Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEast of 101 Area Plan II. Existing Conditions ReportEAST OF 101 AREAPLAN II. Existing Conditions Report East of 101 Area Plan Existing Conditions Report TABLE OF CONTENTS ^ ^ 1. Introduction 1 2. Executive Summary 5 3. Policy and Regulations 15 4. Existing and Planned Land Uses 39 5. Visual and Design Factors 57 6. Population, Employment and Housing 85 7. Jubs/Housing Baance 95 3. ^iscal Factors 1G9 9. Transportation and Circulation 111 10. Noise 163 11. Hazardous Materials 179 12. Geotechnical Factors 197 13. Biologic Resources 217 14. Infrastructure 237 15. Municipal and Retail Services 247 16. Open Space and Recreation 263 17. Climate 269 18. Air Quality 273 19. Water Quality 281 20. Cultural Resources 293 II-i EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS MAY 1993 Fi ures 1. Study Area Location 2 2. Landmarks in the Study Area 3 3. City General Plan Land Use Designations 16 4. City Zoning Designations 24 5. Redevelopment Areas 27 6. ALUC Height Restrictions for San Francisco International Airport 32 7. BCDC Land Use Policies in the East of 101 Area 35 8. Parcels with Low Improvement to Land Ratios 41 9. Locations of Biotech and Medical Firms 42 10. Locations of Air Transportation Firms 43 11. Land Use Analysis Zones 45 12. Vacant Parcels and Residual Open Space in the Study Area 51 13. Visual Features of the Study Area 59 14. Photograph Locations 67 15. Photographs of the Study Area 68 16. Photographs of the Study Area 69 17. Photographs of the Study Area 70 18. Photographs of the Study Area 71 19. Photographs of the Study Area 72 20. Photographs of the Study Area 73 21. Photographs of the Study Area 74 22. Views from the Area 75 23. Local Roadway System and Key Intersections 113 24. Existing Intersection Lane Geometrics 117 25. Existing Intersection Volumes (AM Peak Hour) 119 26. Existing Intersection Volumes (PM Peak Hour) 121 27. Year 2000 Baseline Roadway System 131 28. Year 2000 Baseline Intersection Lane Geometrics 133 29. Year 2000 Baseline Intersection Volumes (AM Peak Hour) 139 30. Year 2000 Baseline Intersection Volumes (PM Peak Hour) 141 31. Parcels with Low Parking Ratios 148 32. Public Transportation 150 33. Bicycle Facilities 155 34. Pedestrian Facilities 156 35. Summary of Annoyance Data from Airports 165 36. San Francisco International Airport Generalized Flight Tracks 169 37. Noise Measurement Locations and Contours 173 38. Maximum Aircraft Sound Levels at Site F 175 39. Known Hazardous Materials Sites 185 40. Study Area Geology 200 II-ii MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 41. Major Active Faults in the Bay Area 201 42. Major Historic Seismic Events in the Bay Area 205 43. Known Geotechnical Hazards in the Study Area 209 44. Sensitive Biological Resources 221 45. Existing Water Lines in the Study Area 239 46. Existing Sanitary Sewers in the Study Area 241 47. Study Area Watersheds 248 48. Existing Storm Drains in the Study Area 250 49. Major Existing Gas and Electric Lines in the Study Area 255 50. Fire and Emergency Service Areas 258 51. Municipal and Retail Services 263 52. Open Space and Recreation Resources 268 53. Historic Locations of Study Area Industries 299 54. Historic Photos of the Study Area 301 55. Historic Photos of the Study Area 302 Tables 1. Land Uses in the Study Area 40 2. Population and Household Trends for South San Francisco, Sail Mateo County, and the State 86 3. Household Incom:. Distribution .or 1990 Households {a) 89 4. South San Francisco Local Employment by Major Sector, 1980-1990 39 5. Distributiur. ui Lnits by Structure T-pe by Tenure, lySO 91 6. Self-Reported Owner-Occupied Housing Values and Contract Rents, 1990 93 7. South San Francisco Employee Place of Residence 98 8. Income Distribution of Existing Worker Households and Affordable Housing Costs 101 9. Comparison of Home Sale Prices with Affordable Home Prices 102 10. Occupational Distribution of Workers 106 11. Highway 101 Impacts from Baseline Peak Hour Traffic Opertions 114 12. Intersection Levels of Service Under Existing Conditions 124 13. East of 101 Employee Residence Locations 126 14. Intersection Levels of Service Under Baseline Conditions 128 15. Approved Developments 132 16. Trip Generation Estimates for Approved Developments 136 17. Excess Baseline Capacity at East of 101 Gateway Intersections 143 18. Sample Parking Demand and Supply Rates by Land Use 147 19. Compatible Noise Levels of Specific Uses 166 20. Noise Monitoring Locations and Measured Noise Levels 174 21. Generalized Comparison of Site Cleanup Issues 183 22. Reported Hazardous Material Sites 193 II-iii EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 23. Reported Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 195 24. Summary of Regional Fault Characteristics 202 25. Number of Predicted Species of Terrestrial Vertebrates Within the Major Habitats of the Project Area 224 26. Wildlife Species With the Potential of Occurring in the Study Area 225 27. Wildlife Habitats and Corresponding Plant Communities Occurring in the Study Area 227 28. Rare and Endangered Plants of the San Francisco South Quadrangle 231 29. Special Status Animals Identified as Potentially Occurring in the Study Area 234 30. Average Daily Sewage Flows 243 31. Contracted Sewage Capacity 244 32. Future Peak Sewage Treatment Demands 245 33. Pollutant Data Summary for San Francisco 278 34. California Water Service Company Water Quality Report, 1991 292 35. South San Francisco/San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant Water Quality, 1992 295 36. Summary of Wastewater Quality Combined Discharge, 1992 295 II-iv Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ^ ^ This report presents an overview of the physical and environmental conditions in and around the East of 101 Study Area in South San Francisco. The findings in this document are intended to complement the results of the accompanying Market Conditions Report on the existing and projected real estate market in the area. In combination, these two reports present a comprehensive compilation of baseline conditions in the Study Area which will form the basis for completing a series of land use alternatives, and ultimately, an Area Plan. A. About the Study Area The study area, whose loc-:tior. ii shown in Figure 1, ~s bounded by the San Fran.:is;.o Bav ot: the e~st side, US Highway 101 and rail lines on *_he west, the City of Brisuane en the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The study area is mostly developed and has a mix of land uses, including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development facilities. Historically, the area was used for stockyards, meat packing, paint and steel production, and warehousing. The area includes a number of developments, redevelopment areas and Specific Plan areas which have been proposed and developed to a varying degree and with varying success. The Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park and Homart's Gateway Projects were developed in the northern portion of the study area in the 1960s through the 1980s. Smaller planned office parks have been developed on 5 to 20 acre parcels. In the southern portion of the area, the South San Francisco Industrial Park was developed by Utah Construction Company in the 1950s and early 1960s. In general, the southern portion of the study area is less maintained than the northern area, and contains larger manufacturing facilities, some in older and less attractive buildings. However, the southern portion of the study area is more built out than the northern portion. Landmark developments and sites are illustrated in Figure 2. II-1 Nor ro sc~« EAST OF 1 O1 AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 1 Study Area Location MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLATY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT INTRODUCTION Although it is largely developed, the study area includes the majority of the significant undeveloped parcels in South San Francisco. The key vacant parcels include the Koll site, the Shearwater site, the Haskins site, portions of the Gateway site, and portions of the Oyster Point Specific Plan area. The Area Plan will result in land use policies for these vacant parcels, based on the findings of this existing conditions report. B. Organization of Phis Report The first phase in creating the East of 101 Area Plan is to analyze the existing conditions of the Study Area and create potential development alternatives. This portion of the document, entitled the Existing Conditions Report for the East of 101 Area Plan, documents the study area's existing conditions and the opportunities and constraints for levels, types and locations of further development. The issues documented in this portion of the report as they relate to the Area Plan are: • Policy and Regulatory Factors • Exiscirg and Planned Land Us:, • Visual and Design F3Ctors • Population, ?rmploymeni and Hosing • JobslHousing Balance • Fiscal Factors • Transportation and Circulation • Noise • Hazardous Materials • Geotechnical Factors • Biologic Resources • Infrastucture • Municipal and Retail Services • Open Space and Recreation • Climate • Air Qualtty • Water Quality • Cultural Resources This portion of the report will facilitate the development of the Area Plan, which will create an economic development strategy and a land use vision that will ensure the economic and functional vitality of the area and the City. The Area Plan will propose land uses that are sensitive to the site's constraints and II-3 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT INTRODUCTION MAY 1993 amenities, and compatible with e~asting and proposed land uses including the San Francisco International Airport. 'This portion of the report will also serve as the existing setting section for each environmental factor to be reviewed for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Area Plan. The Area Plan EIR will be published as a separate section of this document, identifying impacts that would result from the plan and measures necessary to mitigate those impacts. The identification of impacts and mitigation measures will be based on the findings in this report. II-4 /~ ,~ .. ,; ,. ~ ~ I ~ '~ ~ ! ' ~ ~,,~~' ! ~ `w` ~~ ~~ '~'' / r KOLL j, SRE ;~ ~~- ti ~` ' i ~ .,~F~.;_.. h . QY ~ E TOOIAOE POiN'f . ,,;,I RIVATEJ BUSINESS PARK ~ ., , ~-- , / ~ s ~, ~ rye ~ ~' WLD9ERG~ ' ,; a = j SHEARWATER I BROS. SRE " '~ , s,, ~- ~ PROPERTY COST PLUS ~ ~,: r ~ ,., OYSTER POINT -- ' ~;" . ~ IiAARINA (PUBLIC °' ~ ~~ LEYRZ - - - - - ~ - ~~' ,~ ~~ _ ~ ~f~r / CABOT CABOT AND t ~~%i ~ .~ ; er ~ ~~~ , / ~ FORBES OFFICE/ UPS ~', ,~. ,T ~„ ; . ,,, ROJE INDUSTRUL PARK 'z; .... 1'01 f ~z, ~~ ` ~ 1 ~',~ GATEWAY o - , ~' ~ ~ UCSF ,,..... '} pa~xy.~>~; ttiy .. ~~ , V. .S{~fMy ~` '' ' .~. HILLTOP . ~* L ~`' ` '. ~ ~/ CAI_TRAIN ~' -"`etc ~ BUSINESS ~` ~ DEPG}T, '~ ~ ~`o. CENTER ~~ V ~ ~ " •~_ .\ _ !;~ I. ~y ~ r ~ ,~ ~ , i' I MARI r ~',~' ,~ '~ `T; ~ ~ ~ ` ''~ ~ OWTE GRAN -,r-' .`,-. SAN BRUNO i ~~~ POINT '' '""-"~ i ~~ BUSINESS PAR ~ ` _-_ __ - 'u; ., ~ __ - ,.e. o ... ..~-~ _ ~~ ; ~ ~ ~ -_ ~~ r ~ / \ \' ~ ° % ' ~~: ~ ~, ~~ I ' ~~r-~ -I - =~ s~FUIlER O'BRIE , f.. i ~, 1 ,; ~~ ~. J ~~ ~ r-~ - ~w ~ _ ~ ~ - .:.._~ _, ~ ~ ~ i j ~ + Ji~ ~ u ~" -.. .. ' AV 16IHASKWS _ __ , ~~, ~, RAAIADA ~ ~ ~° ~ ~ ,« i ~i .. i INN ~. ~ , , S C A L E 1'.1)00' a sW, roar 2000 EASr of 7 CZ 7 AIt~A PLAN City of South San Francisco FIGURE 2 Landmarks in the Study Area I3 R A D Y A N D /~. S S O C I A 'I' E S Chapter Z EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This chapter summarizes the major findings of the East of 101 Area Existing Conditions Analysis. It includes both a brief listing of those factors that will limit development potential in the study area, and an overview of all environmental factors and the findings related to them. A. Factors Affecting Study Area Development The following findings of the Existing Conditions analysis have the potential to directly influence the development potential of the study area. Each of these factors will be considered in developing the Area Plan, and in its environmental evaluation. 1. Fill Soils. Large portions of the study area are built on Bay fill, which has the potential for settling. In most cases, one- to two-story buildings can built on fill with standard foundations, but any taller buildings typically require deep pilings. These pilings can be expensive and preclude the feasibility of mid-rise development, since only high-rise buildings provide the necessary value to pay for the pilings. 2. Sewage Plant Capacity. The existing Wastewater Treatment Plant has a design capacity of 13 million gallons daily (mgd). Its actual capacity is unknown, but previous statistical calculations have estimated that it may be about 10 mgd. The plant is currently receiving flows of 7.3 mgd. With additional flows from planned developments in South San Francisco and adjacent cities, flows are could increase above 9 mgd. The City will be testing the plant to determine its current capacity beginning in June, and these test results could show that system improvements will be necessary to accommodate future development. II-5 EAST OF 101 AREA PL_AlY MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. Sewage Pump Station Capacity. There is currently limited reliability at Sanitary Sewer Pump Station 4, which is the main pumping station for the East of 101 Area. Future improvements will require the collection of development impact fees for an upgrade of the current system. 4. Noise Levels. Given the high noise levels in the area generated by Highway 101, major arterials, air traffic and rail traffic, the area is most appropriate for commercial, industrial and hotel uses. It would be possible to provide the requisite noise reduction for interior residential uses, but outdoor noise levels would be marginal (though legally acceptable) for residences. 5. Noise Mitigation Agreement. The noise mitigation agreement between the City and the Airport directs the City to work toward the prohibition of the construction of noise-sensitive land uses, including residential development, east of the Bayshore Freeway. If a noise sensitive land use is established, South San Francisco must obtain a noise easement for the City and County of San Francisco prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. Transit. The lack of transit service in the area has been identified by many land and business owners as the prime impediment to development in :he area. SamTrans slats ghat :he density of e:r.pleyees in the are:. does not warrant expanded trarsi~ service, so .,xpansion of existing shuttles may be the al;propriat~ solution for this Frob!~m. 7. Parking. About 50 parcels in the study area (roughly 12%) have less than one parking space per 2,000 square feet of building area, which is a very low parking ratio. These parcels are distributed throughout the study area, so they may be difficult to serve with centralized parking facilities, but provision of some sort of shared parking would probably help them. 8. Koll Property Access and Municipal Services. City Departments have expressed concern about how the Koll Property on Sierra Point would be served with police, fire and public works services if it were developed. The existing access to the site is only from Brisbane, and the route to return to South San Francisco from the site is very circuitous. Thus new roads and services would need to be supplied to this site to facilitate its development. 9. Earthquake Faults. The recently identified Coyote Point fault zone appears to run through the area, and may be subject to a future Alquist-Priolo zone, in which development would only be allowed after special seismic assessment. The exact location of this fault is not yet known, and it could occur anywhere in the southern two-thirds of the study area. The State will conduct a study in the next several years to identify the exact location of the II-6 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY fault, and the City could conduct a similar study sooner if it desired to do so to aid landowners and developers. 10. Retail and Support Services. The study area generally lacks personal and convenience services, such as lunch restaurants, dry cleaners, banks and childcare facilities. This has been identified as an impediment to attracting tenants and employees by building owners and businesses in the area. It may be possible to provide some of these services to Area workers in Downtown South San Francisco, but the Downtown is separated from the Area by the railroad tracks and Highway 101. 11. Shoreline Access. Although the area has some attractive shoreline facilities, such as those at Oyster and San Bruno Points, shoreline access and trails are not extensively developed in the area. Such development will be required of future projects by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and will serve as an attractive amenity for the area. B. Other Environmental Findings The following points represent the signi'3cant findings beyond these listed abo-~e for each of the 17 subjects :,ove:ed in the Existing Conditions Analysis. These firdinbs will ize considered in the planning and e:wironme,ztal review for the Area Plan, but they are not expected to significantly limit development potential or development types in the study area. 1. Policy and Regulations The City may want to establish more refined land use and zoning designations for the area than currently exist. Land use and zoning designations in the area are limited to Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial, Open Space, and various specific plan including the Gateway Specific Plan, the Oyster Point Specific Plan, and the Shearwater Specific Plan. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission has jurisdiction over projects in the San Francisco Bay and projects within 100 feet of its shoreline in the planning area. BCDC requires the maximum feasible public access to and along the waterfront through every development. 2. Existing and Planned Land Uses The land use pattern in the East of 101 Area is very dispersed, with a variety of uses throughout the area and no particular use pattern. In II-7 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY general, higher end uses tend to be located in the northern and cents, parts of the area, with lower end uses in the south, but there are many exceptions to this rule. • Significant vacant parcels of land exist in several pockets, most specifically on the Koll, Shearwater, Gateway, Haskins and Fuller- O'Brien sites. There is one identifiable pocket of in the study area where demolition and rebuilding of existing buildings might be advisable. This pocket occurs between East Grand Avenue and the railroad tracks along Sylvester Road, Gateway Boulevard Extension and Harbor Way. 3. Visual and Design Factors • Much of the study area has a positive visual character since the area has bayshore access and views, a hilly terrain, an interesting street pattern and some street tree plantings. • Entries into the area are generally weakly defined and do not, in many cases, create a positive visual impression of the area. Improvement of these gateways, particularly on Oyster Point Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, Wondercolor Lane and South Airport Boulevard, would enhance the overall image of the area. • Most of the developments with the highest visual quality in the study area are in the eastern part of the area, where they are visually isolated from the entries to the area. • Streetscape in the area varies in quality. It could be improved on some streets, such as oyster Point Boulevard, to enhance the area's image. On Forbes Boulevard, the streetscape appears somewhat dated, and the relatively high median strips in the street have been identified as a circulation hazard. • The design quality of newer buildings in the area is relatively high, and design controls should be maintained. Older buildings in some areas detract from the overall visual quality. • Overhead transmission lines on South Airport Boulevard greatly detract from the visual character of this area, but it would be very costly and possibly technically impossible to relocate or underground the lines. 4. Population, Employment, and Housing • In South San Francisco, the 1990 average household size was 2.91 persons, somewhat higher than the statewide average of 2.79 persons per household and significantly larger than the county average of 2.64 II-8 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY peCSOr1S. • With the exception of Agriculture and Mining, all of South San Francisco's employment sectors grew between 1980 and 1990. • South San Francisco has a smaller percentage of multi-family units (18.1 percent) compared to the State's 23.3 percent. • The housing type with the lowest vacancy rate in the City of South San Francisco was single-family detached, at 2.3 percent. This vacancy rate is lower than the single-family detached vacancy rate of San Mateo County and the State for 1990. • Owner-occupied housing in the City of South San Francisco has a higher median value than that in either the County and the State. However, the County has a high concentration of very high value homes, which does not exist in the City. 5. Jobs/Housing Balance • There are more jobs in South San Francisco than employed residents, which means that South San Francisco requires workers who commute from other communities to fi:: locai joys. • The majority of e;nployees `:n :h.: East of 101 _~rea could affcrc; to buy homes in youth San Francisco, b-it only about 13 percent of them actually live in South San Francisco. • Development of more housing that is affordable to households with lower incomes might encourage a somewhat larger proportion of local workers to live in South San Francisco. • Given the high degree of mobility of today's workforce, it would be difficult to correct the existing jobs housing imbalance at the level of the City. It might be more appropriate to view the jobs/housing issue from a County-wide perspective, where the balance is currently quite good. 6. Transportation and Circulation • All but 3 of the 22 study intersections of the East of 101 area operate at a level of service of D or better during the peak hour periods. The three intersections that operate at a E or F level of service are: • Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue. This intersection currently is a three-way stop and is not signalized, and could be improved through addition of a traffic signal and widening. • Produce Avenue/Southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp. This intersection could be improved to acceptable operation through signalization. II-9 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MAY 1993 Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue. This intersection will be signalized in the future, which will make it operate acceptably. • There appears to be excess traffic capacity to allow 30 to 50 percent growth in the study area without significant traffic improvements. • Traffic safety and circulation are of concern near the exit to East Grand Avenue from northbound U.S. 101, particularly for northbound freeway traffic headed for the Gateway Business Park. This traffic must turn right at East Grand Avenue and quickly cross three lanes of traffic in order to turn left at Gateway Boulevard. • The raised median islands along Forbes Boulevard create unnecessary safety and circulation problems. In addition, the regularly spaces median openings do not correspond to driveway locations along the street. These features not only hamper traffic circulation, but make Forbes Avenue dangerous to bicyclists. • Traffic operations and circulation are to some extent impeded by tractor-taller trucks that park on local streets, particularly in the south part of the study area along Harbor Way, Utah Avenue and East Grand Avenue. • CalTrain has a program to upgrade its stations, including the South San Francisco Station. As recommended in the CalTrain Station Location Study, the South San Francisco Station could be relocated to the Shearwater property should that area develop. This new Oyster Point Station would be better situated for pedestrian and future transit access. • Only one SamTrans bus route serves the study area, providing service from Redwood City to San Francisco International Airport and the Transbay Terminal (San Francisco). There are no plans to increase bus service because the existing development density is not conducive to transit service based on traditional transit planning standards. • The San Francisco International Airport will be adding a tight rail system as part of their expansion plans. The system will eventually provide access from the long-term public and employee parking lots to a new Ground Transportation Center and could potentially be used by employees of the East of 101 Area. • Ferry service to the area from San Francisco or San Leandro is unlikely, since operating costs would probably outweigh the modest ridership. 