, they would not
impede attainment or maintenance of ozone or CO standards in the air basin
(BAAQMD, 1999). Therefore, temporary increases in exhaust emissions would be
considered less than significant.
The following measure will be required during project construction to reduce
construction emissions to a less than significant level:
Construction activities must comply with the "Basic Control Measures" and
"Enhanced Control Measures" for dust emissions as outlined in the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines. These requirements are listed as follows:
1. Basic Control Measures
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris 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 areas at construction sites.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas at construction sites.
• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
2. Enhanced Control Measures
• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 would reduce the impact of dust from
construction of the Project to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
^ IMPACT 2: Removal of Protected Trees. _Construction of the Cell Genesys
Development would require cutting down thirty-three (33) trees and several
extensively shrubbed areas located on the Project site. Eight (8) of the trees on the site
are considered protected trees under Section 13.30.020(f)(1) of the City of South San
Francisco Municipal Code relating to tree preservation (Tree Ordinance). According
to the Ordinance, a protected tree is defined as the following:
1. Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above
natural grade; or
2. A tree or stand of trees so designated by the Director based upon findings that it is
unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location,
historical significance or other factor; or
3. A stand of trees in which the Director has determined each tree is dependent upon the
others for survival.
The eight protected trees on the site are considered protected because their trunk
circumferences measure more than 48 inches above natural grade. Cutting down these
trees would be a potentially significant impact of the Project.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 2: Tree Replacement. According to the Tree
Ordinance, no protected tree shall be removed, pruned, or otherwise materially altered
without a permit except as provided in Section 13.30.030. A tree cutting permit
requires replacement of a tree with three 24-inch box or two 36-inch box minimum
size landscape trees for each tree removed, as described in Section 13.30.080 of the Tree
Ordinance. Adherence to the provisions of the City of South San Francisco Tree
Ordinance would reduce the impact of cutting down eight protected trees on the
Project site to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
^ IMPACT 3: Potential Disturbance of Archaeological Resources. The Project site
is a previously disturbed, developed site where no known archaeological sites are
located. However, given that archaeological remains have been found in the Project's
vicinity, the presence of archaeological remains underneath the Project site cannot be
discounted. The Project could have a significant impact on any archaeological
remains discovered at the Project site.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 3: Monitoring of Grading Process. A certified
archaeologist shall be present at the Project site during the initial grading process to
monitor grading activities and ensure the protection and preservation of any
archaeological resources discovered at the Project site. This-would reduce the impact
of the Project on archaeological resources to a level of less than significant with
mitigation.
^ IMPACT 4: Adverse Effects of Seismic Related Ground Shaking. The proposed
Cell Genesys Development would be occupied by Cell Genesys staff, who could be
exposed to adverse effects related to seismic ground shaking. This would be a
potentially significant impact of the Project.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 4: Adherence to Geotechnical Engineering
Recommendations. Treadwell and Rollo judge the soil and bedrock conditions at the
Project site to be suitable from a geotechnical standpoint for the proposed
construction, provided that their recommendations are incorporated into the Project
plans and implemented during construction. Their recommendations are the
following:
Site Preparation and Grading. Grading operations should commence after
demolition and removal of the existing building, pavements, floor slabs and
underground utilities within the development area. Following demolition, all areas to
receive improvements should be stripped of vegetation and organic topsoil. The
pavement material, including asphalt, may be segregated from organic topsoil and used
as compacted fill, provided it meets the fill requirements presented in a subsequent
section of this report and is acceptable from an environmental standpoint. The
stripped organic soil can be stockpiled for later use in landscaped areas, if approved by
the architect. Organic topsoil should not be used as compacted fill.
The surface exposed by stripping should be scarified to a depth of at least six inches,
moisture-conditioned to above the optimum moisture content and compacted to at
least 90 percent relative compaction.12 If soft or loose soil is encountered, the
unsuitable material should be overexcavated and replaced with suitable fill material and
similarly compacted and moisture conditioned. The exposed ground surface should be
kept moist during subgrade preparation.
Select fill should consist of on-site or imported soil that is non-corrosive, free of
organic matter, contains no rocks or lumps larger than three inches in greatest
dimension, has a liquid limit less than 40 and plasticity index less than 12, and is
approved by the geotechnical engineer. In addition, the select fill should contain
between 10 and 25 percent fines (particles passing the No. 200 sieve to reduce
potential for surface water infiltration. It is likely the surface sand and gravel fill will
meet the select fill criteria. Based on the plasticity and liquid limit criteria, the near-
1z Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry
density of the same material, as determined by the ASTM D1557-91 laboratory compaction procedure.
surface residual soil is not expected to meet the criteria for select fill. A sample of the
on-site and import material to be used as select fill should be submitted to the
geotechnical engineer for testing at least three business days prior to use at the site.
Fill should be placed in horizontal layers not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness,
moisture-conditioned to above the optimum moisture content, and compacted as
presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS
LOCATION REQUIRED COMPACTION
(PERCENT)
MOISTURE REQUIREMENT`:.
Building pad -select fill 95+ Above optimum
General fill -native soil backfill 90 - 93 3% above optimum
General fill -select fill 90 + Above optimum
Utility trench -native soil backfill 90 - 93 3% above optimum
Utility trench -select fill 90 + Above optimum
Utility trench -clean sand or gravel 95 + Above optimum
AC pavement subgrade -native soil 95 Above optimum
AC pavement subgrade -select fill 95+ Above optimum
AC pavement -aggregate base 95+ Above optimum
Concrete paving Same as AC pavement Same as AC pavement
Concrete Flatwork -native soil 90 - 93 3% above optimum
Concrete Flatwork -select fill/AB 90+ Above optimum
Utility Trenches. Excavations for utility trenches can generally be made with a
backhoe. Despite careful site preparation, obstructions and hard rock may be
encountered rendering some of the trenching operations difficult. All trenches should
conform to the current CAL-OSHA requirements.
Backfill for utility trenches and other excavations is also considered fill, and should be
compacted according to the recommendations presented in Table 1. Special care
should be taken when backfilling utility trenches in pavement areas. Poor compaction
may cause excessive settlements, resulting in damage to the pavement section.
When necessary, trench excavations should be shored and braced to prevent cave-ins in
accordance with all safety regulations. Where sheet piling is used as shoring, and is to
be removed after backfilling, it should be placed a minimum of two feet away from the
pipes or conduits to prevent disturbance to them as the sheet piles are extracted.
Where trenches extend below the groundwater level, it will be necessary to
temporarily dewater them to allow for placement of the pipe and/or conduits, and
backfill.
To provide uniform support, pipes or conduits should be bedded on a minimum of
four inches of sand or fine gravel. After the pipes and conduits are tested, inspected (if
required) and approved, they should be covered to a depth of six inches with sand or
fine gravel, which should be mechanically tamped.
Building Foundations. Provided that settlement of up to 'k inch is acceptable, the
building may be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on native residual
soil (sandy clay) or the shale and sandstone bedrock. Individual spread footings should
be at least 36 inches square and continuous footings should be at least 24 inches wide
and bottomed in the residual soil or bedrock. All footings should be founded a
minimum of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent soil subgrade and 12 inches into
residual soil or bedrock. The footings may be designed for allowable bearing pressures
of 6,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads and 8,000 psf for total
design loads, including wind or seismic forces.
Lateral loads can be resisted by a combination of passive pressure on the vertical faces
of the footings and friction along the bases of the footings. Passive resistance may be
calculated using a rectangular distribution of 1,500 psf; the upper one-foot of soil
should be ignored unless it is confined by slabs or pavement. Frictional resistance
should be computed using a base friction coefficient of 0.35. If a waterproofing system
is used beneath the footings, the frictional resistance should be reduced to a value of
0.2. These values include a factor of safety of at least 1.5.
The footing excavations should be free of standing water, debris, and disturbed
materials prior to placing concrete. We should check the excavations prior to
placement of reinforcing steel to confirm the exposed residual soil or bedrock is
suitable to support the design bearing pressure. If loose soil or undesirable material is
encountered in the excavations, it should be removed and the overexcavation
backfilled with lean or structural concrete.
Concrete Slab-On-Grade. The slab-on-grade floor should be supported on at least 12
inches of select fill placed as described above in the Site Preparation and Grading
section.
As a minimum, a moisture barrier should be installed beneath the slab-on-grade floor.
The moisture barrier may be included as part of the select fill thickness. Atypical
moisture prevention barrier includes a capillary moisture break consisting of at least a
six-inch-thick layer of clean, free-draining gravel or crushed rock (1/2 to 3/a-inch
gradation) overlain by a moisture-proof membrane at least 10 millimeters thick. The
membrane should be covered with two inches of sand for protection against
puncturing or tearing during construction and to aid in curing the concrete slab. If
the previously compacted soil subgrade is disturbed during footing and utility
excavation, the subgrade should be re-compacted to provide a firm, unyielding surface
prior to placement of the capillary break material. The crushed rock and sand layers
should conform to the gradation requirements presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
GRADATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPILLARY BREAK AND SAND
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE. PASSING SIEVE
GRAVEL OR CRUSHED ROCK
1 inch 100
3/4 inch 30-75
1/2inch 5-10
3/flinch 0-2
SAND
No. 4 100
No. 200 0-5
If water vapor moving through the slab is considered detrimental, in lieu of the
moisture barrier, a waterproofing membrane should be installed. The membrane
should consist of apre-applied, self-adhering high-density polyethylene (HDPE).
Seismic Design. The buildings would be designed using the 1997 Uniform Building
Code (UBC). For design in accordance with the 1997 UBC, Treadwell & Rollo
recommend the following:
• Seismic Zone Factor 4
• Soil profile Type Ss
• Near Source Factors Na and N~ of 1.14 and 1.48, respectively.
Flexible Pavement Design. The State of California flexible pavement design method
was used to develop the recommended asphalt concrete pavement sections. The
geotechnical engineers expect the final soil subgrade in asphalt-paved areas would
generally consist of residual soil comprised of sandy clay. On the basis of laboratory
test results of this soil, Treadwell & Rollo selected an R-value of 20 for design. If the
existing subgrade would be raised in the paved areas, the fill material should have an
equivalent or higher R-value than the native soil. Additional R-value tests should be
performed on any proposed fill to verify its R-value. The pavement design may need
to be revised if material with an adequate R-value cannot be found.
Treadwell & Rollo presented design alternatives for three traffic indices (TI), 5.0, 5.5,
and 6.0. For comparison, a TI of 5.0 assumes passenger car traffic with occasional
trucks. Selection of the appropriate TI for design should be confirmed by the project
civil engineer. If additional traffic indexes (TIs) are required for the project, the
geotechnical engineers could assist the design team with the associated pavement
recommendations. Table 3 presents flexible pavement section recommendations for
the three TI values.
TABLE 3
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN
TRAFFIC
INDEX
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE.