7. Noise One of the major noise sources of the East of 101 Area is the San Francisco International Airport. Aircraft using the Shoreline Departure II-10 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXEC!.~'TIVE SUMMARY Route, which is an integral part of the Airport's noise abatement procedures, fly directly over the area. The combination of aircraft and surface noise generates average CNEL noise levels in the study area that never drop below 60 dB. Noise levels are highest in the western portion of the site in the vicinity of the railroad and the Bayshore freeway and the majority of noise levels which are greater than 65 dB are along transportation routes. 8. Fiscal Factors The fiscal impacts of development under the Area Plan will be important considerations in plan evaluation. These impacts can only be evaluated once the plan itself is drafted. 9. Hazardous Materials • A total of 247 hazardous materials sites are identified in the study area, which are scattered throughout the area. Remediation of toxics will occur on a site-by-site basis. Although toxics dean-up can be expensive, it does not appear that toxics will constrain development Fotentia: on any i,~dividual site. 10. Geotechnical Factors The East of 101 project area. located within the seismically active San Andreas fault system, will likely experience strong ground shaking as the result of one or more large earthquakes in the next 30 years. In addition to strong ground shaking, surface fault rupture also may present a hazard for the area. • Slope instability may be an issue around the Fuller-O'Brien Paint Factory along the Marine Magnesium access road and along the south end of the Marine Magnesium property. The majority of the study area, however, is flat and does not have any slope stability concerns. 11. Biological Resources Wetlands and marshes related to San Francisco Bay are the only significant biological features in the study area. These wetlands provide valuable wildlife habitat for shellfish and other invertebrates, fish, ducks, wading birds, shorebirds, and small mammals, and are important link for migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. Wetlands in the study area are limited in their extent. II-11 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDIT'[ONS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MAY 1993 Several special status plant and animal species could occur in the study area, but they are all associated with wetlands, so their range is limited to existing wetland areas. Species with potential to occur include the San Francisco forktail damselfly (Ischnurna gemina), the San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), the California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), the Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), and San Francisco Owl's Clover (Orthocarpus f Ioribundus). 12. Infrastructure The existing drainage system along Colma Creek can generally handle the 10-year storm runoff if high tide and rainfall do not occur simultaneously, but larger storms or storms occurring during high tides create flooding problems. The California Water Service Company anticipates that there is adequate water supply available to serve the South San Francisco District through 2010. There are several sections of the sanitary sewer system that have sunk and will require rehabilitation or replacement to achieve the necessary capacity for future development. 13. Municipal and Retail Services • The East of 101 area is served by two fire stations, which maintain a response time of four minutes to emergency situations, and the South San Francisco Police Department, which maintains an average response time of three minutes to serious felonies and priority one calls. Sierra Point is typically not patrolled by the Police Department at this time and response times to that area can range from 5-13 minutes. Potential future design scenarios may not be conducive to traditional police patrol. There may be necessity for added foot patrols and/or bicycle patrols of waterfront pathways which would result in more man hours to patrol the area. In addition, residential development requires more officers and patrol units as compared to retail and industrial development. • The only child care facility in the East of 101 Area is Second Generation which exclusively serves Genentech employees and provides care for approximately 250 children. A number of business people in the area have stated there is a need for additional child care facilities in the area. II-12 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Most of the restaurants in the East of 101 Area are sit-down style, and the area generally lacks inexpensive fast food lunch facilities. It has been expressed by many business owners that because the area is a high employment center, the less expensive and convenient types of restaurants are the most needed. 14. Open Space and Recreation Facilities Present harbor and marina facilities provide 816 berths for recreational and some residential boats. Fishing piers, boat launching ramps, the Oyster Point Park, and a small beach are available to the public through the marina facilities. Bayfront public access is available via the San Francisco Bay Trail. However, only relatively recent developments have access to the shoreline, and vacant lands such as the Koll and Shearwater properties lack trails. The trail is very segmented and underutilized in the south portion of the study area. The Gateway property is surrounded by a parcourse exercising facility which offers a series of 18 exercises to be completed in conjunction with a walking;jogging path. I:I addition, Schoeber's Athletic Cl>lb is a private athletic club located in the East of 101 Area. The club caters tG the indu.;tries in the area by offering corporate memberships. 15. Climate • The East of 101 Area is subject to winds and fog that come into the area from San Francisco Bay and the Colma Gap, creating a cold and windy climate. Climatic conditions are somewhat better in the northern part of the study area than the south, since the northern part of the area is sheltered by San Bruno Mountain. 16. Air Quality The San Francisco Bay Area is subject to a combination of topographical and climatic factors which result in low potential for pollutant accumulation near the coast. Thus, current air quality is not a significant planning issue in the area. • To meet State clean air standards, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has developed the 1991 Clean Air Plan, which is currently being implemented. Over time, this Plan could require transportation control measures (TCMs) that would affect the East of 101 Area, such as mixed land uses, higher density development II-13 EAST OF 101 AREA P[AN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXECUTivE SUMMARY MAY 1993 near transit stations, improved rail and ferry access, and improved bicycle facilities. 17. Water Quality There are some water quality problems in San Francisco Bay in and around the study area, but these problems are not specifically related to study area development. Water quality regulations for new facilities should alleviate any future problems, and water quality controls are not expected to influence study area development potential. 18. Cultural Resources They only remaining historical buildings in the East of 101 Area are the W.P. Fuller Buildings, located at 450 Grand Avenue. The buildings were constructed in 1898 and are presently owned by the Fuller-O'Brien Corporation. Though the buildings are not currently registered with the City, State, or federal government, they are probably eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources since they are over 50 years old and are a unique indication of the manufacturing industry of South San Francisco. Fuller- O'Brien would like to demolish these buildings, but current State law may require environmental review of the demolition before it can occur. II-14 Chapter 3 POLICY AND REGULATIONS A. City of South San Francisco Land Use Policies and Regulations Land use in the City of South San Francisco is regulated by the South San Francisco General Plan, the South San Francisco Municipal Zoning Ordinance, and several specific and redevelopment plans. This section reviews pertinent public policy and regulatory factors of the City of South San Francisco as they affect the East of 101 Area Plan. City land use policy includes the Land Use Element, the Circulation and Transportation Element, the Noise Element, the Ho.ising Element and the Open Space Element of the General Plan. In addition, the City Zoning Ordinance, applicable specific and redevelopment plans, ::irxxrL regulation, and Say related plan: will be summarized as they relate to the East of 101 Area ?lan. 1. South San Francisco General Plan a. Land tine Element. Planning Area 1 of the South San Francisco Land Use Plan includes all land located east of the Highway 101, between the San Francisco International Airport and the South San Francisco/Brisbane City limits. In the Land Use Element, the study area is broken down into two subareas which are summarized below and are shown on Figure 3. Oyster Point/Grand (Northern Subarea). This area is primarily industrial and includes the Cabot and Forbes Industrial Park, the Gateway Redevelopment Project, and the Shearwater Redevelopment Project. In addition, the area has potential for new development, including the Koll site south of the existing Koll development in Brisbane. The CalTrain station is also included in this subarea. South Airport Boulevard (Southern Subarea). This area has a mixed commercial and industrial character. Many of the uses are airport II-15 LEGEND !~ _.. Q Planned Cotnmacial Land Use ® Planned Industrial Land Use . ~ /~. ~ Existing Open Space ::~ (including sy) - ; ~ ~'''••'' ~ ; ~r f ~••:::: aye ~ _,-,.~ ~ F ;:};}{: ~ ~ r ~ 7; •.:•.•'r} ': i ~ . .....; t : ' • ': :•::• :':::•: :':: 1•~•:: ~, •~ ~: ..~ _ •~. ~~. . ~ ~ . ` =~-~ ~~` f t:?•=~, t : m .Z ~ ' ~;I~jL:Y' ~~~ =~fl A ~ , •' ~ { Z_. ~ - a ~,.a . _ _-- ', ~ .~`~ ~- Soura: Land Use Diagram, City of South San Francisco, revised July 28, 1989. i .~ OYSTER POINTlGRAND (NORTHERN SUBAREA) .~ SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD (SOUTHERN SUBAREA) ~- ~I S C A L E 7'.7800' a soo roan a~ao EAST OF 1~1. AREAP City o~South San Francisco B R A D Y AND ASSOCIATE S FIGURE 3 City General Plan Land Use Designations MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS oriented and the area holds the greatest concentration of hotel uses in the entire community. The area is mostly built out and there is very little vacant land for new growth. The South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Treatment Plant is located in the southeasterly portion of this subarea. The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes the City's Land Use Map, which indicates the land use designations of the East of 101 Area Plan. The Land Use Map for the study area is shown in Figure 3. Land Use designations for the East of 101 Area Plan include Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial, and Existing Open Space. The regulations and policies pertaining to these Land Use designations are described below. (1) Planned Commercial. The Planned Commercial Land Use includes, but is not limited to, large commercial planned unit developments and mixed commercial/residential uses, including office parks, hotels and motels, restaurants, gasoline service stations, research and development uses, and apartment or condominium residential uses. The benchmark density of residential uses in this district is not to exceed 30 dwelling units per net acre of land. The comparable zoning designation for the Planned Commercial land use is P-C. T'-le follo~~~n are policies for Plan.led Commercial development are relevant .he East of 101 Area Plan: Policy}1. Amusement arcades having three or more amusement devices should be limited to established shopping center areas which ave a generous supply of off-street parking and are substantially separated from adjacent residential neighborhoods. Further, school age children should be prohibited from using amusement devices during school hours. Policy 32. Convenience, all night food stores should not be located closer than one mile from each other. Polio 33. The Design Policy of the City of South San Francisco is to promote quality design, promote a functional, safe and attractive environment, preserve the character of South San Francisco heritage, and protect public investment and land values. Policy 34. To the extent legally practicable and to the extent that it is fiscally feasible from the City's viewpoint to do so, all existing off-site commercial advertising signs should be removed. II-17 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS Policy 35. To the extent legally practicable and to the extent that it is fiscally feasible from the City's viewpoint to do so, no additional off-site commercial advertising signs or billboards should be permitted in the City. Certain existing signs may be allowed to be relocated to alternate locations if said alternate locations would have a less adverse effect on surrounding properties. Policy 36. Signs should be reviewed as to size, height, materials, colors, design, and number to prevent visual clutter throughout the community. Policy 37. To the extent legally practicable and to the extent that it is fiscally feasible form the City's viewpoint to do so, off-site advertising signs, signs in public rights-of-way, and signs which advertise specific products should not be permitted. Policy 38. Landscaping shall include a minimum of 15 percent of the trees as box specimens. Policy 39. A minimum of 10 percent of each site shall be landscaped. Policy 41. Small or medium sized motels hotels should be compatible in scope and size with surrounding uses. Larger motel/hotels should be limited to the area along the easterly slope of San Bruno Mountain and east of the main track of Southern Pacific Railroad. Policy 42. The building area of established shopping centers should not be increased unless building facades, parking lots, and on-site landscaping are concurrently upgraded. Policy 43. New and used truck and car sales should be restricted to properties located along El Camino Real, south of Westborough Boulevard. Policy 44. Mid- and high-rise office buildings (4-20 stories in height) should only be permitted east of the Highway 101 and along the east slope of San Bruno Mountain. Mid-rise commercial and/or residential structures not exceeding five (5) stories in height should be permitted along El Camino Real. Policy 45. The maximum height of commercial buildings in the take off and landing paths of the San Francisco Airport should be determined II-18 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS by criteria established by the City, the Airport Land Use Committee, or by FAA requirements, whichever is most restrictive. PolicY46. Housing demand impacts, as a result of new office and industrial developments, should be considered for all new major projects. Polic~+ 47. Card rooms/gaming clubs should continue to be uses which are not permitted in any zone district in South. San Francisco, unless a majority of electors voting thereon affirmatively approve a measure permitting legal gambling within South San Francisco. Card rooms which presently exist in the community should be phased out of existence. Without the approval of the electors set forth above, no new card rooms/gaming clubs should be allowed in the community, nor should the existing nonconforming card rooms be allowed to expand in area or in the number of tables operated or to relocate to another area of the City. Policy 48. Quick service retail drive-up kiosks should not be allowed in additional areas of the community unless security and alarm systems are first installed to the satisfaction of the Police Department and traffic circulation within parking lots is ;lot adversely aFfected. (2, Planned Industrial. Th. Planned Industrial land use designation is intended to encompass a broad rarg° of large employment and intensive industrial uses. These include industrial parks, light manufacturing, distribution, wholesale and warehouse uses, limited and low-rise office uses, and research and development uses. Incidental retail sales and commercial services are also included, but auto repair, salvage yard, meat processing, and open storage facilities are excluded form the Planned Industrial land use. Industrial areas located adjacent to residential or commercial areas shall be required to provide buffer areas including setbacks, walls or fences and landscaping to reduce noise, traffic, visual, and other impacts on the adjoining uses. The following policies for Planned Industrial uses are relevant to the East of 101 Area Plan: Policy 49. Additional chemical plants, meat processing plants, auto salvage yards, above-ground flammable liquid storage, and other similar intensive industrial uses shall not be allowed in the community in the future. Uses such as truck terminals and storage facilities shall not be allowed unless II-19 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS restrictive mitigation measures are implemented to eliminate any potential adverse environmental impacts. Policy 50. Industrial uses which include substantial hazardous wastes shall be prohibited in the community. Policy 51. Industrial uses which generate significant exterior noise (55 dB CNEL or greater), odors, or generate heavy truck traffic shall not be permitted near residential uses. Policy 52. All open storage areas shall be screened from view by extensive landscaping and/or fencing and adequate parking shall be provided. Open storage facilities shall be limited to the Light Industrial designation. Policy 53. New auto repair and auto painting establishments shall be limited to the Light Industrial areas of the community. Appropriate mitigation measures shall be required to address adverse environmental impacts. Policy 54. Auto, truck and/or equipment sales and rental lots and vehicle rental agencies should not be permitted in industrial and planned commercial areas unless such uses are located under major Iltility lines or under elevated freeways. Development standards shall apply. Policy 55. Building coverage on any industrial site should not exceed sixty (60) percent. Policy 56. The construction of "tilt-up" industrial buildings should be permitted east of the Highway 101 only if seismic safety measures are provided in connection with these buildings. PolicY57. A landscaped front yard setback of at least ten (10) feet should be provided on each industrial building site. Policy 58. The conversion of leased industrial buildings to condominium industrial buildings should be encouraged in the community. Policy 59. Existing warehouse/office buildings which are proposed to be converted to manufacturing uses should be required to provide adequate off-street parking spaces on or in close proximity to the site to accommodate the new use. II-20 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDr; IONS REPORT POLICY AIVD RECtULAT10NS Policy.,60. Legally established auto salvage yards located east of Highway 101 or south of South Canal Street in the Lindenville industrial area should be permitted to remain but should not be allowed to expand in the area, provided that all storage and loading activities are immediately screened by decorative walls or fences at least eight feet high and landscaping provided adjacent to the public right-of-way. All other auto salvage yards in the City should be phased out. (3) Open Space. The Open Space Land Use incudes developed and undeveloped parklands, natural open space area, and waterfront areas including boat marinas and drainage channels both in private and public ownership. Water oriented recreation areas for scenic enjoyment and recreation activities are important open space resources. The following Open Space policies pertain to the East of 101 Area Plan: Policy 63. Oyster Point Marina Park should be developed primarily as awater-related regional park. Policy 64. The City should cooperate with the San Mateo County Harbor District on the development of Oyster Point Marina Park to assure that a compatible mix of uses and high design standaras are achieved. Policy S-1. All properties indicated on the General Pian as having "Open Space" along the Ba;+front should be zoned O-S (Open Space) in the Zoning Ordinance. Policy S-2. As a condition of development, shoreline property owners should be required to construct, install and thereafter maintain the physical improvements necessary to fulfill the open space requirements of the City and BCDC. Policy S-3. Shoreline improvements should include, but not be limited to, pathways, landscaping, vista points, identification and directional signs, benches, and trash containers. Policy S-4. Natural areas including natural flora, estuaries, beaches, and mudflats should be preserved and enhanced and native plants reintroduced at the water's edge. Policy S-5. Opportunities for fishing, swimming, bird watching, picnicking, bicycling, walking and shell fishing shall be provided along the shoreline wherever feasible. II-21 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS Policy S-7. Land owners should be required to enter into agreements and/or record deed restrictions which set forth the minimum improvements and access required to fulfill the City's and BCDC requirements for Shoreline Development. b. Circulation and Transportation Element. The Circulation and Transportation Element shows major roadways in the City of South San Francisco and reflects the City's current policies on the future location and general alignment of major highways and freeways. It also includes policies on other types of transportation systems, including public transportation. Transportation management plans are recommended to be required of all high employment and high traffic-generating uses. Transportation is discussed further in Chapter 9. c. Housi~ Element. The City's General Plan Housing Element addresses the provision of an adequate supply of housing within the City. State law requires that the Element also address the provision of a "fair share" of low- and moderate-income housing. The City's Housing Element was certified by the State department of Housing and Community Development in February 1992. The revised element analyzes and provides programs to preserve low- income subsidized units that are at risk of conversion to market rate. The area included in 'he East of 101 Area Plan currently has no housing stock. The Siena Point property on the east side of the Highway 101, south of the Brisbane City limits, has been identified as a potential residential development site. The Housing Element identifies a potential of 300 new housing units on this site. d. Noise Element. Noise factors are especially important for the East of 101 Area Plan due to the proximity of San Francisco International Airport. The Noise Element seeks to maintain or improve the overall community by mitigating and improving the levels of noise in the City. The Noise Element establishes land use compatibility criteria for aircraft noise impacts. In areas of average CNEL levels less than 65, residential developments require no special noise insulation requirements for new construction. In areas of 65 to 70 CNEL noise analysis and insulation is required of new residential development, and in areas greater than 70 CNEL residential construction should not be allowed. Commercial development is not required to have any additional insulation requirements through the Noise Element in areas with an average CNEL of less than 70. Industrial development requires no mitigation in areas with less than 75 CNEL. These II-22 MAY 1493 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDrT10NS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS policies, and noise issues in the study area, are described in more detail in Chapter 10. e. Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. The Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan establishes priorities and opportunities to conserve open space and natural resources in the City of South San Francisco. It addresses the most critical recreation needs of the community and recommends strategic acquisition and expansion of recreation and open space facilities. Objectives and policies of the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan relevant to the East of 101 Area Plan include the following: Objective 1.5 Develop a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails to link individual components of the park system and the neighborhoods. Policy 1.5.1 Continue to encourage private developers to provide public bayfront access and work with BCDC and other agencies to complete the Bayfront trail. Parks and Recreation are discua.ed further in Chapter 16. 