INCHES CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE
R°= 78
INCHES
5.0 2.5 8.5
5.5 3.0 9.0
6.0 3.0 10.5
Pavement components should conform to the current Caltrans Standard
Specifications. The upper six inches of the soil subgrade in pavement areas should be
moisture-conditioned to above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least
95 percent relative compaction where either native soil or imported fill is exposed at
subgrade level. Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction.
To prevent irrigation water from entering the pavement section, vertical curbs
adjacent to landscaped areas should extend at least three inches into the underlying
clay.
Corrosivity Evaluation. Based on the resistivity measurements, 1,000 to 1,400 ohms-
cm, the soil samples tested are classified as "corrosive". _ All- buried iron, steel, cast iron,
ductile iron, galvanized steel and dielectric coated steel or iron placed at the site should
be properly protected against corrosion depending upon the critical nature of the
structures. In addition, all buried metallic pressure piping such as ductile iron
firewater pipelines should be protected against corrosion.
Both the chloride and sulfate ion concentrations, with ranges of none detected to 31
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 120 to 190 mg/kg, respectively, were determined
to be insufficient to attack steel embedded in a concrete mortar coating. The hydrogen
ion activity (pH) of the soil samples tested is not corrosive to buried iron, steel,
mortar-coated steel and reinforced concrete structures. The redox potential of the soil
samples tested indicates potentially "slightly corrosive" soils resulting from anaerobic
soil conditions.
Treadwell & Rollo should review the final foundation plans and specifications to
check that they are in general conformance with the intent of their recommendations.
They should observe fill placement and compaction, and perform field density test to
check that adequate fill compaction has been achieved. During construction, the
geotechnical engineers should observe the installation of the foundation system.
Footing excavations should be checked to verify the foundation soil and rock are as
anticipated. These observations would allow comparison of actual and anticipated soil
conditions, check that the contractor's work conforms to the geotechnical aspects of
the plans and specifications, and ensure that the building would perform as planned.
These mitigation measures would reduce the impact of seismic ground shaking to
people who would occupy the Cell Genesys Development to a level of less than
significant with mitigation.
^ IMPACT 5: Use, Transport and Disposal of Hazardous Materials. Normal Cell
Genesys operations at the Project site upon occupancy of the proposed buildings
would involve use, transport and disposal of materials that would be considered
hazardous if not handled appropriately. This would be a potentially signiftcant
impact of the Project.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 5: Adherence to Established Handling Protocols. The
proposed Project would adhere to the Uniform Building Code's regulations applicable
to office-type land uses. The use of potentially hazardous materials would follow
established safety protocols, and materials to be disposed of would be collected in
appropriate containers. These materials would then be transported away from the
Project site by licensed waste collection agencies. This would reduce the impact of use,
transport and disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant with
mitigation.
^ IMPACT 6: Asbestos Exposure. Excavation at the Project site during construction
of the proposed buildings could expose construction workers to asbestos. This would
be a potentially significant impact of the Project.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 6: Use of Health and Safety Plan. Based on the results
of asbestos testing, the bedrock that would be disturbed along the northern perimeter
of the Project site should be removed, stockpiled appropriately and sampled and tested
before off-site disposal. A health and safety plan should be written by the site
excavation contractor with contingencies if more asbestos is encountered. The plan
should include air and rock sampling and testing. This would reduce the impact of
asbestos exposure to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
^ IMPACT 7: Increased Erosion During Construction. The soils at the Project site
may be susceptible to erosion during construction activities when soils are disturbed.
This represents a potentially significant impact associated with the proposed Project.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 7: Erosion Control Measures. The applicant shall
submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control
Plan to the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any grading or construction
of the proposed Project. The SWPPP shall include storm water pollution control
devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm
drain system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval
of the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator.
The Project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of
all storm water quality measures, and for the implementation of such measures.
Failure to comply with the approved construction Best Management Practices (BMPs)
will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a project stop order.
Plans for the Project shall include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and
debris from entering the storm drain system, in accordance with the regulations
outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to
a level of less than significant with mitigation.
^ IMPACT 8: Inconsistency with East of 101 Area Plan. The Project as proposed
would be inconsistent with the following provision of East of 101 Area Plan policy
DE-56:
Parking Lot Trees: Cars should not be parked more than twelve in a row without
a planting island that contains at least one tree.
This inconsistency would be a potentially significant impact of the proposed Project.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 8: Parking Lot Reconfiguration. The proposed
Project parking lot shall be reconfigured in a way that conforms to all provisions of
East of 101 Area Plan policy DE-56. This would reduce the impact to a level of less
than significant with mitigation.
^ IMPACT 9: Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in
temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. This
would represent a potentially significant impact associated with Project development.
Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of
construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for
certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 9: Limitation of Construction Hours/Noise
Abatement. There are no existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity that
would be affected by project-generated construction noise. However, neighboring
businesses would be subjected to high noise levels during site preparation and
construction. Although the highest noise levels would be generated by rock drills and
pile drivers (which can generate noise peaks of approximately 98 and 101 dBA at 50
feet, respectively), such equipment would not be used for this project. If noise controls
are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85
dBA at 25 feet, depending on the type of equipment. Assuming construction noise
levels comply with the 90-dBA noise limit and hourly restrictions specified in the City
Noise Ordinance, construction-related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of less
than significant with mitigation.