2. City Zoning The City of South San Francisco's zoning ordinance provides for zoning designations which correspond to the General Plan Land Use designations in the East of 101 Area Plan. The City's zoning designations, which are shown in Figure 4, are generally consistent with the City's Land Use designations. The zoning ordinance designates permitted uses and uses permitted with Planning Commission approval. Heights in the East of 101 Area are restricted to 50 feet in the Planned- Commercial Zone and 65 feet in the Planned-Industrial Zone. However, additional height may be allowed with approval of a use permit. Front yards in the area are requi~°d to be no less than 20 feet. Side and rear yards are only restricted when residential properties abut the commercial or industrial development, or when the side yard is along an exterior property line. I.,ot coverage for Planned-Commercial developments must not exceed 50 percent, and Planned-Industrial developments cannot exceed a lot coverage of 60 percent. Minimum lot sizes for development in the East of 101 Area are 5,000 square feet. II-23 .-y , , LEGEND Q SpeciSc Plan ~ Planned Commercial District ~ Planned lndttsorial District [~ Open Space District ResWential Deasity Designators Designator Densitx Minimum Site Arta (max oruts r (per dwelling net acre unit-sq ft) L 21.8 2,000 (sites<IO,000sq ft) L 30 1,452 (sites>=10,000 sq ft) -~ r t t ~ ~''~:, SPEpFlC,Rt.AN :•~ .. -,...,:..:, .,, ,,: ., ~ ;•c 4 ~; ~P-C L ~ --- PSI : ~\~\ -_ _ _ ~. r„~ .. t~. / 7 _ ~ _ _ -- ~ _„ r i ~ ~ ..' _' .. _.. ~ _, ~ :. ........ 1. ... _ _ ~ -__ -- 1 -,~ ~ ~ i W. J _ , ~ _ ' i, o; ''~ P~C~L ,,- ' R L' _E ~ ~ - -" ~_-~.-_ i ~ _ ~ - .~ ~\ Source. Zoning District Map, City of South San Francisco, revised December 25, 1989. S C A L E 1'.1800' v sav roov aoov EAST OF 7 07' !, AREA PLAN FIGURE 4 City Zoning Designations City of South San Francisco B R A D Y AND ASSOCIATE S MAY 1993 EAST UE lol AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY A,`3D REGULATIONS The Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space per 300 gross square feet of floor area for professional offices and one parking space per 250 gross square feet of Research and Development facilities. Parking is further discussed in Chapter 9. 3. Design Review Guidelines The City of South San Francisco has established Design Review Guidelines in order to implement the design policy of the City adopted by the Planning Commission. The intent is that the guidelines will enable designers and developers to clearly understand the City's position with respect to site design and architecture. The guidelines are not regulatory, however, they provide a framework for high quality design. Further analysis of the design factors of South San Francisco and the East of 101 Area Plan is provided in Chapter 5. 4. Specific Plans a. Gatewav Specific Plan. The Gateway Specific Plan provides for the coordinated development of various commercial and research and development land uses in the area located between the Highway 101, East Grand Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard. and Forbes Boulevard. ThC Specific D!an combines several of the :,oncept~, procedures and regulations of the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and certain aspects cr tF,e Suhdivision Ordinance. Ultimately, the Specific Plan project is to contain 2.6 million square feet of office and research building space and two major hotels, but implementation of the Plan has been stalled in the current market. The site's owners are currently trying to sell vacant parcels in the Area, and buyers may be interested in projects not foreseen under the Specific Plan. b. Oyster Point Specific Plan. The Oyster Point Specific Plan focusses on the Oyster Point Marina and land directly south of the Marina. The Specific Plan provides for the development of commercial and recreational uses for the property, in conjunction with the Oyster Point Marina. The Oyster Point Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan and Land Use designations. c. Shearwater Specific Plan. The Shearwater Specific Plan provides for the development of a mixed-use development which will include offices, hotels, commercial uses, residential uses, and public facilities, including a marina. This Specific Plan is not being pursued by the current owners of the Shearwater property, and use designations for this site may be changed through the Area Plan process. II-25 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS 5. Redevelopment Plans Three City Redevelopment Areas exist in the study area, which are described below and shown in Figure 5. a. Downtown/Central Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Area was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in July 1989. The redevelopment areas created by the Plan include areas 2A, 2C, 4, 5, 6A and 6B in the study area, as delineated on Figure 5. In addition, areas outside the East of 101 Area are included in the Plan. The Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Area does not present a planning program or establish priorities for specific projects for rehabilitation. Instead, the Plan presents a process and a basic framework within which specific development plans will be presented. Proposed public improvement and facilities projects that are included in the redevelopment plan are listed below by subareas. (1) Area 2A. • Correct methane gas/soil problems. • Provide shoreline improvements. • Construct rapid water transit terminal and parking garage. • Construct Oyster Point overcrossing located north of Oyster Point Boulevard at Highway 101. • Provide direct access from Sierra Point to connect with Oyster Point Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. (2) Area 2C. • Widen Oyster Point Boulevard. • Correct soil contamination problems at old refinery facility on Oyster Point Boulevard. • Provide traffic signal at Oyster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue. II-26 . iM~1t147~I1rVC11Y ~ •' }'••; :1yy ~ +. y F~~. r ~ ••~, ~ ••••••••••:•:•:•:::. . . ,., , .. ~ ~ t L I • ' _ ~' }~* ~ _~ %/ • ~• y d Ji ~~~i Y / qtr •• ~~ ^ .. , ~ ... p~ ~ y ~~~ . J _. .• e , ~ Li ~ ° ate- d , ~ ; + M ~ c. f.{.;.~,;:...;..'.:..;.;.•• Downtow .~ •. t: •• ; •::. ...::::: i {~ ~:• ~ •" ~ r` ~~ ~ ~~, ,~' - a~; + $tc ~ ~ te , 4 ~ I ~ Y ti~ ti '' ?t' '~1YY ~ ,~ /{ /' \ ~' ~~• • ~~jj~~.. •.•.7.•• i \:• _' `jai. ~ ;,`.' :; ••~A•. :•::^ /~` _~ .. ..:. .... ... '-- ..... • :.::ter ,, ...... ..•... y _ • ~ i~ •.i • .., I .~ _ .r .. -'_- ~..- ~- ~ ~ ,. _ .. z. • .; , ' ~ ~~ .. „ ~ -r = 'r+ ~` _ A t. •~• ` ~ _ .. •~,i _ ~`, ~ ~OYVf1~OWf1ICiMiV2~ ~i . ~ i• , _ ~ ~ `- _• `AEd2VelOPffleftt $lJb8f2~ 5 i ~+- _ .-.~~._- - i ,._ ~, - `\ \~ ' ~- - S O L E t'.t8o0' o ~ t~ EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAN FIGURE 5 Redevelopment Areas City of Soutk San Francisco B A A D Y AND A S S O C I ATE S EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS (3) Area 4. • Improve Sylvester/AssociatedBaker Roads. • Reconstruct and restripe Harbor Way to two lanes southbound and one lane northbound. Provide new sidewalks, curbs and gutters, street lights and pavement. • Install traffic signals at East Grand and Littlefield Avenues. • Upgrade sanitary sewer line on Harbor Way. • Correct flooding on Harbor Way by increasing drainage capacity. • Improve sanitary sewer pump at Station 4. (4) Area 5. • Fill in "fingers" and restore natural bayfront. • Improve access between fingers and North Access Road through easement. • Construct improvements to San Bruno Creek and Colma Creek. • Construct building for Pump Station 5. • Upgrade Water Quality Control Treatment Plant. (5) Area 6A. • Construct shoreline improvements. • Correct soil contamination. • Correct mud boils. • Increase capacity of sewer lines. • Improve sanitary sewer pump for area. (6) Area 6B. • Construct connection between Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Marina/Oyster Point Boulevard. • Improve sewer pump station. b. South San Francisco U.S. Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco U.S. Steel Plant Site, also known as the Shearwater Site, outlines a process and basic framework within which specific development plans will be presented. The Shearwater Specific II-28 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS Plan, adopted in 1990, was a direct result of the Redevelopment Plan. The Specific Plan is not being pursued by the current owners of the property, and designations for the site may be changed through the Area Plan process. The proposed public improvements and facilities projects include the construction cif a conference center/theater complex with associated parking and land acquisition, construction of a four-lane overcrossing and associated freeway ramps, including related right-of-way acquisition, and completion of the widening and reconstruction of Oyster Point Boulevard from the project vicinity to Oyster Point. c. South San Francisco Gateway Area Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco Gateway Area, adopted in June 1981, provides for the redevelopment of the Gateway Area. The Gateway Specific Plan was adopted concurrently with the redevelopment plan and allows for 2.5 million square feet of office space in addition to research and development space, retail space and hotel space. The current owners of the property are currently trying to sell the land and it is not expected that prospective buyers would be interested in developing the office and hotel uses in today's market. 6. >/:~tra-Territorial Juri.,diction of Brisbane On January 16, 1980, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco granted the City of Brisbane extra-territorial jurisdiction over the property at the northern boundary of the study area known as the Koll site. Because of its location adjacent to Sierra Point, the City of Brisbane and South San Francisco agreed that public improvements should be completed in a comprehensive effort. The resolution adopted by the City Council of South San Francisco allows for these comprehensive improvements through an assessment district which includes the Koll property within the City of South San Francisco and appropriate bond acts as seen fit by the City of Brisbane. The resolution states that all the improvements made are the responsibility of the City of Brisbane and protects South San Francisco from liability occurring from the improvements. In addition, the resolution protects South San Francisco's current access to the Koll site through the City of Brisbane. II-29 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS B. Airport Related Policies and Regulations A portion of San Francisco International Airport is located in the southern portion of the East of 101 Area, and the adjacent airport use also creates traffic and noise impacts relevant to the study area. Thus, policies affecting the airport are relevant to the study area. 1. San Francisco International Airport Final Draft Master Plan The San Francisco International Airport Master Plan provides a comprehensive set of plans guidelines, policies, and conditions which serve as a framework for improvement of facilities through 2006. The Master Plan is comprised of both near- and long- term plans which propose the future of the airport facilities. The Master Plan outlines expansions of the terminals, the addition of various cargo and maintenance facilities, the addition of a Ground Transportation Center, new linkages to the Highway 101, and a new light rail system that will serve the Airport property. Though this light rail system will be on the airport property, it has the potential to serve businesses located on the North Access Road. 2. Airport Land Use Plan The Current San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan was adopted by the Airport Lands Commission on March 26, 1981. The ALUP addresses noise and safety considerations relevant to land surrounding an airport. The objective of the plan is to establish categories of land use that are compatible in airport-impacted areas. The ALUP contains two sets of criteria for evaluating development around the San Francisco International Airport related to noise/land use compatibility and height restrictions, which are discussed below. a. Noise/Land Use Compatibility. Noise/land use compatibility is an integral part of the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. Land uses should be compatible in airport noise-impacted areas. Residential development has been identified as a sensitive development in relation to noise. The ALUC policy allows residential development without noise insulation in areas up to 65 CNEL, consistent with the State Aviation Noise Law. In areas 65 to 70 CNEL, special noise insulation is required. More detail is provided in Chapter 10. II-30 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDTIIONS REPORT °OLICY AND REGUL.:ATIONS b. Height Restrictions. The ALUC contains height restrictions based on the approach surfaces outlined by the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77. Height restrictions in the study area are shown in Figure 6. These height restrictions should not adversely affect study area development, since buildings of 161 to 361 feet are allowed. 3. Aircraft Noise Mitigation Agreement The City of South San Francisco and the City and County of San Francisco entered into a aircraft noise mitigation agreement in August 1991. The purpose of this agreement is to reduce the impacts of Airport operations on the residents and noise-sensitive land uses in South San Francisco. To this extent, the establishment of new residential communities in area of South San Francisco that are exposed to high noise levels are to be avoided. The City of South San Francisco agreed to consider adopting a plan which included the prohibition of the construction of noise-sensitive land uses, including residential development, east of the Highway 101. If anoise-sensitive land use is established east of the Highway 101, South San Francisco must obtain an aviga:ion easement from !.he City of San Francisco prior to the issuance of a building permit far such construction. C. Bay Related Policies and Regulations Due to the proximity of the San Francisco Bay, several Commissions have jurisdiction over projects located in the East of 101 project area. They are described below. 1. Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC} has jurisdiction over projects in the San Francisco Bay and projects within 100 feet of its shoreline in the planning area. The BCDC has two fundamental objectives: • To protect the Bay as a natural resource for the benefit of present and future generations. • To develop the Bay and its shoreline to their highest potential with a minimum of bay filling. II-31 /~ ~-.-. ~'.' ~ ~ % ~ s i.. ~ .. ~+_. ~\ r. ~ ~1 FEG' ~ ` ;~ ~~ ~- I 'w' ~Aj i CONICAL SURFACE - Ir. ~ "k S 'I~ t 4 ' ~i :~ ~' ~~ .y 3 261 FEET _ _ ~_ . _ ~: !' %6 . i - -- ~ ... ..K G _ '. --~ 1 FE 21 - , _ - _ . t. .. ~~ j ; ,. ~' -~,/_rl' ~~::' y; ~ ~ 1S1aFEET _ - ' - _ r: ~ ~ ._ , . ~ ; ~`~~ ~; _ w,.~7, ,,. ~ _ . ~~. ~,' ~. r .. E ~ .-,~_ , _ __ ~~ - - / , t _.... ~ _ -----_ _ o Jt x ~~ ~ a :mil®: .:" ~~'` ~" ~ ` ' _ / ~ _ __. ,y; - .Y S .. -_ ' ~ 1~'. _~ _..r. .._ -pT >r "- s ~T __ '~'. ~i: Q t ~ =-~nr'_ _ Note: Maximum Heights are from sea level `~ 'Ibis map is based on FAR Part 77 Criteria, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace." _ Source: Airport Land Use Plan, San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, March 27 1981. i~ S C A L E 1'.1800' a sav ioav a~atr EAST OF O i AREA PLAN FIGURE 6 ALUC Height Restrictions for San Francisco International Airport City of Soutk San Francisco B R A D Y AND A S S O C I A T E S MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS The Commission's permit decisions are controlled by the McAteer-Petris Act, the State legislation which established the agency and defines its authority. The Commission's authority is limited to controlling change of use and work in the tidal waters of San Francisco Bay and on the shoreline within 100 feet of the Bay. The Bay is defined as all areas lying below the line of highest tidal action, which is approximately 6.2 feet above mean sea level in the City of South San Francisco. The McAteer-Petris Act prohibits placement of fill, that is any earth or structures, in San Francisco Bay unless they are for awater-oriented use. Vv ater oriented uses do not include offices, residences, or roadways. In addition, every development in the Bay or on the shoreline must provide "maximum feasible public access". Projects which do not include public access cannot be approved by the Commission. The San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan) policies include more specific guidance with regard to uses of the Bay and shoreline. For example, the policies state that shore areas should be used for any purpose that uses the Bay as an asset and in no way affects the Bay adversely. Types of uses that do not use the Bay ~~ an asset are refuse disposal, use of deteriorated structures for low rent storage and junkyards. The policies also state that wherever waterfront areas a-e ~s.:d fur housing, a high density shoud be encouraged to provide ±he advantage of water~rcnt housing to larger na:nbers of peopie. The Bay Plan policies on public access state that "maximum feasible public access to and along the waterfront should be provided in and through every development". Furthermore, whenever public access is provided, the access should be permanently guaranteed through an appropriate dedication or property restriction and public access improvements should be provided as part of every public access project. In addition, any roadways along the water should be designed as scenic parkways and should include improved physical access to and along the shore. Public transit use and connections to the shoreline are encouraged. The Bay Plan policies on recreation include several policies that are relevant to the East of 101 Area. For example, the recreation policies address marinas and encourage the construction and expansion of marinas at suitable sites and allow fill for such use because marinas are awater-oriented use. Launching ramps are also encouraged at marinas. However, houseboats are not permitted at marinas because they are a residential use, not awater-oriented use. Live- aboard boats which were moored in a marina on July 1, 1985 can remain, if the live-aboard provides a degree of security, sufficient facilities are provided II-33 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS upland to accommodate live-aboard boats, the marina has sewage pump out facilities and water quality is maintained. The recreation policies include policies on shorelide parks which are those parks that are shown on the Bay Plan maps (priority use areas) or existing public parks around the Bay. Within such parks, only limited commercial facilities such as small restaurants are permitted. Golf courses, and playing fields should not be located on the shoreline, but inland, according to the Bay Plan policies. Bay Plan Maps 9 and 10, whose features are shown in Figure 7, show a number of parks in the East of 101 Area where these policies would apply. The park priority use area extends from the inlet on the Shearwater property to Point San Bruno. The park priority use areas include the entire "shoreline band", an area 100 feet wide running along the shoreline and parallel to the line of highest tidal action. Several map notes provide further guidance about the shoreline. The note for Oyster Point states, "Expand marina and develop shoreline park. Some fill may be needed." Another note indicates the Shearwater property may be a possible park and marina site. In addition, a policy of the plan is to "Protect and provide public access to shellfish beds offshore." Possible airport industry is shown for the area south of Colma Creek and east of 101. The note for the San Francisco Airport states: "Further expansion into Bay only if clear need is shown by a regional airport system study. Keep runway approach and takeoff areas free from tall structures and incompatible uses." The Bay Plan policies also address airports, specifically. The policies called for a regional airport system plan. The policies also state: 'To enable airport to operate without additional Bay filling, tall buildings and residential areas should be kept from interfering with aircraft operations. The Commission should prevent incompatible developments within its area of jurisdiction around the shoreline." The Commission has gone on record as opposing the placement of a large amount of fill in San Francisco Bay to expand the San Francisco Airport. A number of permits have been issued for property in South San Francisco which may influence increase in density or change of use. The Commission issued a permit for the Shearwater development which would have included offices, retail, a hotel, a marina and residential uses. The work authorized has not begun. A permit was also issued to DiSalvo Trucking for an industrial use on the parcel to the east. The permit requires a public access pathway to be II-34 J__... /' \ J LEGEND ~ ~---- ~ Park Priority Area ,~ _ m Koll •~ / , m .~.~~ i 0 Shearwazer - / © DiSalvoTnucking __, ~ 0 Diodati - ~ ~ © Ciry of South San Francisco ~`--~ ,.- " ` - - , , San Mateo Harbor District rjr " 0 UPS ,~,,~ 0 City of South San Francisco _ ~ ~~ 0 Cabo4 Cabo[ and Forbes ~ -----=-r ~. m Genentech m Merck ;' %~ ® Fuller-OBrien Paine ~ , ~""'-:.- - ® Haskins ,, ," v ~ ..,,. - , _ _ , , . -. . ~ m Michele Court , y ~'~ ~ ~ _ - a ' " r ,. ® Price Company ~ _ -- ._ _ ,.,._~~-__ ~ m Treatment Plant , j . ~, ~% /, -- ; f- ` m Ciry of South San Francisco v~ ., ___ ~~ - Private - - -~ `~~~~ _ ` ~" _ m Sam Trans :_ ~ __ .. - i _ -. _ ~ .. ~ Y .... ~ ~ . _. .~ -- - - _ 114 ~ _F~ - '~. r -~ _ _ i „- ~ ~ _• x - ~ t _ _ _ _ ----- - .a ~, -- -_ _ _.. - -- - "., i ~ _ :~ . -. r, ~ _ ~ `~• / ~ , e =,,.. i . _ j/~ ~ ' - __ .. ~~ m _• \ y , t `-tea S C A L E 1'.1800' 0' 500' 1000' 2000' EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAN FIGURE 7 BCDC Land Use Policies in the East of 101 Area City of South San Francisco B R A D Y AND A S S O C I A T E S EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDrfIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS provided along the shoreline. Further expansion of use may be constrained by the lack of additional property to devote to public access uses which would likely be needed if expanded use were proposed. To the east of this property, the Commission granted a permit to the AEW Trust. Public access is also required on the entire shoreline of this property. Expansion of uses is heavily constrained by the parking and public access requirement. There is a park priority use designation on the shoreline of Oyster Point. The permit allows another highrise office building on the site. The access improvements have already been provided for the additional office use. To the south of this parcel is a small parcel controlled by the City of South San Francisco. The City has proposed a restaurant for the parcel. Public access to the shoreline with a connection to Oyster Point and the marina would likely be required as part of the approval of any use on this property. The San Mateo Harbor District controls the marina. A permit was issued for the marina project which involves the provision of a large park site to the south of the marina. Some limited commercial uses are permitted adjacent to the marina. Houseboats in the marina are not permitted. Across the tidal channel from the Oyster Point Marina is a parcel controlled by the United Parcel Service (UPS). UPS enlarged its service facility and agreed to provide public access along the shoreline as part of the permit. That access has not been provided to date. The City controls a small property along Forbes Boulevard and Cabot, Cabot and Forbes and Genentech control the next parcels. Each has provided shoreline public access. Neither property is likely to be able to expand its use on the existing flatland within 100 feet of the shoreline because of the public access constraint. Merck Chemical was issued a permit for shoreline repair on the steep slope bayward of its parcel. An easement for public access along the shoreline was required. Fuller- O'Brien Paint Company lies to the south. Expansion into the marshy area south of the plant will be influenced by BCDC policies on uses of fill, destruction or marshes and mudflats, which is discouraged and provision of public access. The area to the south of Point San Bruno is not in park priority use and little development has occurred. However, from the end of Utah Avenue to the Colma Creek, BCDC has required shoreline access. The Price Club also provided shoreline access. No access was required at the City's treatment facility. Several proposals have been put forward to develop the fingers of land at adjacent to North Access Road, but no one has successfully developed a project because fill in San Francisco Bay would be required. Uses have not been water-oriented. The Sam Trans bus yard was required to provide public II-36 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGUL.gTIONS access on the periphery of its development as well as bicycle access along Airport Access Road. BCDC policies do not restrict use on the shoreline between Point San Bruno and the Airport so long as public access is provided with each project and height of buildings and residential uses do not impede with airport operations. Within Park designated areas, only limited commercial development can occur, and offices and residential uses are not consistent with BCDC policies. Expansion into tidal areas for uses that are not water-oriented would be inconsistent with BCDC. Fill in the Bay may be authorized by BCDC only for water oriented use including marinas and commercial recreation, or authorized for improving public access or shoreline appearance. An U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Permit and EPA's National Nonpoint Source Permit are also required under section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and/or under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 2. State Lands Commission The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over all lands below mean high tide level. Any development which occurs within the San Francisco Bay must ~htain authorization from Commission. ~ ypicslly, development within the State Lands Ccmmissien's jurisdiction must pr•^vidz for the public u;e of the lands or watervavs, including fishing, ma:in:~ and r wigatic nal uses. Office and residential development, including houseboats, is typically not allowed by the State Lands Commission because these uses would interfere with public access. Vessels which are not houseboats but are considered liveaboards can be allowed within marina uses because they are still considered mobile, but only through Commission authorization. II-37. EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POLICY AND REGULATIONS MAY 1993 II-38 Chapter 4 EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES ^ ^ This chapter reviews existing and proposed land uses in the East of 101 Area, as well as land uses that surround the area. A. Existing Land Use The East of 101 Area is generally industrial in nature, with some hotel and retail uses along the Highway 101 corridor. Much of the area includes "flex" buildings that can be used for light industry, warehousing, research and development or office uses. Distinctions can be made between the predominant f;ex use buildings and dzdicated cfti::e. hotel and manufacturing buildings, wh+ch also exist in the area. A breakdown ~f the current land uses in the East of l0i Area is given in Table 1. There are currently no permanent residential uses in the area, except for liveaboards in the marinas. Many land and business owners feel that the lack of residents in the area is an asset because industrial operations can be perceived as nuisance uses. There are no predominant land use patterns in the study area, and various types of land use conditions and businesses are scattered. Figures 8, 9 and 10, show these various conditions. • Figure 8 illustrates parcels with a low improvement to land ratio, which is an indicator of the value of the improvements on the land. Parcels mapped are not vacant, but have buildings and other improvements that are worth less than the underlying land. This is generally an indication of the potential for private redevelopment of a site. These parcels are scattered throughout the East of 101 Area. II-39 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES MAY 1993 Table 1 LAND USE IN THE STUDY AREA Laud Use Appro~dmate Acreage Percent Vapnt 239 14% Manufacturing 80 5% ~~ 692 41% Office 61 4% Retail 65 4% Hotel 21 1% Marina/Recreation 96 6% Other Uses 209 12% Roadways & Railroads 240 14% TOTAL 1,703 100% Figure 9 shows the locations of bioscience and medical firms is the study area. As noted in the Market Study Report, these are some of the fastest growing industries in both the study area and the Bay Area. Figure 9 shows that these companies are concentrated in the northern part of the study area. Figure 10 shows the locations of air transportation firms in the East of 101 Area. Because of the projected expansion of San Francisco International Airport, these companies are likely to grow in the future. It would be expected that these companies would be located as close to the Airport as possible, however, Figure 10 shows that they are distributed throughout the area. II-40 ,•---- '-_-.e 1 / I"~' \ /,' ^ - ,, ~ i ) ~' tJ ~~~ ..tee.., -. / --~ ``~ .JI ~. _;~ ~~_ ~,. fr~.t .fir i, ~..s~~'~. - ~._ / ~ _ _ ~ -/~/ „ _ ",~::~ ~ ^/(-I J% t~~, ~ ~~- • iii .. •,._ . ff , ~~ t_. 3 .. • k ' rn ~' __ --- ' _~ --•. ~- ~, :- ~~Z - ~ ~ - _ _ _ ..----.,_ ..'sn i ~ - ~ y, ~ , ~ •~ '. • .~ II :. ' • ~ ' .'~', it A UI -•,~ t~ • I ~ _ _ ~~ _ -- ,~ J . -~ __ -- -. __ - -' 1 ~ M4 . _ ~ a ,: , ~__.: . _~. '. __, ,_ ~ ~~ S C A L E 1'-1800' ,~ EAST OF 101 AREAPLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D_Y AND A S S O C [,ATE S FIGURE 8 Parcels with Low Improvement to Land Ratios ..~~ ~ -~~~ ~----' ~~;. ~ a~ ; ~~, , ~ ~ ,~ _ rtnR_ ~'x/A /may ~r k ~ i~ ~ ~~~ • a1 "~ .. ~ ~~ ~fJ/ rte.. {~ ~; .\\ .i,.~ / _ y) x~S5d4' ~ I ~ ~ . , i .,' ~ 1 ~ -'~ r _ / ~~~ -1 ~ j '~ ~.-...: -ti.~ ~ 'E ,,~~~ ~ y~i~ - -- ~k-' ;m'~- Cri ~ ~, "' ip A V "~ ` ' t.. ~ ~~_~ i _- ' s i '. ~ `~-_. :. .. ~ ~ , S C A L E 1'.1800' o soo foav aaov EAST OF 7O~~II i AREA PLAN FIGURE 9 Locations of Biotech and Medical Firms City of South San Francisco B R A D Y AND A S S O C I A T E S ~. + . .~ , - ~ I ~ J~ ~ ~' ~ ~~ .' ~I~ .~ ~~~ y .. ~, ~" n .~ ~ '~ ~ /// / ,~.~, • b t~ ;s- .,~ t gel.,; L /J~ r ~ / ~ - - ~ r `` .. ,. ... ~ _; .~; .~ _ ~. - -" ,, -~ • ~ , _ \ 1 , :~ it - -,\i~• ~ `~ •~ ~~..,+,~ .• ~ r- is ~ ~ •'~ .....~ ~ . t ~'v ~• .~. 1 ~ + a` /~, ~, ~~ ~° .i +I.j~./ -, ~, A ~ ~ _ _ ~ \~~ ~ - '~~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ - - M l _ is .~ _- ~ ~ ~-~ _I _ ,. t ~ .,, S C A L E 7'•1800' o ~' ,~ EAST OF 1~1 AREAPLAN FIGURE 10 Locations of Air Transportation Firms City of South San Francisco B A A D Y AND A S S O C I A T 8 3 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES B. Lend Use Analysis Zones This study divides the area into twelve zones, which are shown in Figure 11. Parcels in each zone generally have similar land use and design characteristics. Each zone is discussed in detail below, and the urban design character of the zones is discussed in Chapter 5. 1. KolUShearwater Zone The KolUShearwater zone includes the northern boundary of the study area and borders the Highway 101 to the west, Oyster Point Boulevard to the south, and the Oyster Point Business Park to the east. A good portion of the land is located along the shoreline. Currently, this area is undeveloped with no improvements. The Koll site is relatively isolated from other uses in the East of 101 Area because it is separated by a man-made channel on the Shearwater site. The only access to this site is from the Sierra Point development located in Brisbane to the north. The Shearwater site comprises approximately 55 acres of dry land. The current owners, the Japanese firm EPOCH, which was recently reorganized under Japanese bankruptcy law, have not expressed an interest in developing this site. 2. Oyster Point Zone Oyster Point is located in the northeastern portion of the study area and adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. The area is comprised of the Oyster Point Marina and the Oyster Point Business Park, which also includes a private marina. Both developments contain a mix of commercial and recreational uses. The 571-slip Oyster Point Marina is located along Marina Avenue. The area also includes a restaurant, hotel, retail stores, a 300-foot fishing pier, and a shoreline park and trail. The Oyster Point Business Park is located northwest of Oyster Point Marina. It contains approximately 450,000 square feet of office space, 313,000 square feet of warehouse/office building space, and a 245-slip private marina, known as the Oyster Cove Marina. Along the shoreline is a pedestrian trail which links different parts of the business park. II-44 ~~ .-,:.~,, u~~~ '~ i ~ .~ , y ~. ~: .ham " ~~ ~ ~ ;* ,. t t ._ t _ - _ ~[ _ _ _-_ _ .~~ /// F ~ ~ _'~;;b "~ GATEWI~Y " ;,;. CABOT ABOT,-~,..~.. - .., - "` F~, ~~-~' ~% - RTH ~ORI= ~~\ _ _., DRIVE-`=~ . ~ -- _- .. -- _~ .. :. r- ., ~~- i ___ .. tr-..~. _ - - ~ ~ - ORE _ _.- _ - ' _ _ ~ . SH ~,RAiytl - - ~~ ~ ~ ~.... INDU ,aL . 4: ~' __ ., ~ ~ EXPO .,l ~` ' "8 ~ - ` -_ - sL-~ _ .~ ; - - - ~ - _-__ _ ,~-- ,. _- ~ ~ _ ~ = i=_ AIRPORT AREAS o { -_-~_ _ ~~. \ _ '- .`T S C A ~ E t'.t800' o ~ ,~ EAST OF 1~1 FIGURE 11 Land Use Analysis Zones AREA PLAN ~ City of South San Francisco B R A D Y AND A S S O C I A T E S EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EX1S'f[NG CONDITIONS REPORT EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES 3. 101 Frontage Zone The 101 Frontage zone, bounded by the Highway 101 to the west and the Southern Pacific Transportation railroad tracks to the east, includes the Caltrain Station, the South San Francisco Business Center, the Project 101 development, and the Levitz furniture store. All development in this area is accessed from Dubuque Avenue. The Caltrain station, located at the southern end of Dubuque Avenue, includes a station building and large parking lot. The building is not open for passenger use and the parking lot is owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad. Passengers wait on track platforms for both northbound and southbound trains. The 10-acre Project 101 development is north of the Caltrain station and includes retail, office and light industrial uses. Office Depot, which is a major supplier of office supplies and furniture is located in Project 101. Although Project 101 is designated for retail uses, its owners report that they have had difficulty attracting retailing tenants due to the configuration of the existing buildings and the poor access to the area from Highway 101. The South San Francisco Business Center is located directly adjacent to Project 101 and includes retail, office and light industrial uses. Levitz Furniture is a 340,000-square foot furniture outlet located at the ncrthern end of Dubuque Avenue, directly north of the South San Francisco Business Center. 4. Gateway Zone The Gateway zone includes the area east of the Southern Pacific railroad tracks between East Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard. The project includes the former Bethlehem Steel and Edward's Wire Rope site. The Gateway was planned as a major office, commercial and research park and contains more than 700,000 square feet of office, research and development space and a 1,300-room hotel. Many parcels in the area remain vacant, and the owners are currently seeking buyers. The most recent construction in the area, the Rouse Company's Gateway Office Park, represents a departure from the previous high-rise construction of the area. 5. Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes Zone The Cabot, Cabot and Forbes zone includes the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Industrial Park, which was one of the first low-rise flex and light industrial uses developed in the study area in the 1960s. The area also includes development II-46 MAY 1943 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTMG CONDITIONS REPORT EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES along Forbes Boulevard, Eccles Avenue, and Allerton Way, and includes a mix of warehouse/light industrial and commercial uses. The larger warehouse and manufacturing developments in this area are United Parcel Service (UPS), Georgia Pacific, and Sanrio/See's. The UPS package distribution facility, located at 657 Forbes Boulevard, is one of the largest new buildings in the area, with 238,000 square feet and 495 employees. Georgia Pacific, at 249 East Grand Avenue, is a paper manufacturing plant occupying close to 550,000 square feet. The Sanrio/See's building occupies over 370,000 square feet and was originally built for another tenant. It now houses a variety of users, in addition to Sanrio and See's Candies. Most of the Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes area consists of buildings with approximately 20,000 to 50,000 square feet and a potential for a variety of uses. 6. Grandview Drive Zone The Grandview Drive zone consists of the Genentech Corporate Campus and development along Grandview Drive. Like the Cabot. Cabot and Forbes area, i~ includes a mix of flex buildings which house warehouse, industrial, office, and rESearch and developlr•ent uses. Genentech, a biosciencenology manufacturing center, occupies the eastern end of Forbes Boulevard and a portion of Point San Bruno Boulevard. The headquarters occupies 22 acres and employs over 1,900 people. The Genentech Campus includes approximately t.5 million square feet of manufacturing facilities, laboratories, offices, and warehouses. Genentech has recently expanded its facilities through the construction of three additional research and development buildings at 390 Point San Bruno. The area of these facilities totals 225,000 square feet. In addition, 100,000 square feet of industrial space has been converted to office space for Genentech's use. Genentech also owns the Marine Magnesium Plant located to the south of the campus. Another development in the area is the Hilltop Business Center which occupies nine acres. The business center includes nine buildings with approximately 130,000 square feet of office and warehouse space. 7. South of Grand Industrial Zone The South of Grand Industrial zone consists of properties around Utah Avenue, Harbor Way, Littlefield Avenue, and Swift Avenue. This zone II-47 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXISTING AND PLANNED [.AND USES contains a mixture of ~exible warehouse, industrial and commercial buildings. The largest manufacturing facility in this area is the Folgers Coffee Plant, whose site totals ten acres and includes over 300,000 square feet of floor area. The Point Grande Office Park and the Edgewater Business Park are two newer developments in the area. These developments contain a number of uses including commercial and warehouse space. The Point Grande Office Park is located on 20 acres at 270 East Grand Avenue and contains eight buildings totaling 343,000 square feet. Within this business park there are several retail and restaurant uses serving nearby businesses. Edgewater Business Park is located on eight acres at the intersection of Utah and Littlefield Avenue. The major tenant in this development is Toshiba, with approximately 130,000 square feet of space and over 200 employees. S. North Harbor/Sylvester Road Zone The North Harbor/Sylvester Road zone is bounded by East Grand Avenue to the north, Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the south, Highway 101 to the west, and Pointe Grande Business Park to the east. Because this area has relatively old buildings, low on-site parking ratios, several obsolete uses and low improvement to land value, it has been identified as one of the areas most susceptible to change. The northern portion of Harbor Road includes several old industrial sheds and salvage yards. Because parcels are narrow in this area, most properties provide little or no on-site parking. Two salvage yards have been closed by the County Environmental Health Officer for toxics violations and there is a low level of activity in the area. Sylvester Road, by contrast, contains a mix of light industrial and warehouse uses. The activity level on Sylvester Road is rather high and development is dense. Like North Harbor, however, parcels are narrow and buildings are built to the property line, providing little on-site parking. 9. Shoreline Manufacturing Zone The Shoreline Manufacturing zone is located at the east end of East Grand Avenue and includes portions of the shoreline. The primary uses in the area are heavy industrial and manufacturing, including the Fuller-O'Brien Paint factory and the Marine Magnesium Plant. II-48 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT cX1STING AND PLANNED LAND USES Fuller-O'Brien Paints is a manufacturing plant occupying 27 acres and employing 60 to 75 people. The site consist of factory and warehouse buildings, some dating back to 1898. The Marine Magnesium Plant, located near the Fuller-O'Brien site along the waterfront, is a manufacturing plant currently owned by Genentech that extracts magnesium from saltwater. The plant occupies over 12 acres, and is likely to be closed in the near future. A shoreline site owned by Arthur Buzz Haskins Co. is located adjacent to Fuller- O'Brien. 10. South Airport Boulevard Zone The South Airport Boulevard zone includes a mix of hotel, commercial and light industrial uses. Unlike other parts of the study area, this area primarily serves airport and auto-related uses, with a primary visitor and shopper orientation. The northern end of South Airport Boulevard consists of hote~s and motor hotels adjacent to the South San Francisco l;orferer_ce Ginter. 'ihere are app*oximately 1,6J0 hotel rooms located is this area. Major hotels include the Radisson Hotel with 2~1 rooms, the Ramada lr_n with over ~~0 rooms, and the Best Western Hotel with 206 rooms. Major retail developments in the area include the Price Club, located just north of North Access Road, and the Auto Parts Club located at 124 Beacon Street. The Price Club's existing square footage is 180,000, including a recent 30,000 square foot expansion. The Auto Parts Club is a 35,000 square foot wholesale and retail auto parts store. The South Airport Boulevard zone also includes an industrial park development on Beacon Avenue that is currently zoned for retail and commercial use, but is used for industrial purposes. In addition, the site does not have adequate parking or access for retailing. 11. Airport Transition Zone The Airport Transition zone just north of San Francisco International Airport, creates the transition between the Airport and the study area. It includes a large amount of vacant land along South Airport Boulevard and major institutional uses such as the City's sewage treatment plant, the SamTrans maintenance facility and a jet fuel storage facility. II-49 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES The South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Treatment Plant is located on the harbor adjacent to City-owned land. This sewage treatment plant can generate odors that are a carried downwind from the facility. Located south of the treatment facility on Bel Air Island is the SamTrans bus maintenance station which occupies close to nine acres of land and employs approximately 250 people. 12. Airport Zone The Airport zone includes the southern boundary of the study area, and is under the jurisdiction of San Francisco International Airport. The major use is the United Airlines maintenance facility, which extends out of South San Francisco and the study area. There are also several other airport hangars, two of which are used by Federal Express and Japan Airlines, as well as a jet fuel tank facility. A Coast Guard station is located at the end of North Access Road. Because they are under the jurisdiction of the Airport, land uses in this area are stable and not subject to change. C. Vac&nt Land Figure 12 shows the distribution of vacant land in the East of 101 Area. There are several key vacant parcels in the area, primarily concentrated in the north, including the Koll and Shearwater properties and portions of the Oyster Point Marina and Gateway zones. The development direction for these vacant parcels will be one of the major planning concerns of the Area Plan. There are additional vacant parcels scattered throughout the East of 101 Area. Infill development can occur under the Area Plan on these parcels, but is unlikely to have a character that is significantly different from the existing surrounding land uses. Figure 12 also shows residual vacant land that exists in the area as a result of development projects that have already occurred. This land has little or no development potential, due to slopes, wetlands, or other constraining features. Figure 12 also shows the location of underutilized rail spurs in the study area. While some people have suggested that these rail spurs should be maintained to support industrial development or transit, they are not currently used by most businesses and are not practical for transit development. Another II-50 ~,... , ~MC~Nu Vacant Parcels _ .~ ~ ® Residual Undeveloped Land ` ~ hail Spurs '~ f ~: , ! __ ' / s~ a` ~ / _. ,~ ~.. AY ~ ,' y """ " ~~., ~j ~ s,1. :Y ( ~ f '~ ~'',i ~ /~^ :~ , ~~ 0.~ ~ .~ ~~. ,7 i.~Pl S C A l E i~•i3oa ~_ o ~ ,~ EAST OF ~~ 1~1 ~~~ AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco FIGURE 12 Vacant Parcels and Residual Open Space in the Study Area B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S I L• M ~ 1 1/ / M~ L A M 1/ G~ I ~ •^ C~ I I ~ C I/ MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTIIYG CONDfT10NS REPORT EXISTING AND ?CANNED LAND USES alternative would be to use the vacated spurs for bicycle or pedestrian trails in the future, or to use the land for needed parking in the East of 101 Area. D. Approved and Proposed Projects This section identifies approved and proposed projects that are to occur in the study area. 1. Koll Site The Koll Company has no formal application submitted to the City, but has expressed an interest in developing its land in the study area with high density residences. The Koll site has been identified as a potential affordable housing site by the Draft Housing Element of the South San Francisco General Plan, but potential problems include noise conflicts with the San Francisco International Airport and problems with access to and from the site. The Koll Company believes it can address these problems and establish housing as a viable use.l 3. Shearwater Specit3c Pian The Shearwa~er Specific Plan provides for [he rede-~elopment ~t the former U.S. Steel site into amixed-use comple;; including commercial, cultural, and recreational facilities. The project proposed under the Specific Plan would enhance the existing bay channel as the focus of the master planned complex. The project was to include a 536-berth marina, a 750-room hotel, a 1,700-seat convention center, a performing arts theater, three office buildings with over 1.3 million square feet of space, retail stores, restaurants and a cinema. The intent was to develop afull-time, high density destination serving as a focal point for the community. No progress has been made on the implementation of the Shearwater Specific Plan, and the current owners of the site have not shown an interest in implementing the Plan. According to the Market Study Report for this project, the demand for the office space component of the project would be questionable, and the convention center, theater and retail stores could be difficult to support. t Dougtas A. Thomas, Senior Vice President, Koll Company, personal communication, March 8, 1993. II-53 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN ~Y 1993 EXISTING CONDTIIONS REPORT EXISTUG AND PLANNED LAND USES 3. Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan District The Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan provides for the development of the land to the south of the Oyster Point Marina along Marina Boulevard, permitting mixed-use development of the site. Projected land uses include retail and personal service establishments, offices, restaurants, hotels, and public uses related to the adjacent harbor. 4. Gateway Specific Plan District The Gateway Specific Plan applies to property east of the Southern Pacific railroad tracks between East Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard and west of Cabot and Forbes Industrial Park. Ultimate build-out of the mixed-use project would result in 2.5 million square feet of office space, 1,300 hotel rooms, 500,000 square feet of research and development space, and an additional 60,000 square feet of support retail. However, the current owners of the property are currently trying to sell the land, and it is not expected that prospective buyers would be interested in developing the office and hotel uses in today's market. 5. Genentech Genentech is currently completing a Master Plan for its expansion. The Plan is expected to include the addition of 1,195,000 square feet and 2,500 employees, for a total campus of 2,600,000 square feet and 4,500 workers. Future projects may include the replacement of Building 7 and additions and renovations to Buildings 1, 3, 4, and 9.2 In addition, Genentech is expecting to expand onto the Marine Magnesium site within the next five years. Genentech would also like to narrow and close streets around its facilities to reinforce the campus atmosphere.3 6. Airport Expansion San Francisco International Airport is planning on expanding its facilities to improve its efficiency. Some of these improvements, outlined in the SFIA Master Plan, will take place within the East of 101 Area. These include the creation of a tight rail transportation center that will serve the entire Airport 2 Ken Kay Associates, Genentech Corporation Facilities Master Plan, February 1993. 