^ IMPACT 10: Blocked Sight Lines. Access to the Project site would be provided via
one driveway connection to Forbes Boulevard about 25 feet from the east end of the
Project frontage and one driveway connection to Allerton Avenue about 25 feet from
the south end of the Project frontage. At the Forbes Boulevard driveway intersection
the sight line to the west to see eastbound traffic is about 450 feet, while the sight line
to the east to see westbound traffic is greater than 500 feet. However, the height of the
berm and landscaping in the two 75-foot-long raised medians just east of the proposed
site driveway along Forbes Boulevard could partially block sight lines between drivers
leaving the Project site and westbound traffic on Forbes Boulevard, particularly for
cars riding low to the ground. This would be a potentially significant impact of the
Project.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 10: Berm Height Reduction. The height of the berm
in the two median islands along Forbes Boulevard should be reduced just east of the
proposed Project driveway. Landscaping should be replaced as required. This would
reduce the impact of blocked sight lines to a level of less than significant with
mitigation.
^ IMPACT 11: Forbes Boulevard Median. Figure 6 of the traffic analysis included as
Appendix B shows that a 75 foot-long landscaped median is in place along Forbes
Boulevard at the location of the proposed Project driveway. The driveway and/or the
island's location would preclude direct left turn movements to/from the Project
driveway and would result in a significant number of U-turns at either end of the
island. This would create significant traffic safety and operational concerns as Project
drivers would slow to conduct U-turns in the higher speed through travel lanes of
Forbes Boulevard. In addition, the island's 12-foot width would not be great enough
to provide refuge for the entire length of most U-turning vehicles. This would be a
potentially significant impact of the Project.
^ MITIGATION MEASURE 11: Street Re-Configuration. The raised median along
Forbes Boulevard at the location of the proposed Project driveway should be removed.
In addition, a continuous two-way left turn lane should be striped that would extend
easterly from the Project driveway to serve the existing driveway on the adjacent
property about 50 feet to the east. This would reduce the impact to a level of less than
significant with mitigation.
APPENDIX B
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
CELL GENESYS
R&D OFFICE BUILDING
IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
August 2, 2001
Prepared For: City of South San Francisco
Prepared By: Crane Transportation Group
545 Burnett Avenue, Suite 101
San Francisco, California 94131
(415) 282-9656
I. INTRODUCTION
This report details the circulation impacts due to the proposed 154,000-square-foot Cell Genesys
biotechnology office complex to be located on the southeast corner of the Forbes Boulevazd/
Allerton Avenue intersection in South San Francisco. Existing, existing + approved
development (Base Case) and Base Case + project AM and PM peak hour operating conditions
have been evaluated at major intersections near the project site. In addition, safety and
operations evaluation has been conducted at each proposed project driveway connection to
Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue.
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Both the Forbes Boulevazd/Allerton Avenue and Forbes Boulevazd/Eccles Avenue
intersections aze currently operating at acceptable levels of service during AM and PM
peak hour traffic conditions. Both intersections would maintain acceptable operation
with the addition of traffic from approved local azea developments (Base Case
conditions). This assumes programmed signalization of the Forbes Boulevazd/Eccles
Avenue intersection by the end of 2002. The Forbes Boulevazd/Allerton Avenue
intersection would not have Base Case volumes meeting peak hour signal wanrant criteria
levels.
2. The proposed Cell Genesys project would be expected to generate 83 inbound and 17
outbound AM peak hour trips, with 14 inbound and 79 outbound PM peak hour trips.
These projections assume no significant TDM program in operation.
3. All major intersections along Forbes Boulevazd neaz the project site would maintain
acceptable AM and PM peak hour operation with the addition of project traffic to Base
Case volumes. The Forbes Boulevazd/Allerton Avenue intersection would not have Base
Case volumes increased to meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels with the addition
of project traffic.
4. The project's proposed Forbes Boulevard driveway would experience operational and
safety concerns. An existing 75-foot-long raised median island would block direct left
turn in and outbound access at the proposed driveway location. This would result in
numerous U-turn movements at either end of the island by project traffic. In addition,
berms and landscaping in two median islands along Forbes Boulevazd just east of the
proposed driveway could restrict sight lines between westbound drivers on Forbes
Boulevazd and drivers exiting the project site.
No significant operational or safety concerns would be expected at the project's proposed
Allerton Avenue driveway.
8/16/01 CTG Page 1
Cell Genesys
6. Recommended improvements aze as follows:
A) Base Case (Without Project) Conditions:
Provide a left turn deceleration lane on the westbound Forbes Boulevazd
approach to Allerton Avenue. This would require removal of the 75-foot-long
raised median that starts about 30 feet east of the Allerton Avenue
intersection.
B) Project
Remove the raised median along Forbes Boulevazd at the location of the
proposed project driveway. In addition, stripe a continuous two-way-left turn
lane extending easterly from the project driveway to serve the existing
driveway on the adjacent property (about 50 feet to the east).
Reduce the height of the berms and landscaping in the two median islands
along Forbes Boulevard just east of the proposed project driveway. Replace
landscaping as required.
III. SETTING
This section describes the existing circulation system that will serve the proposed Cell Genesys
project.
A. ROADWAYS
The project site is served directly by Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue. Additional local
area access is also provided by Eccles Avenue-see Figure 1. Each roadway is briefly described
below while a schematic presentation of intersection approach lanes and intersection control are
presented in Figure 2.
Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane roadway running in a general east-west direction along the north
side of the project site. Each travel lane is 12 feet wide. It has a raised landscaped median with
median breaks at intersections and driveways. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour and
on-street parking is prohibited (nor is there room for on-street parking within the existing lane
widths). Forbes Boulevazd is all-way-stop controlled at Eccles Avenue, but is not signal or stop
sign controlled on the approaches to Allerton Avenue. Left turn deceleration lanes aze not
provided on the approaches to Allerton Avenue or driveways in the vicinity of the project site.
Curb, gutter and sidewalk are provided along the north side of the street while curb and gutter
only are provided on the south (project) side of the street.
Allerton Avenue is a two-lane, 40-foot-wide roadway extending southerly from Forbes
Boulevazd for about half a mile before ending at East Grand Avenue. The Allerton Avenue
approaches to both Forbes Avenue and East Grand Avenue aze stop sign controlled while the
8/16/01 CTG Page 2
Cell Genesys
posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. Curb, gutter and sidewalk are provided along the west
side of the street while curb and gutter only aze provided along the east (project) side of the
street. Left turn lanes are not provided on the approach to any intersection or driveway. On-
street parking is prohibited along both sides of the street in the vicinity of the project.
Eccles Avenue is atwo-lane, 40-foot-wide roadway extending northerly from Forbes Boulevazd
for about half a mile to a connection with Oyster Point Boulevazd. It has anal]-way-stop
intersection with Forbes Boulevazd and a signalized intersection with Oyster Point Boulevazd. A
single track industrial spur railroad line extends through the Eccles Avenue/Forbes Boulevazd
intersection.
B. VOLITMES
Weekday AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM) vehicle, pedestrian and
bicycle counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group on June 27, 2001 at the Forbes
Boulevard/Allerton Avenue and Forbes Boulevazd/Eccles Avenue intersections. The peak hours
were determined to be 7:45 to 8:45 AM and 4:45to 5:45 PM. Resultant AM and PM peak hour
traffic volumes aze presented in Figure 3. Only minor levels of pedestrians and bike riders were
observed at either intersection during either survey period. During the two-hour AM peak period
seven bike riders passed through both the Forbes Boulevazd/Allerton Avenue and Forbes
Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersections, while only one pedestrian crossed Forbes Boulevard at
Allerton Avenue. During the two-hour PM peak period six bike riders passed through the Forbes
Boulevazd/Allerton Avenue intersection while 13 bike riders passed through the Forbes
BoulevazdlEccles Avenue intersection. Only one pedestrian crossed Forbes Boulevazd at
Allerton Avenue during the PM peak period.
C. INTERSECTION OPERATION
1. Analysis Methodology
Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, aze
almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized
intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a
grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating
uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant
congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also
associated with an average vehicle delay tabulation (1994 Highway Capacity Manual [HCM]
operations method) at each intersection. The vehicle delay designation allows a more detailed
examination of the impacts of a particular project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/delay
relationship is provided in the Appendix.
Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using
the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections aze
determined using a methodology outlined in the 1994 update of the Highway Capacity Manual
(TRB Circular 209). Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS
designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average vehicle delay values aze also
8/l6/0l CTG Page 3
Cell Genesys
calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled are also evaluated using the
LOS and delay scales using a methodology outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual.
However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and delay designations
pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay
designations aze computed for stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through
movements rather than for the entire intersection. The Appendix provides greater detail about
unsignalized analysis methodologies.
2. Standards
The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest
acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections and LOS E to be the poorest
acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has no
standazds for turn movements from private driveways.
3. Existing Operating Conditions
Table 1 shows that currently the all-way-stop Forbes Boulevazd/Eccles Avenue intersection is
operating at acceptable levels of service during both commute periods (LOS C during both the
AM and PM peak traffic hours). At the Forbes Boulevazd/Allerton Avenue intersection,
movements from the stop sign controlled Allerton Avenue approach aze also operating
acceptably during both commute periods (LOS B during both the AM and PM peak traffic
hours).
D. INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION REQUIREMENTS
Traffic signals are used to provide an orderly flow of traffic through an intersection. Many times
they aze needed to offer side street traffic an opportunity to access a major road where high
volumes and/or high vehicle speeds block crossing or turn movements. They do not, however,
increase the capacity of an intersection (i.e., increase the overall intersection's ability to
accommodate additional vehicles) and, in fact, often slightly reduce the number of total vehicles
that can pass through an intersection in a given period of time. Signals can also cause an
increase in traffic accidents if installed at inappropriate locations.
There are 11 possible tests for determining whether a traffic signal should be considered for
installation. These tests, called "warrants", consider criteria such as actual traffic volume,
pedestrian volume, presence of school children, and accident history. Usually, two or more
warrants must be met before a signal is installed. In this report, the test for Peak Hour Volumes
(Warrant #11) has been applied. When Warrant 11 is met there is a strong indication that a
detailed signal warrant analysis covering all possible warrants is appropriate. These rigorous
analyses are described in Chapter 9 of the Caltrans Traffic.Manual_ while Warrant 11 is presented
in the Appendix of this report.
Currently, neither the Forbes Boulevazd/Allerton Avenue nor the Forbes Boulevazd/Eccles
Avenue intersections have AM or PM peak hour volumes meeting peak hour signal warrant
criteria levels.
8/16/01 CTG Page 4
Cell Genesys
8/16/01 CTG Page 5
Cell Genesys
E. OBSERVED SAFETY CONCERNS
The Forbes Boulevazd pavement is deteriorated in several locations. In addition,
uneven pavement covering past trenching in the eastbound and westbound curb travel
lanes creates uncomfortable driving conditions and a safety hazazd for bicycle riders.