3 James P. Panek, Senior Director of Engineering and Facilities, Genentech Inc., personal communication, March 11, 1993. II-54 MAY 1493 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES property, and the development of the North Field Cargo and Maintenance Facility east of the existing United Airlines Maintenance Operations Center. The light rail system will connect the New Ground Transportation Center of the Airport to the terminal areas, the remote long-term public and employee parking area, and the maintenance facilities located in South San Francisco. Though the light rail system will be operated by the Airport itself, it could be used by people working within the East of 101 project area. Under the Master Plan, the North Field Cargo and Maintenance Area will be reconfigured to accommodate a more efficient facility and provide additional parking area for aircraft. E. Surrounding Area In order to understand the East of 101 Area, it is also important to consider the surrounding land uses. The San Francisco International Airport is directly 'south of the study area and the City of Brisbane is directly north. The remainder of the ~~ity of South San Francisco, includi g its downtown, is west of the study area. 1. Western South San Francisco Within the South San Francisco city limits west of the study area are a combination of industrial, residential and commercial land uses. Downtown South San Francisco is located along Grand Avenue just west of the study area. The Downtown includes the main shopping street on Grand Avenue, some service commercial and retail uses on side streets, and civic facilities including the historic City Hall and library. The Downtown is the subject of several redevelopment projects which have helped to revitalize the area. Industrial uses west of Highway 101 are concentrated in the Lindenville neighborhood in the south portion of the City. Existing uses in this area are predominantly light manufacturing, office-warehouses, and vehicle service uses, such as auto repair and vehicle/equipment rental agencies. II-55 FAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES 2. San Bruno Mountain/Terra Bay The Terrabay Specific Plan District is located in the northern portion of the City of South San Francisco, just west of the Highway 101. The project is a mixed-use residential and commercial development located on the lower southeastern slopes of the San Bruno Mountains. The residential component of the Terrabay Project allows a maximum of 745 dwelling units. The portion of the plan located directly adjacent to the freeway will be primarily commercial, consisting of offices, hotels, restaurants, and a proposed trade center. The land above the Terrabay Specific Plan District is part of the San Bruno Mountains State Park. 3. Koll Sierra Point North of the project area is the Koll Center Sierra Point and Marina, located in the City of Brisbane. Major office developments in this area include three buildings with offices of Hitachi, Unisys, and The Good Guys. The Koll Sierra Point development in Brisbane currently offers the only access to the Koll property within the East of 101 Area. 4. San Francisco International Airport The majority of the San Francisco International Alrpo~t is located tc~ the south of the East of 101 Area and a portion of the SFIA property is within South San Francisco and the study area. Over 1,300 scheduled flights land and depart each day, providing both passenger and air freight services. The Airport's major support is passenger activity, while domestic cargo activities have declined in the past years. In addition, international airfreight has grown significantly and is expected to continue to grow. The operations of the San Francisco International Airport are further discussed in Chapter 9. II-56 Chapter 5 VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS This chapter examines the visual character of the East of 101 study area. It looks specifically at the Design Review Guidelines of the City, the defining visual features of the area, the area's building and streetscape character, gateways that lead into the area from other locations, views into the area, and views from the area. A. Design Review Guidelines In i~tarch 1991, the City of South San Francisco adopted its Design Review Guidelines to establish a basis for design review throughout the City. Tne jesig.. policy of the Ciy of 5au~h Saa Francisco is ~o promote quality design, promote a functional, safe and attractive environment, preserve the character of South San Francisco's heritage, protect public investment and land values, protect the natural environment, and evaluate development proposals. The intent of the Design Review Guidelines is to not only establish an acceptable level of design quality and to encourage good design, but to speed up the development review process by reaching developers, architects, and designers early in the design process. The guidelines are not regulatory in nature, but give guidance only. They discuss a variety of subjects, including scale, parking and circulation, landscaping, lighting, and signs, and recommended treatments or design alternatives to improve projects. The Design Review Guidelines are applicable to all developments that require Planning Commission approval, in addition to major building permit applications. The process of design review includes evaluation by the Design Review Board, which consists of five members appointed by the Planning Commission. These members include architects, landscape experts, and a building or engineering contractor. Recommendations are made to the Planning Commission by the Design Review Board in accordance with the Design Review Guidelines. Variations II-57 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDI'T10NS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS from the specific guidelines can be made if the exceptions are justifiable and provide projects of high quality and caliber. Recent development in the East of 101 area is generally in compliance with the City's Design Review Guidelines. Setbacks are included in development, with landscaped street frontages and side yard areas. This allows for privacy between properties, and light and air to adjoining properties. Landscape features in the area also help to define entrances, exits, loading areas, and property edges. Most sites are easily accessible from the street with visitor parking located at the front or sides of buildings. Loading areas of newer buildings are typically at the rear of the structure. B. DeTining Features Visual features, such as physical and visual edges, topographic features, landmarks and entries define how people respond to an area. Examples of these features as they exist in the East of 101 Area are discussed in the following sections, and are illustrated in Figure 13. 1. Edges As shown in Figure 13, the study area is defined by two major edges: Highway 101 and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way on the west, and the winding San Francisco Bay shore on the east. Highway 101 and the railroad separate the study area from the rest of South San Francisco, and create a buffer between residential uses and the Downtown on the west side of the freeway and the much more heavily industrial uses in the study area. Near Highway 101 there is also a major transmission line easement owned by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. The transmission lines are several hundred feet above the ground and run directly along the northern portion of South Airport Boulevard, causing buildings to be set back significantly from the street. From South Airport Boulevard, the lines run south through the study area along Highway 101, north across the Gateway Specific Plan Area, and over the San Bruno Mountains. The eastern portion of the study area is defined by the Bay edge. This natural boundary offers sweeping views of the East Bay. Pedestrian trails follow the Bay edge along Oyster Point and portions of the Genentech corporate campus. Both Oyster Point and Point San Bruno are important protrusions into the Bay that offer views of the Bay and recreational opportunities. Other water edges include a small cove along Oyster Point and the Shearwater site, and a small II-58 ------ ~` LEGEND ~ ~-----, ® Entries to the Study Area ® Highwry 101 ® Rail Lines ~ ~' • • Transmission Lines '" ~ . ~"„~ Major Topographic Features ~ ~ ~ , oy Views from the Area ' .~ Views of the Area ~ Q Visual Barrier * Landmarks • ~ ~. .ate ~~-_~_ - ~i !! - t ;~ t , o ~,. i • /' f~ ~ __ _ ~y s ~.,« ~ • Z __ ~ . . 'y`M - - , . • ~ ,~ if ,,{', ~ ~~_cc^99 _.___a.l - - _ __ _._ _ _ _ ~ _.. - _ _ `. _. ~ _ « i 1 - 's _ - ~_ '- - .j + ~~ _ i '~• _ _... •_. t - ~ ~ T ~~. ~~ •- • . ,~ +~d• • ''i b'` • • ~~~~ . ~ ~ .» ~ ~ . `. ., ! t i s~ ~~ ~ ___ •- .. r~ - ~.- - k ~ ~ ,w , a ~ ~ f a , _ --- -_ :% I ~ 'L' - =f _ 1 ~ r _~.__ ,--_ ,_ , ~ `~' ~;, Q S C A C E r•raoo~ ,~ EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAN FIGURE 13 Visual Features of the Study Area City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS protected harbor bounded by Bel Air Island and abandoned "finger" piers owned by the City. During low tide, the harbor reveals a mud flat that extends throughout the entire harbor. Waterways located in the study area include Colma Creek and San Bruno Canal. They are both located in the southwest portion of the study area and originate from a westerly direction. Colma Creek follows along Mitchell Avenue and turns south prior to reaching Harbor Way. It joins with the San Bruno Canal before feeding into the San Francisco Bay. Both waterways are approximately 100 feet wide and provide linear views at bridge crossings. 2. Topographic Features As shown in Figure 13, the area's topography varies, with one prominent hill, known as San Bruno Point Hill, rising 180 feet from the shoreline. Other major topographic features include a steep embankment around the Sanrio/See's building and the UPS facility, bluffs on the Marine Magnesium property between Point San Bruno and the Haskins property, a small ridge extending from the Cost Plus property to the Rouse's Gateway Office Park, and a cliff delineating the Hilltop Business Center between Grandview Drive and Forbes Boulevard. These topographic features crea:e visual interest, allow for views to the Bay, and make some areas on slopes znd high points visually prominent. 3. Visual Landmarks The East of 101 Area has a variety of visual features which can be described as landmarks, or objects which stand out to the observer. These features are graphically described in Figure 13. The Best Western Grosvenor Inn can be seen from a variety of vista points from within and outside the study area. Its architectural quality is minimal partially because more massing occurs in the upper portions of the building. This quality negates pedestrian scale and creates a visually unpleasing character. Other landmarks include the three buildings of the Gateway development, which are generally impressive, along with the Crown Sterling Suites Hotel. Landmarks which create a negative impression of the East of 101 Area include the billboards located predominately in the southern portion of the study area along Highway 101, and larger signs which block any potential positive views of the study area. These include the Levitz sign and the Travelodge sign. II-60 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT ViSIIAL AND DESIGN FACTORS In addition, San Bruno Point Hill can be seen from much of the study area and from several locations outside the study area, including City Hall. This view and landmark includes the "Windchime", which is an art work located directly on top of the topographic feature. 4. Entries The entries that people pass through to come into an area often create the first impression of that area, and can help to define the overall visual quality of the area. For this reason, this chapter contains a special evaluation of the entries to the East of 101 Area. Figure 13 illustrates the location of the six major automobile entries, which are described below from north to south. In addition, several of the photographs in Figures IS through 21 show typical views from the entryways. Figure 14 shows where these photographs were taken. The entry to the area for CalTrain passengers using the South San Francisco station is also described below. a. Ouster Point Boulevard. Oyster Point Boulevard east of Highway 101, provides entry to the northern portion of the study area. Oyster Point Boulevard. at the intersection of Dubuque Avenue, includes a northbound entrance and exit ramp to Highway 1C1 and a highway overcrossing. 'nterchange iirprovenlents planned for this intersection will include a northbound entrance and exit ralrp, s southbound entrance and exit ramp, and a new Oyster Point overcrossing, making this an even more important entrance to the area. The new Oyster Point overcrossing will also improve the existing entry by eliminating the need to cross the large number of at grade railroad tracks. The first impression of the study area from the Oyster Point entry is relatively good as a result of landscape improvements made with development of the Gateway property, including a landscaped median with larger mature trees. However, the vacant Shearwater property, which is surrounded by a chain link fence, is bleak and undeveloped, and creates a negative impression of the area. No buildings are immediately visible from this entry, which creates a desolate sensation. The landscaped median of Oyster Point Boulevard ends beyond Gateway Boulevard and the road narrows, detracting even more from the entryway. A view looking through the entryway can be seen in Photo 15d. Continuing on Oyster Point Boulevard, the first prominent building is the Greyhound Exposition Services building (formerly Cost Plus) on the north side of the street. This is a large square tilt-up building with loading docks completely surrounding the exterior. The visual interest of this building is improved by the use of varied colors on the exterior of the development, but II-61 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS MAY 1993 the building is generally monotonous since it has no windows or articulation. On the south side of Oyster Point Boulevard, there is a recycling center, the Malcolm building, which is painted a bright blue, the Sanrio/See's building, and the beginnings of the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes development. Both the Malcolm building and the recycling center have unattractive storage outside the buildings, which is visible from the street through chain link fences. Generally, landscaping in this area is lacking and the desolate feeling of the entryway continues. Utility lines are also visible along Oyster Point Boulevard, and the area could be improved if these lines were undergrounded. The Oyster Point Boulevard streetscape improves substantially on the east side of the ridge near Eccles Avenue, where the street slopes down to enter into the bay and marina environment. Mature landscaping begins on the south side of Oyster Point Boulevard and the Oyster Cove and Oyster Point. developments become visible. A view of Oyster Point Boulevard around the Oyster Cove development can be seen in Photo 15b. Oyster Point Boulevard is the only entryway to these visually-attractive marinas and office developments. The qualities of these Bay developments are diminished because of the lack of visual amenity on the road leading to them. b. East Grand Avenue. The East Grand Avenue interchange is the entry to the central portion of the study area from both Highway 10: and downtown South San Francisco. It feeds into the intersection of Gateway Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard Extension, and East Grand Avenue. The highway overcrossing connects with Airport Boulevard and provides access to Highway 101. East Grand Avenue continues westward and provides a link to and from downtown South San Francisco. Because of the underpass on East Grand under Highway 101, the sharp curve in the road, and the bridge over the railroad line, this entry to the area is somewhat disorienting. The Gateway development, located on the north side of the street, is a prominent and visually pleasing feature of this entryway. On the south side of the street, the PG&E East Grand Substation is effectively buffered from view with landscaping as one travels east, but it is not screened for travelers moving west on East Grand Avenue or along Harbor Way. In addition, the South Airport Boulevard transmission lines are within the viewshed of the entryway. At this entry, many of the older industrial developments around Harbor Way are visible in the background; examples are shown in Photo 18c. Many business owners have complained about the visual or industrial character of this entryway largely due to these older developments. Many of these buildings are finished in corrugated metal and windows are minimal. The visual character of this area could also be improved by placing utility lines II-62 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS underground. There is a view of San Bruno Point Hill behind the older industrial area, which serves as an attractive backdrop. As one continues along East Grand Avenue and beyond the older areas and vacant land of Harbor Way, the visual integrity of the area increases. Buildings on the north side of East Grand Avenue have building variation and articulation coupled with differing setbacks. Some of the loading bays of these buildings are located in the front setbacks, but they do not consistently detract from the visual interest. The relatively new Pointe Grand Park is located on the south side of East Grand Avenue and provides high quality landscaping and visual quality. Beyond East Grand Avenue's intersection with Littlefield Avenue, there is a concentration of corrugated metal buildings with large amounts of outside storage and no landscaping on the south side of the street. Development on the north side of the street continues with a generally higher visual quality than the southern development, including variated setbacks, landscaping, and few visible loading bays. East Grand Avenue's landscaped median ceases after Littlefield Avenue. Beyond Kilrball Way, landscaping begins on the south side of the street and the deveiop:r,enr<~ ~n either side of the street become fsiriy ccnip~tible. T'he buildings are generally tilt-up b~lildings with only a few windows and loading bays visible on both the sides and fronts of buildings. The larger development of Fuller-O'Brien is at the termination of East Grand Avenue, as shown in Photo 19b. c. Northern South Airport Boulevard. Northern South Airport Boulevard enters the study area from the west side of Highway 101 under a freeway overpass. Before heading southward, the street curves sharply, intersecting with Gateway Boulevard Extension and Mitchell Avenue. Because streets converge at this curved intersection, a considerable amount of traffic congestion occurs at this location. Visual features prominent from this entryway are the transmission lines, which are directly in front of the Super 8 Lodge, the Super 8 Lodge itself, the Ramada Inn, and the South San Francisco Conference Center, as shown in Photos 20a and 20b. The area is primarily a hotel district with some tilt-up industrial buildings in the distance along South Airport Boulevard. These buildings have no visible windows, and they have unattractive loading docks and trucking facilities. The majority of these buildings need maintenance, and they generally detract from the hotel emphasis of the entry. II-63 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDIT70NS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS The well-landscaped Hungry Hunter Restaurant is located on the western corner of South Airport Boulevard. Across the street, the Budget car rental facilities are also well landscaped. Continuing east along Mitchell Avenue, a landscaped median begins enhancing the visual quality of the area. d. Wondercolor Ramps. The Wondercolor Ramps provide access to South Airport Boulevard for northbound traffic on Highway 101. These ramps provide separate lanes for both north and southbound travel onto South Airport Boulevard as well as access onto northbound Highway 101 from South Airport Boulevard and Wondercolor Lane. This entry into the study area is well defined. The layout of the ramps is simple and there are no visual obstructions between Highway 101 and South Airport Boulevard, making the entry easily understood. Landscaping creates a good first impression of the area from this entryway. The Radisson Inn is located at the forefront of the entryway and is well maintained and visually pleasing. In addition, the San Francisco Conference Center is located to the left. Transmission lines transect these developments and are in prominent view. However, the South San Francisco Industrial Park and the Exhibit Group building located south of the Radisson Inn are visually detracting since they are not well maintained, lack prominent landscaping and buffers, and have loading bays located directly within their setbacks. The Pacific Gas and Electric easement, which crosses South Airport Boulevard at Utah Avenue, is desolate and could be improved through landscaping. Some construction or maintenance activity is taking place in this easement, which further detracts from the visual quality of the area. The visual quality of this entryway could be further enhanced by promoting the hotel uses along the boulevard and discouraging further industrial development, thus creating a hotel district. In addition, smaller utility lines could be relocated underground to ameliorate the "messy" character they currently create. e. Southern South Airport Boulevard. In addition to its entry from the north, South Airport Boulevard enters the study area from the San Francisco International Airport to the south. The San Bruno Freeway overpass and channel crossing provide a transition between the Airport to the south and commercial and hotel activity to the north, as shown in Photo 20c. This entry is dominated by an industrial and unmaintained character. Private landscaping lacks maintenance on the east side of the street under the overpasses, and several of the sites on South Airport Boulevard are vacant. In II-64 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS addition, the visual qualities of the area are not enhanced by any type of street tree planting or landscaped median. Typical buildings are rectilinear tilt-up buildings with very little visual interest and few windows. Chain link fences are common in the area. San Bruno Mountain is visible from the South Airport Boulevard entryway. As one continues north on South Airport Boulevard, the visual quality of the area improves. Landscaping begins around Belle Air Road at the Price Club, and trees are located within the medians. However, buildings still suffer from low visual interest, with visible loading bays and no windows. The Best Western is landscaped, but development such as the South San Francisco Industrial Park across the street is not. If South Airport Boulevard were to mature as a retail and hotel district, this entryway would most likely become more pleasing. Presently, lodging facilities are not visible at the southern end South Airport Boulevard. In addition, minor utility lines could be relocated underground, and landscaping could be enhanced to develop a strong visual impression at the entry to the area. f. North Access Road % Interstate ?R0. Interstate 380 providesy access to the area at its .ermination at North Access Road. Other ramps converge at North A.cces~ Road that lint: the area to Highway 101. Access: to South Airport Boulevard is possible but is indirect. The first impression of the area for motorists exiting Interstate 380 is of the very large United Airlines building. The great size and lack of detailing on this building looks overwhelming; the building provides no visual interest and its only ornamentation is its large United Airlines sign. In addition, storage of equipment and goods takes place on the exterior of the building, along the northern property line. The building has no windows or landscaping, and chain link fences surround the property. A portion of this view can be seen in Photo 20d. Continuing to the east, there is a tilt-up building which provides facilities for some of the airlines. The Chevron fuel tanks are immediately to the west of this building, and no vegetation or buffers are used to block the unpleasing view. Chain link fences with barbed wire surround the property. The vegetation underneath the freeway overpass is overgrown and unmaintained. There are a few buildings located beyond the Chevron facilities which have no variation in color or style. This entryway has the potential to be an important accessway for freeway travelers, but it is unwelcoming in its present condition. Chain link fences and II-65 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDfI10NS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS lack of maintained landscaping detract from the entryway's visual character. In addition, relocation of utility lines underground could substantially improve the quality of the entry. g. Caltrain. The CalTrain station provides the only rail link to the study area. It is located under the East Grand Avenue interchange, adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Access to the station is difficult due to the location of the East Grand overpass. Generally, the CalTrain station is visually unpleasing as there is no notable landscaping and chain link fences are prevalent. Presently, the station building is vacated and, therefor, the area seems desolate. There is no pedestrian access from the station to the study area, and the overall surroundings could be landscaped. and better connected to the rest of the area. Photo 16a shows the CalTrain depot. C. Building and Streetscape Environment This section analyzes the built environment of the East of 101 Area, using the same analysis zones defined in the Land Use chapter of this report and shown in Figure 11. This section is illustrated with photos of the study area, which are included in Figures i5 through 2i. The locations from which photographs were taken are shown in Figure 14. There is no dominant building character or streetscape pattern in the study area. Most buildings in the area are one and two story tight industrial and flex buildings that can be used for warehousing, manufacturing, research and development or offices. These flex buildings generally cover relatively large portions of their sites, and are surrounded by several aisles of parking that is sufficient to serve the buildings themselves. However, there is also a great deal of variety among these buildings. Some light industrial/flex buildings have loading docks on the street, few windows, sparse architectural ornament and little on-site parking or landscaping, while others are buffered from the street with landscaping, have their loading docks in the rear, and feature high-end architectural materials and large windows. There are also a number of other building types throughout the area, including dedicated high-rise offices of five to sixteen stories, hotels and metal and concrete industrial facilities. 1. Koll/S6earwater Zone The Koll/Shearwater area includes the northern boundary of the study area bordering Highway 101, Oyster Point Boulevard, and the shoreline. Currently this area is undeveloped with no street improvements. The bleak streetscape of this area along Oyster Point Boulevard detracts from the entry to existing development at Oyster Point. II-66 ,, Vii' _ ~-- ,. .~..~.e ......-_- - , ~, ~ T S C A L E 1'.7800' ,~ FIGURE 14 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y AND A S S O C I A T E S Photograph Locations B. View of Oyster Point Boulevard looking north. C. View of commercial buildings along Marina Boulevard. EAST OF O ~ AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 15 Photographs of the Study Area D. View of Oyster Point Boulevard looking east from Gateway Boulevard. A. View of the Oyster Point Business Distnct from Oyster Point Boulevard. C. View of Gateway Boulevard looking north.. EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAIN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 16 Photographs of the Study Area A. ~ yew of the South San Francisco train station bui:;:ng under th;: East Grand Avenue interchange. B. View of high-rise office buildings cri Gateway i3oulevard. G C. View of Allerton Avenue at the intersection of Cabot Road and Cabot Court. EAST OF j 1!, O AREA PLAN City o~South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 17 Photographs of the Study Area B. View of Forbes Boulevard near Carlton Court looking east. A. View of Forbes Boulevard near Allerton Avenue looking west. B. ~ iew of Genentech from Point San Bruno Boul~ ~. ard. r-- _..._._. __ _ ., -Y- ,,.. i EAST OF ~ 1~1 AREAPLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 18 Photographs of the Study Area D. View of Edgewater Business Park at the intersection of Utah Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. A. 'e~iew of Genentech from the corner of Forbes B-.....:yard and Point San Bruno Boulevard. C. View of East Grand Avenue at the corner of Harbor Boulevard. A. View of Harbor Road from the Southern Pacific railroad crossing. EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAN City o(South San Francisco FIGURE 19 Photographs of the Study Area B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S .~ ...... ... ......... .. ~.~.. e.. B. View of the Fuller O'Brien site from East Grand Avenue. C. View of the Marine Magnesium plant from Genentech. A. View of South Airport Boulevard from the ~a;ma Creek bridge. entryway. EAST OF O AREA PLAN City of Soutlt San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 20 Photographs of the Study Area B. View of the northern South Airport Boulevard C. View of the South Airport Boulevard entryway from the San Francisco International Airport. D. ~ iew of the Interstate 380 entryway. D. View of the South Airport Boulevard entryway from the San Francisco International Airport. EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE ? 1 Photographs of the Study Area A. View of the Bay from Genentech Property. B. View of the Bay from San Bruno Boulevard. C. View of San Bruno Mountain from Genentech. LEGEND -- ~----~ ® San Francisco Bay Views Q San Bruno Mountain Views .~ ~~ :.~.~~ ~.~ ~-- ~~ 1 ~..,•~ _~ t Z'' l~ {~~ ~_ ~~ s - ' • ~ •t ~:, ` w t ,.: ~ « ~~ /'r '~, - ~t~J ~~ ~:- ~i '~~.v f .. ~.. .. ,b ~ ~. y ~Y -. ~ f ~ : ~ l ~~ ~ // .'n --.~ j ~.. ''~rr ~ `~ _ _ . _ ~ ~- ~~ :._ a:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ? ~ . ` I - ;- _ ~ ry -.. _ _... ~`. _._ - _ - - .~...~~ r ' ~ ~- ~I_ .~ ...1. e ~ . ", ~ ~, , _. r,, ~ jai I +-- - 1 ~. f _- ----- S C A l E f'.f800' o~;~ EAST OF i AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y AND A S S O C I ATE S .......~ ... .....e... ....,.,... FIGURE 22 Views from the Area EAST OF 101 AREA Pl.4N MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS The Shearwater site partially surrounds aman-made inlet 400 feet wide and 800 feet long, which has the potential to become a visual amenity in the area. The Koll site is isolated from the rest of the study area by the Shearwater channel, and its access and location make it seem more a part of the Siena Point development in the City of Brisbane than a part of South San Francisco. 2. Oyster Point Zone This area consists of flex and office buildings, along with recreational facilities and two marinas. The Oyster Point Marina Business District and the Oyster Point Marina are the two areas that make up Oyster Point. a. Ouster Point Marina Business District .The area along the eastern portion of Oyster Point Boulevard includes single-story buildings with uniform setbacks, massing, height, color, and materials. Collectively these elements help to unify the buildings, although they lack variety. A private marina is located within the business park but is not prominent from the street. Landscaping is provided along the street and helps screen parking in front. A general view of this area is shown in Photo 15a, while the streetscape is shown in Photo 15b. As shown in Photo 15a, the area also includes two five-story buildings located at the east end of Oyster Point Boulevard. These office buildings, identical in height and massing, are setback considerably from the street and surrounded by a landscaped parking area. Along the shoreline is a pedestrian trail that links different parts of the business district. b. Ouster Point Marina. Located along Marina Boulevard is the Oyster Point Marina, which includes a mix of commercial and recreational uses. The marina itself includes 571 slips, a fishing pier, a boat ramp and landside uses such as a boat dealer and a concessions stand. There are also several commercial buildings in the area, which are illustrated in Photo 15c. These buildings have massing and detailing that is much different from any other in the study area, with aline-grained set of details and a style that is reminiscent of Cape Cod or coastal houses. Oyster Point Boulevard, which serves as the entry to this area, has an incoherent streetscape resulting from the mix of haphazard development and undeveloped land along it, as illustrated in Photo 15d. Street improvements and landscaping are not consistent along the street, and could be a liability for the area, particularly for the viability of commercial developments on Oyster Point itself. Landscaping to match the Gateway Office Park development II-76 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDTIIONS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS along Oyster Point Boulevard could help to unify this area and improve its image. 3. 101 Frontage Zone This area includes a narrow swath of land between Highway 101 and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. The commercial buildings in this area tend to be large floor plate single-story buildings with no predominant setback pattern. Buildings are separated from one another by parking lots with little or no landscaping. The Caltrain station, also located in this area and shown in Photo 16a, contains a small brick building that is no longer used. Train platforms line the tracks that extend between 600-700 feet. The site is primarily used for parking and is in poor condition with no paving and landscaping. 4. Gateway Zone This area has been planned as a major office, commercial, and research park. Currently the area is not fully developed, and buildings are concentrated in different Iccations along Gateway Boulevard. Two high-rise office buildings, sh~w~ in Photo 16b, ar:, the centerpieces of the Gateway development, and are also the East of 101 Area's most prominent landmarks when viewed from Highway 101. Both buildings, one twelve stories and the other sixteen stories, are considerably setback from the street and share a plaza. A parking area surrounds the buildings covering most of the site. The Crown Sterling Suites Hotel is located at the southern portion of Gateway Boulevard. This ten-story hotel sits on a small hill overlooking East Grand Avenue. The building is setback from both streets and is surrounded by parking. At the north end of the street is the Rouse Gateway Office Park, which consists of single-story flex-type buildings similar in massing, color, and setback pattern. This development type is much different from that found in the rest of the Gateway area, and is much more typical of the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes and Grandview areas. These buildings have landscape buffers along the street, but they use their sites intensively, with parking distributed in groups of one or two aisles around the low-rise buildings. II-77 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS Gateway Boulevard itself is a curvilinear street extending from Oyster Point Boulevard to East Grand Avenue. It has four lanes with traffic lights and turning lanes at major intersections. The street is divided by landscaped median strips with sidewalks on one side of the street. Buildings are not prominent from the street because they are setback considerably. The streetscape character in the area is shown in Photo 16c. 5. Cabot, Cabot, & Forbes Zone Buildings in the Cabot, Cabot, & Forbes area include a mixture of new and old flex buildings housing office and warehouse space. Atypical example is shown in Photo 17a. Buildings in this area generally include these characteristics: • Buildings meet minimum setback requirements. • Property facing the street is landscaped. • Parking is provided on the side and/or rear of buildings, and generally does not face the street. • Buildings are one to two stories tall, with flat-roofs and simple massing. There are several larger warehouse buildings in this area, including UPS, Georgia Pacific, and the Sanrio/See's building. These buildings have larger footprints than other buildings in the area and are simpler in their massing. The streetscape in this area is very well defined, due to an extensive landscaping program implemented when the industrial park was built. Forbes Boulevard, shown in Photo 17b, is a long curvilinear street that includes uniform median strips and street lamps with sidewalks on one side. The streetscape along Forbes Boulevard includes a mix of light industrial and commercial building with minimum setbacks and landscaping. The street has four lanes divided by medians with no parking lanes. The medians present some problems because they do not follow curb cuts and block the vision of automobile drivers making it difficult for cars to turn, and some people think the streetlights look dated, but the overall visual quality of this street is high. Similarly, Allerton Avenue, which is illustrated in Photo 17c, has a distinct, well-developed streetscape with dense rows of pine trees that reinforces the straight line of the street. Allerton is two lane street with on-street parking. Street lamps and landscaped strips line both sides of the street while sidewalks are provided on one side. II-78 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EX7STiNG CONDITIONS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS 6. Grandview Drive Zone The identifying attribute of Grandview Drive and its surrounding streets is that it is built on the contours around San Bruno Point Hill. Streets in this area are curvilinear, and sites offer panoramic views. Buildings along Grandview Drive are generally newer than those in other parts of the study area, although they are similar to those in the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes area. This area includes a mix of modern light industry, research and development, and flex type buildings. Some characteristics of buildings in this area include: • Buildings meet minimum setback requirements. • Property facing the street is landscaped. • Parking is provided on the side and/or rear of buildings, and generally does not face the street. • Buildings are one to two stories tall, with flat-roofs and simple massing. There are several planned developments in the area, including the Hilltop Business Center and the Genentech Corporate Campus. The Hilltop Business Center consiss of nine single-s'ort' flex buildings with similar height and rnas'sting. Par!ciag is Iceated witFin :he cievelopmcnt site, with a lanc:scape step separating the development from the street. The Genentech development, illustrated in Photos 18a and 18b, includes manufacturing facilities, laboratories, office, and warehouse buildings. The central area of the campus is located at the intersection of Forbes Avenue and Point San Bruno Boulevard. Buildings vary in height ranging from two to three stories, and are clustered in groups that vary in scale and complexity. Most buildings are modern looking and use contemporary construction and materials. Buildings are setback from the street with parking located in and around building clusters. There is also parking located near the shoreline that provides access to a pedestrian trail. Although this area has much better views and a more interesting street pattern than the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes area, it does not have the unified streetscape of Cabot, Cabot and Forbes. Buildings are set back from the street and generally supply their own landscaping, but a unified street tree program could be of benefit in this area. 7. South of Grand Industrial Zone This area contains a mix of older commercial and light industrial buildings. Buildings along Utah Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, and Swift Avenue are II-79 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDTI70NS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS primarily one story concrete tilt-up structures. Properties in this area usually provide on-site parking as well as some landscaping, but they tend to be built relatively close to the street, and often have loading docks and service bays along the street. Thus, this area has a visual quality that is not quite as pleasing as the more landscaped and buffered areas to the north, but that is more appealing than the Airport areas to the south. East Grand Avenue itself is typical of this area for most of its length. The street is divided by median strips with brick pavers. The streetscape varies with a mix of commercial and industrial and old and new buildings, and there is a generally undefined character to the street. Atypical view of this area from East Grand Avenue is shown in Photo 18c. A development that is atypical of buildings in the area is the Edgewater Business Park, which is shown in Photo 18d. This development has a higher level of design, is more heavily landscaped, and is setback further from the street than most buildings in the surrounding area, so it is more typical of areas farther to the north. 8. North Harbor/Sylvester Road Zone The commercial and industrial buildings along Harbor Way and Sylvester Road are typically smaller and denser than the rest of the study area. Because lots are predominantly smaller, most buildings are close to the property line and provide little on-site parking. Many buildings are made of corrugated metal and have pitched roofs, and are very different and look more transient than the flat-roofed, tilt-up and concrete flex buildings in the other light industrial parts of the study area. There is no landscaping on building properties or along the street in this area. Atypical view of this area is shown in Photo 19a. 9. Shoreline Manufacturing Zone This area, located at the east end of East Grand Avenue, includes heavy industrial and manufacturing buildings that are part of the Fuller-O'Brien facility and the Marine Magnesium Plant. Both sites are large, and buildings setback long distances from the street. The buildings on the Fuller-O'Brien site consist of an assemblage of old and new buildings, as shown in Photo 19b. Older brick buildings, some dating back to the late 1800s, range between two and four stories. A newer building located closer to the street is three stories in height. Parking is located near the entrance at East Grand Avenue. More information on this historic buildings on these sites is found in Chapter 20. II-80 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS Adjacent to the shoreline is the Marine Magnesium Plant, shown in Photo 19c. It consists of a linear building used for manufacturing. Other support facilities surround the building and include several storage tanks. There is no parking within the plant. 10. South Airport Boulevard Zone The South Airport Boulevard area includes a mix of hotel, motor-hotel, warehouse, and retail buildings. Vehicular traffic is heavy due to the proximity of the Airport, but the building density is low. A view of South Airport Boulevard is shown in Photo 20a. Hotel buildings along South Airport Boulevard vary between five and ten stories, while motels are typically two stories. Typical building materials include steel and concrete with astucco-like veneer. Signage is prominent from the street due to its scale and placement. Some of the prominent buildings along South Airport Boulevard are the Ramada Inn, Radisson Hotel and the South San Francisco Conference Center, which is a prominent building from the street with its unique massing and stark white color. All three buildings are setback approximately 200 feet from the street due to trar~smissic>-; line easements rurri-1g along S:~uth Airport ioulevard. Surface parking ~~ pc~~ided can thc::::, easements ±hat surround transmission towers. The warehouse and commercial buildings in this area are predominately single story tilt-up structures. Setbacks vary, but usually do not. exceed 50 feet. The buildings along Beacon Street are denser than those on South Airport Boulevard because of their small lot sizes. South Airport Boulevard has an auto-oriented streetscape that lacks a coherent or unified pattern, even though it is one of the most important for retail and visitor-oriented use in the study area. The street is four lanes wide, and overhead transmission lines in the northern part of the area degrade visual quality and create wide distances between buildings. A landscaped strip near the San Bruno Canal is the only place where a median divides the street. Street improvements are not consistent, and there is little or no landscaping along sidewalks. Parking generally fronts the street, with minimal landscaping within parking lots. These factors combine to create an uninviting visual environment, which could be improved significantly to make South Airport Boulevard a more attractive visitor and shopper oriented attraction. II-81 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS 11. Airport Transition Zone This area, just north of San Francisco International Airport, creates the transition between the Airport and the study area. It has a large amount of vacant land, and an undefined visual character. Although some uses within it, such as the sewage plant and the SamTrans maintenance facility, are relatively set, this area's future character will largely depend on the types of additional development that occur within it. 12. Airport Zone This area has land uses largely related to the adjacent San Francisco International Airport, and the visual character is also related to the. Airport. Buildings in this area have a very large scale, and are dominated by the United Airlines service hangar, which is large enough to hold several jumbo jets. Other buildings in the area include cargo hangars, and fuel storage tanks. D. Views of the Area The study area is located along the San Francisco Bay, east of Highway 101. San Bruno Point lIill is file only visually prorlinent topographic feature in t!le study area. Highway 101 and development along the freeway create a visual edge along the western boundary. Views of the study area also exist from the Civic Center, located west of the study area, and portions of Highway 101. The Civic Center offers a view of the southern section of the study area. Pacific Gas & Electric transmission lines which run parallel to Highway 101 dominate this view. Prominent visual features in this area include San Bruno Point Hill, high-rise buildings in the Gateway development, and the Crown Sterling Suites Hotel. Low-rise buildings are also visible, but do not dominate the view. From Highway 101 northbound at the southern boundary of the study area, billboards and other large-scale signs, including the Levitz sign and the Travelodge sign, hinder views into the area. In addition, transmission lines are visible transecting the area. Buildings run parallel to the highway and create a visual barrier. Visual landmarks from the northbound freeway include the Best Western Grosvenor Inn, Radisson Inn, and the San Francisco Conference Center, all located on South Airport Boulevard. In addition, the buildings of the Gateway development are dominant in the viewshed. At the northern border of the study area along northbound Highway 101 it is possible to see the Oyster Cove Marina. II-82 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS While traveling along Highway 101 southbound, the first view of the vicinity of the area is of the Sierra Point development in Brisbane. This view is pleasing, with its marina uses, landscaping and high-rise office buildings. Though this development is not within the study area, the visual character of the marinas and new office development creates a pleasing overall visual impression. At the northern end of the study area itself, it is possible to glimpse the Oyster Cove Marina, but the tall buildings of the Gaczway and Oyster Point developments are prevalent. Development along Dubuque Avenue blocks views into much of the northern section of the study area. The Greyhound Expositing building and the bright blue Malcolm building, which are located along a ridge, are also visible. As the Highway bends to the left and becomes slightly elevated at Oyster Point Boulevard, it is possible to see a mass of industrial tilt-up buildings in the study area. The transmission lines are once again prevalent in the viewshed. Generally, the views of the area from Highway 101 are uninviting because many of the least desirable uses dominate the view, including unmaintained tilt- up buildings and billboards and other signage. Views from Highway 101 could be greatly enhanced with the removal of over-scaled signs and the addition of more office and hotel uses at the perimcaer of the study area. In addition, linear developments that Provide ac vi.;~.al intere.