The lack of an exclusive left turn lane on the Forbes Boulevazd westbound approach
to Allerton Avenue increases the chances for rear-end accidents between a vehicle
slowing or stopped waiting to turn left and a higher speed through vehicle. The wide
median break along Forbes Boulevard at this location does, however, provide an
informal storage (refuge) azea for turning vehicles.
F. PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
Forbes Boulevard is planned to be repaved by the end of August, 2001' and the Forbes
Boulevazd/Eccles Avenue intersection is programmed to be signalized by the end of 2002.2
IV. EXISTING + APPROVED DEVELOPMENT (BASE CASE) OPERATING
CONDITIONS
A. VOLUMES
AM and PM peak hour trip generation and distribution projections were developed for currently
approved or under construction developments in South San Francisco to the east of the U.S.101
freeway. Approved projects and their expected trip generation aze presented in Table 2. Both
trip rates and regional distribution patterns applied to each approved development aze contained
in the Apri12001 Draft Supplemental EIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment
and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. At the request of City Planning staff, peak
hour trip generation from each approved project has been reduced by 35% to reflect
implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures.3 Resultant existing +
approved development (Base Case) AM and PM peak hour volumes aze presented in Figure 4.
B. INTERSECTION OPERATION
' Mr. Steve Carlson, South San Francisco Planning Department.
2 Mr. Richard Harmon, South San Francisco Public Works Department.
3 Measures could include (but not be limited to) provision of bicycle lockers and racks as
well as showers and changing rooms, operation of a shuttle to BART and Caltrain, subsidizing
transit tickets for employees, creation of preferential pazking for caz and vanpoolers,
implementation of a vanpool program, facilitating employee telecommuting, flexible work hours,
provision of child caze services, etc.
8/16/01 CTG Page 6
Cell Genesys
For Base Case analysis purposes, the Forbes Boulevazd/Eccles Avenue intersection has been
assumed signalized. Table 1 shows that a signalized Forbes Boulevazd/Eccles Avenue
intersection would operate at good levels of service with Base Case volumes (LOS A during both
the AM and PM peak traffic hours). At the Forbes Boulevazd/Allerton Avenue intersection, the
stop sign controlled Allerton Avenue approach would continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service during both commute periods (LOS B during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours).
Volumes at this location would not be increased to meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels
with the addition of approved development traffic.
V. PROJECT IMPACTS
A. TRIP GENERATION
Table 3 shows that the Cell Genesys 154,000 squaze feet of reseazch and development (in two
buildings) would be expected to generate 83 inbound and 17 outbound trips during the AM peak
hour, with 14 inbound and 79 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. These projections are
based upon trip rates from existing research and development facilities in the East of 101 azea
and do not include any significant reduction in peak hour trip generation due to TDM measures.
Should Cell Genesys develop a significant TDM program and reach the City's desired goal of 35
percent reduction in peak hour traffic, trip generation would be reduced to 54 inbound and 11
outbound trips during the AM peak hour with 9 inbound and 52 outbound trips during the PM
peak hour.
B. TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Project traffic was distributed to the subregional roadway network based upon East of 101
development traffic patterns contained in the Apri12001 Draft SEIR for the South San Francisco
General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance. Overall, about 62 percent of
project traffic should be destined to/from south and southwest of the site, with 38 percent
destined to/from the north and northwest. However, it is likely that some project drivers destined
to/from the south on the U.S. 101 freeway would choose to access the freeway via Oyster Point
Boulevazd, which is north of the site. Project traffic is shown distributed to the local roadway
network with Base Case volumes in Figure 4 for AM and PM peak hour conditions, while
Figure 5 presents expected project traffic turn movements at each of the site driveways.
C. INTERSECTION IMPACTS
Table 1 shows that a signalized Forbes Boulevazd/Eccles Avenue intersection would continue to
operate at good levels of service with Base Case + project volumes (LOS A during both the AM
and PM peak traffic hours). Project traffic would increase average vehicle delay about two-
tenths of a second during the AM peak hour and not produce a measurable change in delay
during the PM peak hour. At the Forbes Boulevazd/Allerton Avenue intersection, the stop sign
controlled Allerton Avenue approach would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service
during both commute periods (LOS B during the AM peak hour and changing from LOS B to an
acceptable LOS C during the PM peak hour). The Forbes Boulevazd/Allerton Avenue
8/16/0] CTG Page 7
Cell Genesys
intersection would not have volumes increased to meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels
with the addition of project traffic to Base Case volumes.
D. ACCESS IMPACTS
Sight Lines
Access to the project site would be provided via one driveway connection to Forbes Boulevard
(about 25 feet from the east end of the project frontage) and one driveway connection to Allerton
Avenue (about 25 feet from the south end of the project frontage). At the Forbes Boulevard
driveway intersection the sight line to the west (to see eastbound traffic) is about 450 feet, while
the sight line to the east (to see westbound traffic) is greater than 500 feet. However, the height
of the berm and landscaping in the two (75-foot-long) raised medians just east of the proposed
site driveway along Forbes Boulevard could partially block sight lines between drivers leaving
the project site and westbound traffic on Forbes Boulevard (particularly for cars riding low to the
ground). This would create traffic safety concerns.
At the Allerton Avenue driveway, the sight line to the north extends about 375 feet to the Forbes
Boulevard intersection, while the sight line to the south extends more than 500 feet.
Observed vehicle speeds on Forbes Boulevard ranged as high as 45 miles per hour. An
acceptable stopping sight distance at this speed is 360 feet.4 Along Allerton Avenue, observed
speeds ranged as high as 40 miles per hour. An acceptable stopping sight distance at this speed
is 305 feet. Therefore, sight lines at both driveways should be adequate, with the concern
detailed above that the height of the two raised medians along Forbes Boulevard just east of the
project driveway could partially block sight lines for low riding vehicles.
2. Forbes Boulevard Median
Figure 6 shows that a 75-foot-long landscaped median is in place along Forbes Boulevard at the
location of the proposed project driveway. The driveway and/or the island's location would
preclude direct left turn movements to/from the project driveway and would result in a
significant number of U-turns at either end of the island. This would create significant traffic
safety and operational concerns as project drivers would be slowing to conduct U-turns in the
higher speed through travel lanes of Forbes Boulevard. Also, the island's 12-foot width would
not be great enough to provide refuge for the entire length of most U-turning vehicles.
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
A. BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) CONDITIONS
4 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fourth Edition, AASHTO,
2001.
8/16/01 CTG Page 8
Cell Genesys
• Provide a left turn deceleration lane on the westbound Forbes Boulevard
approach to Allerton Avenue. This would require removal of the 75-foot-long
raised median that starts about 30 feet east of the Allerton Avenue
intersection.
B. PROJECT
Remove the raised median along Forbes Boulevard at the location of the
proposed project driveway. In addition, stripe a continuous two-way-left turn
lane extending easterly from the project driveway to serve the existing
driveway on the adjacent property (about 50 feet to the east).
Reduce the height of the berms and landscaping in the two median islands
along Forbes Boulevard just east of the proposed project driveway. Replace
landscaping as required.
8/16/01 CTG Page 9
Cell Genesys
Not To Scale'
~~
NORTH
Cell Genesys Tragic Study
--, Figure 1
Area Map
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Not To Scale
~O
NORTH
Q
V
W Parking
Lot
'~~
-r Forbes Blvd r
~<<
Parking :~:<>:<::;:«::::
~
Lot ........P.R~OJECT
Q
SITE
-r =Stop Sign
Q
Cell Genesys Traffic Study
--~ Figure 2
Existing Lane Geometrics
and Intersection Control
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP ~
Not/To~Sple
V
Nonni
~m
Q
'~ 50
60 0 103 ~- 140
0
130 ~ ,1
710-~ 0 0 0
1 ~.
Forbes Blvd
'~ s
3 0 0 <--- 130
45
16~ -__
540 -~ 20 O 46
PROJECT
SITE
AM Peak Hour
(7:45-8:45)
Q
~'
W
'~ 215
130 0 45 E- 520
~- 1
Forbes Blvd
'~ 7
11 1 2 F- 430
~~~ ~ 45 _
90 ,' ~~~
235--?- q 6 0
0
PM Peak Hour
(4:45-5:45)
Cell Ger~esys Traffic Study
--~ Figure 3
Existing Volumes
AM & PM Peak Hour -June 27, 2001
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Not/To~Scale
V
NORTH
~~
Q
~I
U
W
® '~ 56 ® '~ 8
67 0 147 E- 1 ~ ® 3 0 0 ~- 139
0 Forbes Blvd ~ ~ ~ ~ 8502
130 ~~~
®0 745-~ 0 0 0
1 ~.
AM Peak Hour
(7:45-8:45)
`~~~~~~~ =Project Site
`:
3 -Base Case (Existing + Approved Projects)
03 .Project Increment (Without TDM Program)
m
Q
~l
2 '~ 258 19
132 0 1409 E- 555 18
I ~ 1 Fnrhnc Rlvr~
95 ~ ~~~
03 240 4 6 0
0 ~.
PM Peak Hour
(4:45-5:45)
Cell Genesys Traffic Study
16~
O ~ ~ ~
14 576 _~ . 27 0 56
,_.:.
14 77 ~, •,4®
PROJECT
SITE
'~ 7
T
1 l 1 2 ~- 467 19
~~~ ~ 49
3 ~ ~ `~
3 201 ~• ~ ~ ~ `'
:> 77 0 101'•.::
28 ~, _> 18 02 l{
e t~.PROJ~EC
r SITE
-~ Figure 4
Base Case and Project Volumes
AM & PM Peak Hour
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Q
O •~ 402 F- 4 20
E- 4 ~ Forbes Blvd I ~ 2 0_
...:
13 20 -~ `~;~~~,
09 14 ,j 4 w...ti :~w~....
_ Project Site
3 .Without TDM Program
~ . 35% reduction due to TDM Program
AM Peak Hour
(7:45-8:45)
~m
Q
~I
U
W
tL 1s t2
(~ t-- 18 12
20 3 -~
~ 1s 12
Forbes Blvd
Project Site
3 =Without TDM Program
Q . 35% reduction due to TDM Program
PM Peak Hour
(4:45-5:45)
Cell Genesys Traffic Study
Not To Scale
~O
NORTH
-~ Figure 5
Project Trip Generation
~ AM & PM Peak Hour
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
~ ~ 75~ ~. ~ ~ f- 75' -~ ~ ~ •--- 75' ' ~
Q
0
m
Q
I
I ~ ~ ~ I
_.:>:;
Forbes Blvd
285'
PROJECT SITE
= Raised Median Islands
Cell Genesys Traffic Study
28y '~ If --
25 125
Proposed ' ~
to Existing
Driveway
Project
~m~
Driveway
I~
0
I=
.Q
-' Figure 6
Existing Medians Along Project's
Forbes Boulevard Frontage
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP J
Table 1
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING + APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT BASE CASE +
INTERSECTION EXISTING BASE CASE PROJECT*
Forbes Blvd./Eccles Ave. C-17.2~'~ A-9.5~2~ A-9.7
Forbes Blvd./Allerton Ave. B-7.4~3~ B-9.4 B-9.9
PM PEAK AniTR
EXISTING + APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT BASE CASE +
INTERSECTION EXISTING ASE CASE PROJECT*
Forbes Blvd./Eccles Ave. C-18.4"~ A-8.9~Z~ A-8.9
Forbes Blvd./Allerton Ave. B-6.6'3 B-9.2 C-11.2
* Assumes no reduced project trip generation due to TDM measwes.