>t and block potentially interesting views should be a~:~cidea. E. Views from the Area Due to its topography and coastal location, the East of 101 Area provides impressive views of both San Francisco Bay and San Bruno Mountain. Examples of these views are shown in Figure 21, and the general locations where these views can be enjoyed are shown on Figure 22. Typically, a Bay view is available from the shoreline in the study area. In most cases, buildings block the view of the Bay from other locations in the area. Exceptions to this are locations on San Bruno Point Hill and the elevated San Bruno Boulevard. In addition, the majority of the area on Oyster Point and within Oyster Cove affords views of the Bay. San Bruno Mountain can be seen from a larger area within the study area. Generally, the northern half of the area is able to view the mountain in some manner. Quality views are also available from San Bruno Point Hill, from within the Genentech development, and through north-south circulation corridors, such as North Airport Boulevard. II-83 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTWG COND1T1ONS REPORT VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS MAY 1993 II-84 Chapter 6 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING ^ ^ A. Introduction The purpose of [his section is to use available data to establish the baseline population, employment, and housing conditions for the East of 101 Area. This understanding of the study area's existing conditions will be used as a background against which to evaluate the potential impacts of development of the area according to the development policies proposed in the East of 101 Area Plan. Along with census data for the City of South San Francisco, some employment data published by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are also presented. The data for the City of South San Francisco are compared wherever possible wit. .;omparable data :or San Mateo County and the State of California. Che purpe~e of these coaparisons is to faci'.itate an understanding ~f tl-.e study area's characteristics by illustrating how the area is similar to, or differs from, the larger cc~uncy and state populations. B. Population Table 2 contains data which compares South San Francisco with San Mateo County, and California. The table includes data from both the 1980 and 1990 Censuses. 1. Population According to the Census data, the average population growth rate in South San Francisco between 1980 and 1991) was 1.0 percent per year. This growth rate was the same as San Mateo County's growth rate. In California, however, the growth rate for the population was more than double that of the County and the City at 2.3 percent. 2. Households In California, there was a noticeable lag in the rate of household growth in comparison to the rate of population growth, meaning much of the increase in population was accommodated by expansion of existing households, rather than formation of new households. The household growth rates of South San II-85 C ~I~ t (7 N r w l0 C 0 F C H C C w INI e N O 01 ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m a Q N N ~ L1, i 0, r M N f 0 r ~D N~ Qf ~ Ci n O O tOp M ~~ r 4 Of O V N r m ~ ~ 3e 3e 3P d° 0 2e d° °~ 3~° 3~ 3e 3° N f~ Ol W O C7 N O O N m N O r ^ O pp N r ~ ~ 0 0f 0 0 ~ M ~~ r (~ m I N o ~ C C O r O a c~ c V ~ N r aa ~O o 0 0 3E ~ O~ W m o ~ f e m N ~ O ~ N O f0 O O ~ r O f, r Qf Op ~ r ap ~ p N S n N f0 m Cf O cn tp ~ I~ N r C W N N ~ 2e 3e ~ 2° ~ 3° 3° 3~° °'• d° a° 3° 3° a~ I ^ o N ' N tp W r r~ r tD O N ~ C~ M P r j ~ r CC ~ r~ C p N r O O c0 CO C Of ~ Q to O ~A N CV r Z o C ~ O to C ` r O Q ~ V N O ~ ~ N a C7 t0 ~ ~ n ~ O ~ a ~ ~ a ~ r m R C m~ C O r C ~t t!f ca ~ ~ . - N r 0 h N (7 tp N 0 N $ rn ~j m o o ~ 0 0 3' o o O t0 (7 O ~_ 0 3° <O 3° o ~A t Qf r 0 uo~f ~ N N ~C1 N ~ tp ~^^~ C OD O C O ~ < N 1~ N o a7 t7 10 l ~ N ~ ~ N m m 9 C m • ~ o ~ a a c a t ~ ~ ~ m ~ c v_ a ~ a E ~ L O O ~ a ~"f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ L m m ~ a ~~ ~~~ eb c v a E e a c c E W f0 m Q m C m Qf oo~ Q~ O N 7 C m U vi c 0 p~ CJ .~- c0 Of C ~C C t9 a 2 V1 MAY 1993 EAST OF lol AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POPULATION. EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Francisco and San Mateo County also experienced a lag, but not to such a great extent. 3. Average Household Size The average household size is a function of the number of people living in households (as opposed to group quarters) divided by the number of occupied housing units in a given area. In South San Francisco, the 1990 average household size was 2.91 persons, somewhat higher than the statewide average of 2.79 persons per household. South San Francisco's average household size was significantly larger than the county average of 2.64 persons. Changes in an area's average household size from one period to the next are the result of differential growth rates for population and households. Average household sizes in South San Francisco grew from 1980 to 1980 similar to the growth in household size of the State. San Mateo County's household size also grew, but not to such a great extent. 4. Age Distribution The distribution of South San Francisco's population according to the age categories shown on Table 2 is similar to the age distributions for San Mateo Cou:qty and Caifornia. In each area, there are large proportions in the range of 25 to 44 years of ages, representing the 'baby boom," and another large group of popuiation below 18 years of age, representing the children of the baby boom generation. Between 1980 and 1990, the proportion of the South San Francisco's population in the 35 to 44 year age group grew most rapidly, increasing its share from 11.9 to 15.4 percent of the total. This same age group was grew most rapidly in the other two areas as well. In South San Francisco, the group with the greatest decline in share of population was the under 18 group, which went from 26.5 to 24.1 percent of the total between 1980 and 1990. On the other hand, in both San Mateo County and California, the group which lost the greatest share was 18 to 24 year olds. ~. Median Age As in the rest of San Mateo County and California, South San Francisco's median age increased between 1980 and 1990, from 31.4 to 33.4 years. By 1990, South San Francisco's median age was slightly higher than the California median of 31.5 years, and slightly below the county median of 34.8 years. 6. Household Type The U.S. Census divides households into two different categories, depending on their composition. Family households are those which consist of two or more related persons living together. Non-family households include persons II-87 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDIT70NS REPORT POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING who live alone, or in groups of unrelated individuals. As shown in Table 2, roughly two-thirds (68.8 percent) of California households are family households. In San Mateo County about two-thirds of households are families. Although San Mateo County and California households are predominantly composed of families, South San Francisco's concentration of family households is even greater, accounting for three-quarters of the households. The proportion family households in the state remained the same between 1980 and 1990, while the proportions of family households in San Mateo County and South San Francisco fell somewhat during the ten year period. Although South San Francisco did not have the same diversity of households as the state in 1990, the trend from 1980 to 1990 indicates that South San Francisco is becoming more like the state in terms of family/non-family distribution of households. 7. Household Tenure Each of the three areas shown in Table 2 is dominated by owner households, but of the three, South San Francisco has the largest proportion of owners, with 61.4 percent. This is in comparison to 60.2 percent owners in San Mateo County, and 55.6 percent owners in the state overall. C. Employment 1. Household Income Table 3 shows the distribution of 1990 households according to their 1989 incomes. Below the income distributions, the table also shows the median income for each area. South San Francisco and San Mateo County have similar income distributions, with large proportions of their respective households clustered in the range of $35,000 to $74,999 per year. These income distributions are more homogeneous than California's, in which households are more evenly spread over a wider band of incomes. In the income categories shown on Table 3, the largest proportions of South San Francisco's households fell into the income ranges of $35,000 to $49,999 and $50,000 to $74,999 per year. Each of these categories had over 20 percent of the population. In San Mateo County the income distribution was slightly higher, with the largest distributions in the $35,000 to $49,999 and $75,000 or more ranges. California has smaller percentages of households earning between $35,000 and $74,999 per year, and larger percentages of households earning below that range. As shown in the table, South San Francisco has a median income between the County and the State. The median in South San Francisco is almost II-88 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING $10,000 greater than the California median. San Mateo County's median income is the largest at 546,437. 2. Local Employment Table 4 shifts focus from characteristics of local residents to the characteristics of jobs within the City regardless of whether the jobs are filled by City of South San Francisco residents or people who live elsewhere. Table 4 shows South San Francisco job growth between 1980 and 1990. Both the 1980 and 1990 data are from the ABAG. As shown in the table, South San Francisco had a total of approximately 36,129 jobs in 1980. During the 1980's and early 1990's South San Francisco's employment grew, increasing to a total of 43,300 local jobs. For the period, South San Francisco's employment grew 19.8 percent. The column at the far left of table shows the percentage change in each sector's employment between 1980 and 1990. With the exception of Agriculture and Mining, all of South San Francisco's sectors grew substantially during the period. D. Housing Characteristics Beginning with Table 5, data are presented regarding the existing housing stock in the three areas. Table 5 breaks out the total housing stock in each area according to the type of structures in which units are located, and whether the units are owner-occupied, renter-occupied, or vacant. 1. Distribution of Units by Structure Type The first column of Table 5 summarizes the distribution of all housing units in each geographic area among the various structure types. As shown in the table, single-family detached housing units account for the overwhelming majority of housing in South San Francisco. At 57 percent of the total, single-family detached units in South San Francisco, and also in San Mateo County, make up a larger proportion of the total than in the State overall, where only about 55 percent of all units are single-family detached. Multi-family housing units make up the next biggest segment of South San Francisco's housing stock, comprising approximately 18 percent of the total. This housing characteristic is similar to larger percentage of multi-family housing stock in the County and the State. However, South San Francisco still has a smaller percentage of multi-family at 18.1 percent compared to the State's 23.3 percent. II-90 Table 3: Hou~hold Income Distribution for 1990 Households (a) Under 515,000 S15,000 -5.24,999 525,000 -534,999 535,000 -549,999 550,000.574,999 575,000 or More Total Households Median Houaehotd Income South Sari Francisco Households Percent 2,570 13.8% 2,130 11.5% 2,583 13.9°k 3,898 21.0% 4,880 26.3% 2,527 13.6°k 18,588 100.0% 542,920 San Mateo County. State Households Percent Households Percent 27,444 11.3% 1,969,258 18.9% 25,775 10.6% 1,576,520 15.2% 32,029 13.2% 1,530,233 14.7% 45,737 18.9% 1,888,147 18.2°k 54,902 22.7% 1,909,072 18.4% 56,461 23.3% 1,526,470 14.7% 242,348 100.0% 10,399,700 100.0% 546,437 533,901 (a) 1989 income of 1990 households. Sours: U.S. Census STF3A; Bay Area Economics. Table ; • South San Francisco Local Emp loyment by Maior Sector, 1980-1990 1980 1990 Pct. Increase IrlduStry Jobs Share Jobs Share 1980-1990 Agriculture and Mining 228 0.6% 190 0.4% -16.7% Manufacturing and Wholesale 12,142 33.6% 14,450 33.4% 19.0% Retail 4,635 12.8% 5,910 13.6% 27.5% Service 5,268 14.6% 8,200 18.9% 55.7% Oyler 13,856 38.4% 14,550 33.6% 5.0% Total 36,129 100.0% 43,300 100.0% 19.8% Sources: Association of Bay Area Oovemments 'Projections '92 Recession Update' ;Bay Area Economics Table 5: t~tribution of Units by Structure Type by Tenure, 1990 Type of Structure South San Francisco Single ~=anwfy, Detached Single FamBy, Attached Multi-Fsr=.aty, 2-4 Units Multi-=ar.+ity, 5+ Units Mobile Hcme and Other Total All Unlts Vacancy Count Percent Rate 10,951 57.4% 2.3% 2,336 12.2% 3.1 % 1,598 8.4% 2.8°'° 3,447 18.1 % 2.9% 749 3.9% 11.79'° 19,081 100.0% 2.9% Vacancy San Mateo County Count Percent Rata Single Family, Detached 144,438 57.4% 2.9% Single Family, Attached 20,263 8.0°6 4.6°'° Multi-Family, 2-4 Units 16,669 6.6% 4.3% Multi-Family, 5+ Units 63,519 25.2% 5.6% Mobile Home and Other 6,693 2.7% 6.6% Total 251,782 100.0% 3.9% Vacancy Mate _ Count Percent Rate Single Family, Detached 6,119.265 54.7% 5.8°% Single Family, Attached 811,684 7.3% 7.7°'° Muttl-Family, 2-4 Units 966,355 8.69'° 7.1% Multi-Family, 5+ Units 2.605,638 23.3% 9.1% Mobile Home and Other 679,940 6.1% 11.2% Total 11,182,882 100.0% 7.2X Sources: 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape Rlet; Bay Area Economics. EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POPULATION. EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING 2. Vacancy Rates by Structure Type Table 5 shows the percentages of vacant units by structure type in each of the three areas. It is important to note that these counts include all vacant units, including those units held vacant for seasonal use. Not all of the vacant units would actually be offered for sale or for rent. In each of the three areas shown on Table 5, the largest proportion of vacant units are found in the mobile home or other category of housing. The housing type with the lowest vacancy rate in the City of South San Francisco was single-family detached, at 2.3 percent. This percentage was the lowest vacancy rate of any housing type in any of the three regions. 3. Owner Occupied Housing Values and Contract Rents Table 6 contains data from the 1990 Census regarding the values of owner-occupied housing units and the contract rents paid for renter-occupied housing units. It should be noted that the values for owner-occupied units are estimated values reported by census respondents rather than actual sales prices; however, these data provide a means of comparing home values across geographies. a. Owner Occupied House Values. South San Francisco's distribution of reported house values is generally more weighted in the lower valuations. The Cou:tty of San Mateo has a much higher distribution of high valued owner- occupied units. The range which shows the largest differentiation is the $500,000 or more range. Only one percent of South San Francisco's owner- occupied units fall within this range while 21 percent of the County's units are over $500,000. The City of South San Francisco has a large amount of owner-occupied units within the $200,000 to $399,999 range. The State's distribution of owner- occupied units are more evenly distributed and tend to be less in value. Contrastingly, median owner-occupied unit value for the City of South San Francisco is much greater than the County and the State. The City has a median value of $2'71,900, while the County has a median value of $201,400, and the State's median value is $194,300. b. Renter-Occupied Contract Rents. The lower part of Table 6 shows distributions of the contract rents paid for renter-occupied housing units in South San Francisco, San Mateo County, and California. Interestingly, South San Francisco has larger proportions of rental units with high ($600 to $999) contract rents than the State. However, San Mateo County's rental rates are more congregated around the $750 to $1,000 or more range. Overall, the State seems to have a more even distribution of rental rates, with higher percentages around the $200 to $499 ranges. II-92 Table 6 Self-Reported Owner-Occupied Housing Values and Contract Rents, 1990 Vaiw of SpecMisd Owner-0ccupled Units (a) ~ orn a Lesa Than S50,000 2% 19'0 3% 550,000 to 599,999 1°'0 1% 14% 5100,000 to 5149,999 3% 3% 18% 5150.000 to 5199,999 9°'0 5°./0 18% 5200.000 to 5249,999 22% 11 % 14% 5250,000 to 5299,999 33% 18% 11 5300,000 to 5399,999 259'0 26% 11 5400,000 to 5499,999 6% 14% 5% 5500,000 or More 1% 21% 7% Total 100% 100% 100% Median Value 5271,900 $201,400 5194,300 Contract Rent of Specified n so ~~'?.~,='~' a 1 ~ ' Renter-0ccupled Units (b) c C__nty,~~ ~CaC ~ o~e 1 a- No Cash Rent 2% 2% 39'0 LASS Than 5200 4% 2% 5% 5200 to 5299 4% 3% 6% 5300 to 5399 5% 6% 11 5401 to 5499 7% 15°'0 16% S30G to 560fl 14% 20w~ 17% S6G0 t0 5749 31 io 3% 20°0 5750 to 5999 239'0 26% 15% S1,000 ar More 1 f % 17% 7% Total 100% 100% 100% Median (of Units Paying Cash Rent) 5670 5711 5561 (a) Specified owner-occupied units include only single-family homes on less than 10 acres with no business or medical office on the property. (b) Excludes single-family homes on 10 acres or more. Sources: 1990 U.S. Census STF1A; Bay Area Economics EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING MAY 1993 In contrast to the median reported owner-occupied house value, for which South San Francisco had the highest median, South San Francisco has a lower median cash rent for renter occupied units than the County of San Mateo. However, the State still holds the lowest cost, with a median rental rate of $561. San Mateo County's median rental rate is $711 and. the City of South San Francisco's is $670. II-94 Chapter 7 JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE This section introduces the concept of jobs/housing balance, explains its significance for planning purposes, and provides data on South San Francisco's existing jobs/housing balance. A. The Concept of Jobs/Iiousing Balance Jobs/housing balance is a concept that, most simply stated, refers to the numerical relationship between the number of jobs and housing units within any giver_ community. The need to consider this relationship between joss and ho~~sing came to the fore in the Bay Area in the lat° 19?Os and early 198~s, ~w~hen t:~e hcga te.;hnology sectors associated with Silicon Valley went through an extremely rapid growth period. Emplo~tnent growth far exceeded population growth for many communities in the region, but this imbalance was most dramatic in Santa Clara County. Since that time, most communities in California have acknowledged the merits of attempting to obtain some balance between their residential and job-generating land uses. This balance is intended to achieve a number of goals, including reducing traffic congestion on major freeways and arterials, improving regional air quality conditions, and enhancing a community's economic base, which can translate into a sound fiscal position for its public agencies. In addition, California cities are required to provide for their fair share of regional housing within their Housing Element of the General Plan. Although planners originally thought that some balance should be maintained between jobs and housing units, planning theory has evolved over time. Research now indicates that the key relationship is between jobs and the number of employed workers within a community, not jobs and housing units. The primary reason for this is that some households have no workers, and other households have multiple workers. Therefore, it is much more precise to compare jobs and employed residents. However, the term "jobs housing balance" is still typically used to refer to a relationship between jobs and employed residents within any given community. II-95 EAST OF 101 AREA PI~-N MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JOBSMOUSING BALANCE Though it is useful to examine the jobs/housing balance within the City of South San Francisco, the ultimate balance should be thought of as a county, or regional, issue. The county scope is more appropriate because we are dealing with smaller cities and a mobile environment. However, given the focus of this study on the East of 101 Area, it is valuable to explore the level of existence of a jobs/housing balance within the City of South San Francisco only. Several issues complicate the goal of planning for a balanced jobs/housing ratio within an area. Residential location decisions are difficult to predict and are influenced by a host of factors, including the presence of households with multiple wage-earners commuting to jobs located far from each other, and lifestyle preferences unrelated to job location. Moreover, a balance of jobs and employed residents can exist in an area, but the housing available in an area may not be affordable to those people who work in local jobs. In these cases, a numerical balance can still result in extensive cross-commuting and traffic congestion. Thus, factors such as house price affordability, job creation and market demand (including both employer and homebuyer location decisions) are key to achieving a truly balanced community. To address the concern of housing affordability in South San Francisco, this analysis of jobs/housing balance includes discussion of the relationship between the incomes of local workers and the cost oti housir_g in South San Francisco. This makes it possible to assess the quality of the match between local workers' incomes and the cost of housing available in the City. B. Existing South San Francisco Jobs/Employed Residents Balance To assess the existing match between South San Francisco's residential and commercial development, this analysis focuses on the ratio of existing jobs to existing employed residents, accounting for the fact that it is common for households to have more than one employed worker. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), there were 43,300 jobs in South San Francisco and its sphere of influence in 1990. (The number of jobs included in the sphere of influence is assumed to be insignificant, since only a very small amount of employment could be located in the sphere, but outside of the City.) According to the Bureau of the Census, South San Francisco had 27,575 employed residents in 1990. Based on this information and assuming that each employed person only had one job, there were 1.59 jobs in South San Francisco for every employed resident. This indicates that even if every employed resident worked in South San Francisco, a minimum of about 16,000 workers would have to come into the City from other communities to till all of the local jobs. In contrast, at a countywide level, San Mateo County had fewer II-96 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDiT10NS REPORT JOBSMOUSItiG 13:~L.ANCE jobs (319,150) than employed residents (346,559) resulting in a jobs!employed residents ratio of 0.92. By itself, this data indicates that South San Francisco does not have enough housing to house its current workforce, and that workers in South San Francisco would need to commute to their jobs from other San Mateo County locations, or from other areas. 1. Place of Residence for South Saa Francisco Workers Data regarding place of residence for all workers employed in South San Francisco are available from the Multi-City Transportation Systems Management Agency (MCTSMA). The MCTSMA is a local government joint powers agency established by a consortium of north San Mateo County cities for the purpose of administration of congestion management programs. The cities include Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, and South San Francisco. One of the functions of the IViCTSMA is to periodically conduct an employee travel survey to assist the agency, its member cities, and local employers in transportation systems management (TSM) program planning and evaluation. The most recent MCTSMA employee travel survey was conducted in 1992. The results of the employee travel survey indicate thct approximately 16 percent of those people who work la South San p'rar..isco also live in South San Francisco, with the remaining workers coming from ou~side the City. Residence location data from the survey are summarized in Table 7. The data demonstrate that 84 percent of the persons working in South San Francisco live outside of the City. If these percentages are applied to the City's total 1990 employment estimate of 43,300 persons, approximately 36,400 persons who worked in South San Francisco commuted to their jobs from other communities, while about 6,900 workers both lived and worked in South San Francisco. Of workers residing outside of South San Francisco, the majority live in other Peninsula communities. Approximately 23 percent of the workers live in other north San Mateo County communities (Brisbane, Daly City-Colma, San Bruno, Pacifica), 21 percent live in central or south San Mateo County, and 22 percent live in San Francisco. The only other significant concentration of South San Francisco employee residences is in the East Bay, which is home to about 12 percent of the workers. II-97 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JOBSMOUSING BALANCE Table 7 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EMPLOYEE PLACE OF RESIDENCE Residence Location East or 101 Area south Sao Francisrn South San Francisco 1396 1696 Other North County 2Z% 2396 Brisbane 0% 0% Daty City - Colma 10% 10% San Bruno ~% 8% Pacifica 4% 5% Central and South County 21°k 21% Half Moon Coast 1% 1% Millbrae 2% 2% Burlingame 3% 3% San Mateo 6% 6% Foster City 3% ~% Belmont 1 % ~% San Carlos 1% 1% Redwood City 2% 2% Menlo Park -Palo Alto 1% 1% San Francisco 25°l0 22% N...46 Rnv l% 2% East Bay 1396 12% South Bay (incl. Santa Cruz Coast) 3% 3% out of Bay Area 1°h 1% TOTAL 100% 100% 2. East of 101 Employee Residence Location The residence pattern of workers located in the East of 101 Area is similar to the pattern of workers in the City as a whole, except that East of 101 employees are slightly less likely to live in South San Francisco and slightly more likely to live in San Francisco. A lower proportion of East of 101 II-98 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE workers live in South San Francisco; 13 percent as compared to 16 percent for the City overall. On the other hand, a slightly higher proportion of East of 101 workers (25 percent) live in San Francisco as opposed to 22 percent of workers in the City overall. Other than these variations, the residence patters of East of 101 employees do not differ significantly from those of workers in the City overall. C. Housing Affordability As mentioned earlier, if the cost of housing available in a community does not fit with the wage levels of people working in that community, an affordability gap can occur. This gap can force workers to seek housing in other areas, where residential product types and prices are more compatible with their incomes. The following analysis has been developed to test whether such an affordability gap exists for workers currently employed in the East of 101 Area who might also wish to live in South San Francisco. A detailed description of the methodology used in this assessment is included below. 