~'~ All way stop level of service-average vehicle delay in seconds.
'Z~ Signalized level ofservice-average vehicle delay in seconds.
(3) Unsignalized level of service-average vehicle delay in seconds. Allerton Avenue stop sign controlled approach to Forbes
Boulevard.
1994 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodology.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Table 2
TRIP GENERATION
APPROVED PROJECTS THAT MAY CONTRIBUTE TRAFFIC
TO FORBES BOULEVARD, ALLERTON AVENUE AND ECCLES AVENUE
NEAR THE CELL GENESYS PROJECT
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND
PROJECT SIZE RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL
Genentech Bldg. 6 120,000 SQ.FT. .54 65 .11 13 .09 11 .51 61
(East end Forbes Blvd.) R&D
Genentech Bldg. 7 90,000 SQ.FT. .54 49 .11 10 .09 8 .51 46
(East end Forbes Blvd.) R&D
Founders Research Center 287,444 SQ.FT. .54 155 .11 32 .09 26 .51 147
(East end Forbes Blvd.) R&D
Gateway Tech Center Bldg. 3 50,000 SQ.FT. .54 27 .11 6 .09 5 .51 26
(Forbes Blvd. near East Grand) R&D
Sand Hill Property Company 200,000 SQ.FT. .92 184 .13 26 .16 32 .80 160
(345 East Gtand Ave.) Office
Britannia East 785,000 SQ.FT. .72 565 .13 102 .12 94 .66 518
(East end of East Grand Ave.) OfficelR&D
8,000 SQ.FT. 6.7 54 6.0 48 6.2 50 7.0 56
Child Care
5,000 SQ.FT. .14 1 .16 ] 2.62 13 1.68 9
Fitness Center
5,000 SQ.FT. .60 3 .21 1 5.02 25 2.47 12
Restaurant
3,000 SQ.FT. .72 2 .48 2 1.8 6 1.8 6
Retail
Peak hour trip rates do not include any reduction due to TDM measures.
Project List Source: City of South San Francisco Planning Department.
Trip Rate Source: Draft SEIR South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April
2001.
Compiled b}~• Crane Transportation Group
Table 3
TRIP GENERATION
CELL GENESYS
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRII'S
INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND
USE SIZE RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL
Biotechnology Office 154,000 SQ.FT. .54 83 .11 17 .09 14 .51 79
With 35% Reduction in Peak Hour Trips Due to
TDM Pro m 54 11 9 52
Trip Rate Sowce: Draft SEIR, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April
2001.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
DESCRIPTION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR
MINOR MOVEMENTS AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Average Total Delay (seconds per vehicle)
A s5
g > 5 and s 10
C > 10 and < ZO
D > 20 ands 30
g > 30 ands 45
F > 45
Total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle
departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position
to the first-in-queue position.
Source: 1994 Highway Capacity Manual
ALL-WAY STOP LEVEL OF SERVICE -AVERAGE DELAY RELATIONSHIP
Level of Service
Average Total Delay (seconds per vehicle)
A s5
B > 5 and s 10
C > 10 and < 20
D > 20 ands 30
g > 30 ands 45
p > 45
Total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle
departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position
to the first-in-queue position.
Source: 1994 Highway Capacity Manual
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINTfIONS
Level of Service
Description
p Very low delay, less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. Progression is extremely
favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not
stop at all. Short cycle lengths contribute to low delay.
B Delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. Good progression and/or
short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop causing higher levels of average delay.
C Delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. Fair progression and/or
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures, resulting in drivers having to wait
through more than one red signal indication, begin to appear. The number of
vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through the intersection
without stopping.
D Delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. The influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. Unfavorable progression, long cycle
lengths, or high volumes. Many vehicles stop, the proportion of vehicles not
stopping declines. Individual cycle failures noticeable.
E Delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. The limit of acceptable
delay. Poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Individual cycle
failures are frequent.
F Delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. Unacceptable to most drivers.
Oversaturation, arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many
individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths.
Source: 1994 Highway Capacity Manual
9.14 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
s-»s~
Figure 9-8
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Urban Areas)
600
x
'. 500
x
F- U
p 400
y a
a
o W 300
z ~
~ ~
0 200
x
c~
= 100
0
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
I I I ~ I ~}-2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) I
~ I OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -VPH
4
* NOTE:
150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
~;
This Report is intended for presentation and use in its entirety, together with all of its supporting
exhibits, schedules, and appendices. Crane Transportation Group will have no liability for any use
of the Report other than in its entirety, such as providing an excerpt to a third party or quoting a
portion of the Report. If you provide a portion of the Report to a third party, you agree to hold CTG
harmless against any liability to such third parties based upon their use of or reliance upon a less than
complete version of the Report.