1. Existing East of 101 Worker Incomes 1'he first step in assessing housing affordability is to determine the incomes of local workers, since income is directly linked to what people can afford to pay for housing. The analysis in this :;hapter looks only ~n the incomes of those people working in the East of 101 Area. However, data on wages and salaries are not directly available from any published data source. Therefore, this analysis uses a complex methodology to assign workers to occupations by industry, thereby determining average wages or salaries, and then assigning workers to households. Table 8 shows this constructed household income distribution for East of 101 workers. A detailed discussion of the methodology used to construct this distribution is included in Appendix A. As shown in Table 8, the median household income of East of 101 workers is estimated to be $58,000 per year, reflecting a concentration of jobs in relatively high paid occupations and industrial sectors. Only about ten percent of East of 101 worker households are estimated to earn less than $30,000 per year, while almost 17 percent of the households earn $80,000 or more per year. 2. Affordable Housing Prices and Rental Rates The next step in assessing affordability is to calculate affordable housing prices and rental rates based on the estimated household incomes. These calculations are also shown on Table 8, along with the household income distributions. The standard assumption used to determine housing affordability is that no II-99 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDIT70NS REPORT JOBSMOUSING BALANCE MAY 1993 more than 30 percent of annual household income should be spent on housing costs. Affordable monthly rent is determined by dividing annual income by twelve months and multiplying the monthly income by 30 percent. The process for estimating affordable housing prices for homeowners is more complex. Housing prices are dependent upon assumptions regarding mortgage interest rates, down payment, loan term, property taxes, and insurance costs. Specific assumptions for each of these variables are listed at the bottom of Table 8. The affordable housing prices listed in the table are derived using a spreadsheet model which solves for the house price that would require 30 percent of monthly income for payment of principal, interest, taxes, and insurance for each income range. As shown in the table, the median household composed of East of 101 employees could afford a house costing $200,425, or rent of $1,450 per month. 3, Affordability of Existing Housing After determining the affordable housing costs for East of 101 worker households, it is possible to compare these figures with information about housing currently available in the City. Data regarding housing prices in the South San Francisco area have been collected from several sources, and are compared below with the affordable housing prices pr°sented previously in Table 9. As would be expected in a high priced housing market such the San Francisco Peninsula, housing affordability is a critical problem for South San Francisco worker households that fall into the lower (less than $30,000 per year) income ranges, while there are more options for households with higher incomes. a. For Sale Housin¢. Data were collected for single-family and multifamily home sales in South San Francisco during the last year using the TRW REDI Property Data on-line service. The results of the search are summarized on Table 9, which matches the price of recently sold homes with the affordable home prices for East of 101 worker households from Table 9. The distributions of recent home sales are arranged into three columns, which show single family home sales, condominium sales, and the combined total sales of these types of residential units. The data presented on Table 9 shows that there was a disproportionately small number of transactions in the price ranges that are affordable to the bottom third of East of 101 worker households, while there was a disproportionately large share of sales in the price ranges affordable to the upper two-thirds of East of 101 worker households. II-100 ~au 0 a . u~ ~; a m ¢oo Z E"' ^ ~ V Z rn J LL Z ..y ::] M ]0 3J U H Ci Z n.~ ~^ V ~r W _r Q u.~r e~I s Q ., z Q O O O y '' O NI ~ S O NI v1 ~? !~I O ~ H N N N N c+; ~ E E y o ~ ~ O N O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ..+ .... ~. ~. .... L' ~ H O ..w d = O O ~ Q g O O O O Q O O O O pp O y; c~I v^, n g ~ v'~ t~ O c~I Vi ~^ N N N N ~+'; r~ N O N ~O r N e+: v~pi .N.. ~ppp N ~ Ly ~ H O ~ r N ~ N + M poi ~ ~ a E N c : t ; e! 7 00 N O G N •7 - y O O O O O O O O O ~- O O . ~ ai E N ~, ~ H = ~ N 000 M ~ ~ ep} po ~O ~ ~ x N ~ ~ N r M o0 ~ O v: .-. ~ N C ~ ~o tr; o 00 r, N r r o -~ a ~O r = v; -r O x ~ br9 N N N c+; c+; c+; ~ ej l~ N M vO` ~p r 'J~ ~ ~ H O ' y ~ ~L. . 00 ? N eY ~ I ~ O~ f~ M , -~; 1/ ; v; ~ ~ 69 ^ ^ N ~ 'mil N N ~" ~ ~ I ~ V }~ d r. O O ... ~ O ~ O ~. O O ... O i . O .r O .r O ~. O .r O .r ~ '~ C^. n- ~ c _ ~ ~ O ~t+; n p p 00 ~ `~ ~ ..... rte; tR C O a ^~ .~ ~l ~O 00 O N ~ O t O~ t~'7 v~^~, r iIi ^ N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ o C~ L f+'; r P1 M, r T 00 ~ t~; O O O O C `o s°', ~3 ~J~1 C c. O V'; ~ Cr i Ne~ N N O V; 00 ~ a O ~ Q E ~ r ~ Q o0 N N Q~ ~ t+; 0 ~ ~ 00 Z ~ ~ ~ o a a a a: o+ a s ~ ~ a E N N c+; et v; ~ r oo O N Y 30 d9 Ci ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O 6i O ~ ~ 55~~ Z5 QQ S 5~ S 5~ 25 5Q~ S QQ a 5~ ~ QQ S Q ~ 5~ 25 Q S 5 ~ N O O~ O O ~O O O 00 O Q+ O O O O N S O M C ~ Er') ~ LO. `'" J .~ 7 a a 0 O \p~p 0\S O O O O N MOCN ,..;0 U U C N :J ~, OQ C ' ~ C ,yi :a te y r . ~ cp C C ~ ~ 7 Y O C "~ yC n 3 . . . ~- ~- o a ,,,., U C 7 O ~ o CyQ C U ~ ' cv -• ate .C C y ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ O O 3=° ~' ~~~ ~.. O ~ U :E O O N h C y n ~ ~ ~ . ~, h L ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y '}' ~ U 0 ~ ~ V ~ v V CQ C C ' OO • ~` T ~ T ~ H E .C T i R O . C W y ~ ~ N ~ ~ R e4 . V i N u O_c. R ~- '~. ;a ~, ca rn cQ :a ~, ~. a - - 3 9 ~ ~ ~ G ~ .'Q C ~ cC C~ '. Q ~•~ VCa C , E"-C.Q ~ f~ 'n N .. ~ L 7 ~ ~z .~-~ r a ~ '" m ~ M O~ ? N ~ O ~aF ~ ~ t V y o~ o~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ \ O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ d .~ r S O ~ ~ O O N .~ 0~ ~ M O ~ ~ ~ U O "r O s. Z a U i Z ,..~~ Q m Z Z o U ~ ozo r~ ~~o ..~ :zl U ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ c ~ S ~ S S S o o ,r.. ~O cn o .L x ~ O O O ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ oax :~ ~.. a y a '" ° „~ . y ~ it o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;.. y Q' ~ eo O Y O "~" Q ea ~ \ \ o \ ~ ° °~o°~~ ~ O C O r ~ ~, c- cr, cn t~ a .. Q ., ~ ~' .., N -v :~ ,~,, ... c~ ~ d H 3 C o '" ~ V ;~ °o c zo ~ ~ `o H 3 N.. dd ~p N ~ ~; pOpQ d d O ~ V _ ~ ..+ ~Op ~O d N a.. ~ `G ~~OO ~ O N O ~ N t\ t~ N 0O N ~ N .= c+1 v; cd•5 O ~ ~ d ~ d E O U ~ d ~ :n W 7 pp O ~ ... "~ O '~ O O O O .. O .... O .r O .. O .. O .. O .. O .. C rr ~ " ~ y R ~/1 d = ^ .-. ~ppp ~D N N ~ P M c~ T 00 pp d ei ~ Q "' ~ ~ r+ ~ ~ N <v ~ O ~ ~ N N N cv; c' e~% d d a r u .j 6l ~a R O 0 w a LYi r .~ C O W cC cC U 0 0 .-. MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JOBSMOUSING BALANCE About ten percent of East of 101 worker households are estimated to need housing that would cost less than about $104,000 per unit; however, the search of transaction yielded no sales below this price level. Also, about 26 percent of East of 101 worker households could afford housing priced between $104,000 and $173,000, but only twelve percent of the sales transactions occurred in this price range. On the other hand, over 75 percent of the sales were in the range of $173,000 to $276,000, while only about 47 percent of the worker households were estimated to need housing in this price range. Although the distributions of existing home sales by price category do not fit the distributions of affordable home prices for East of 101 worker households exactly, the overall match between actual sales prices over the past year and prices East of 101 workers could afford is reasonably good. The bulk of the East of 101 households could afford housing ranging between about $104,000 and $276,000, and the majority of the recent transactions fell into this same range. It should be noted that condominium sales were a very important component of the total sales in the $104.f)()0 to $207,000 price range, accounting for about 64 percent of the transactions, while single family homes represented the majority of transactions above $207,000. There were no home sales which wer:~ affordable to the worker households that fall into the lower income ranges (less than $30.000), meaning that their only other option for affordabie dousing would be r:,ntals. To assess the affordability implications of any new housing units that will be built in the near future in South San Francisco, a survey was made of all currently planned condominium projects. The single condominium project planned within South San Francisco is expected to have units selling for between $240,000 and $260,000. At these prices, the units would be affordable only to households earning $70,000 or more per year, substantially above the median for East of 101 worker households. b. Rental Housing. Unlike home sales, there is no good mechanism for systematically tracking rents within South San Francisco. Therefore, it is difficult to assess how affordable rents for existing units in the City would be for East of 101 workers. One method to test apartment affordability in South San Francisco is to survey the asking rents for apartments offered in newspaper classified advertisements. The San Francisco Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle classified advertisements from Sunday, April 25, 1993 indicated that apartments were available in ten different locations in South San Francisco. Some advertisements offered m ore than one unit. Published asking monthly rental rates ranged from $480 for a studio unit to $875 for a two-bedroom unit. One bedroom apartments were offered in the range of approximately $650 to $750. II-103 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN T~IAY 1993 EXISTING COAIDCTIONS REPORT JOBSMOUSING BALANCE These apartment rents would be an affordable alternative for households with a range of incomes. However, the limited information on rental housing prices avallable from the newspaper advertisements indicates that households with the lowest incomes in South San Francisco still face an affordability gap. Based on an affordability guideline of no more than 30 percent of income spent on rent, the lowest priced unit advertised on April 25 would be affordable only to persons with incomes of at least S19,200 per year. The current listings indicated a lack of housing opportunities available for people earning less than this amount, which could include many lower paid workers living in single- worker households. From the rental listings, it appears that a household with more than one person would need to have an income of $25,800 per year in order to afford the lowest priced one-bedroom unit, which was offered at $645. The lowest priced two-bedroom unit at $825 would be affordable to a houshold earning at least $33,000 per year. Recently constructed apartment buildings that would be renting for the first time (as opposed to units that have part of an ongoing rental stock) were also surveyed for this study. According to this study, there are no currently renting or recently completed apartment projects over 20 units within South San Francisco at this time. Anew 12-unit apartment project was completed by Patrick Brosnan at 1151 Mission Road in 1992. A survey of currently renting new apartment projects in the San Mateo County and San Francisco area indicates that these rentals are not affordable to the East of 101 worker households that fall into the lower income categories. Of the six recently completed rental projects surveyed, Serramonte Ridge in Daly City offered the most affordable units. However, the least expensive units in the project were studios renting for $685 per month. As shown in Table 8 this price would not be affordable to the three percent of households that earn $20,000 or less, and would also exclude households that have incomes in the lower part of the $20,000 to $29,999 range. D. Jobs/Skills Match One factor that can contribute to out-commuting from an area, even if it has a relative balance between jobs and housing, is a mismatch between resident job skills and local jobs. If there is a mismatch, local residents will be forced to travel to other communities where job opportunities are more closely suited to their own qualifications. If the occupational distribution of local jobs is substantially different from the occupational distribution of local workers, it implies ajobs/skills mismatch. In such cases, we would expect many local residents to commute to work locations outside of the community where employment opportunities more closely match their skills. II-104 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JOBS~HOUSING BALANCE Table 10 compares the occupations of South San Francisco employed residents with the classification of jobs present in the East of 101 Area. As shown in the table, there is a relatively good match between jobs available in the East of 101 Area and the jobs of South San Francisco residents. The only significant difference between the two distributions is in the Unskilled labor category where 24 percent of East of 101 jobs are in this category while only 14 percent of South San Francisco workers fall into this category. Again, this is indicative of the lack of affordable housing for low-paid workers in South San Francisco. The only other differences are in the Management/Administrative and Services categories. South San Francisco has a larger proportion in the former, and a smaller proportion in the latter. Nevertheless, given the diversity of jobs present in the East of 101 Area and the specialized nature of many of these jobs, the distribution of occupations in this area actually matches with the occupations of South San Francisco residents fairly well. E. Supply of Housing Relative to Job Growth As mentioned in the introduction to this section, the timing of residential development with relation to job growth can be a contributing factor to cross-commuting among communities. Even if -lousing is relatively affordable, lac'.: of sufficient supply during times of economic expansion can lead to a situation where workers are not able to give in the communities in which they are employed because of a shortage of housing. In South San Francisco, the local employment base has grown much more rapidly than the housing supply between 1980 and 1990. During this period, local employment grew from 36,129 jobs to 43,300 jobs, for a gain of almost 20 percent, according to ABAG. On the other hand, data from the State Department of Finance indicate that the number of housing units in the City grew only about six percent during the same time period, from 18,020 to 19,091 units. This means that many of the workers who took the newly created jobs in the 1980's could not have found new housing in South San Francisco. F. Summary Jobs/housing balance, as discussed in this section, is a very difficult goal to achieve. However, the reasons for attempting to obtain some balance include minimizing long cross-regional commutes, enhanced quality of life for local residents, and improved air quality and traffic congestion conditions. South San Francisco currently has a large jobs/housing imbalance, in that there are 1.59 jobs for every employed South San Francisco resident. II-105 EAST OF 101 AREA PIAN F.X1ST[NG CONDI'T'IONS REPORT JOBSMOUSING BALANCE MAY 1993 Table 10 OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF WORKERS IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND EAST OF 101 AREA East o[ 101 Occupational Classitlcations Count Percent South San Francisco Residcnt Occupations Count Percent Management/Administrative 1,523 8% 3,443 12% ProfessionaVTechnical 2,382 12go 3,496 12% Sales 2,568 13% 3,209 11% Clerical 4,146 21% 6,436 23% Services 1,712 9% 3,876 14% Agricultural 116 1% 222 1% Skilled Labor 2,374 12% 3,356 12% Unskilled 4,563 24% 4,041 14% Total 19,384 100°k 28,079 100% Sources: Dun and Bradstreet; Employment Development Department, U.S. Census, 1990, STF- 3A. Despite the large supply of jobs relative to employed workers, only about 25 percent of all employed South San Francisco residents actually work in the City. Moreover, only about 14 percent of the people employed in South San Francisco live in the City, meaning that 86 percent of South San Francisco jobs are filled by people who live elsewhere. Thus, there is a great deal of commuting both into and out of South San Francisco, which exceeds the commuting that might be expected based on the jobs/housing imbalance alone. There are several possible reasons why local jobs are not filled by local workers. One reason that is typically cited in this situation is a lack of affordable housing. In South San Francisco, there is a clear affordability gap for workers living in households earning less than $30,000 per year. However, these workers represent only about ten percent of the City's total labor force. In contrast, there are many homes in South San Francisco that sell across a range of price levels that would be affordable to the majority of East of 101 worker households. A second reason for the relatively low number of people who both live and work in South San Francisco could be a mismatch between the skills of local residents and the jobs being generated in the City. Yet a comparison of the II-106 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT 70BSMOUSING BALANCE occupational distribution of jobs in the East of 101 Area with the occupations of employed South San Francisco residents indicates that there is a relatively good fit between local residents' occupations and the jobs available in local firms. A third reason for the current jobs/housing imbalance may be a lack of housing opportunities for new workers coming into the City. This situation could force workers who might prefer to live in South San Francisco to seek housing in other communities. Of the factors discussed which can contribute to jobs/housing imbalance and cross-commuting, this appears to be the most likely reason why there is such a large jobs/housing imbalance in South San Francisco. During the 1980's, the employment base in South San Francisco grew much more rapidly than the City's supply of housing. This means that without displacing existing residents, people filling most of the new South San Francisco jobs created in the 1980s had no choice but to live in some other community. Although there is an excess of local jobs in comparison to the number of employed local residents, it is also important to recognize that South San Francisco is indeed a part of a larger regional labor market. Due to the high degree of wor:cer mobility within this labor market, it may be unrealistic to expect that .he City wcuid achieve a si~uatior. irl which all employed residents work locally, and in which local firms would nc~t require any workers from outside. As noted earlier, San Mateo County itself actually has fewer jobs than employed residents, meaning that South San Francisco's excess of jobs is helping to balance the ratio at the countywide level. II-107 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT JOBSMOUSING BALANCE MAY 1993 II-108 Chapter 8 FISCAL FACTORS Fiscal conditions for the East of 101 Area Plan are limited to an analysis of fiscal impacts on City operations of the Plan itself. The Environmental Impact Report, which will ultimately accompany the E~dsting Conditions Report and the Area Plan, will assess the balance of City public service costs and revenue increases which would result from full implementation of the Area Plan. Because of the conceptual nature of the Plan, the analysis will provide a broad brush assessment of the ability of the proposed development to pay for itself, once completed. The cost analysis will be limited to calculations of the on-going operations and maintenance costs made necessary by build-out development. i he Foundation for the fiscal analysis v~ill be the land use projections developed in the alternatives for the Area Plan. These descriptions will be programmatic in nature, describing in general terms the regulatory policies, possible locations, and average densities of future development within the East of 101 Area. South San Francisco department representatives will be consulted regarding the likely service impacts of the Area Plan in service areas such as police protection, fire protection, street sweeping and maintenance, storm drain maintenance, landscape maintenance, and general government overhead expenses. Subsequently, revenue projections will be developed based on current revenue data contained in the City of South San Francisco Budget are a variety of financial and fiscal representatives and documents. II-109 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT FISCAL FACTORS II-110 Chapter 9 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This chapter presents a description of the existing transportation system serving the East of 101 Area, the existing and future operating conditions of the system, descriptions of planned improvements to the system, projected operating conditions of the system for year 2000, and opportunities for additional transportation capacity in the study area. The roadway system is the major component of the transportation system. The operating conditions of the roadway system are described relative to intersection operations, since intersections represent the locations where the capacity of the roadway system is most constrained. Other components of the transportation system include bus service, cammuter rail service, San Francisco Int;,rrauonal Airnart, freight train service, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities. It should be noted that the density of the East of 101 Area is less than the typical density of asingle-family neighborhood. This comparison is helpful in analyzing the transportation needs of the area and the adequacy or viability of mass transportation alternatives. Survey results compiled by the Multi-City Transportation Systems Management Agency indicate that most workers in the study area drive alone to work (79 percent). Other transportation modes used by the respondents include vanpool/carpool (14 percent), SamTrans/Muni (4 percent), and CalTrainBART (2 percent). Approximately 3,400 employees in the East of 101 Area responded to the survey. A. Roadway System 1. Existing Roadways and Intersections a. Regional Roadway System. Regional access to the East of 101 Area is provided by a system of freeways. These freeways and the relative location of II-111 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN Fa{ISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION the study area are shown on Figure 23. Highway 101 provides access between the regional freeway system and the study area via interchanges at Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard. Additional access to Highway 101 is provided via numerous hook ramps located along Airport and South Airport Boulevards. Highway 101 is eight lanes wide in South San Francisco, and currently carries approximately 180,000 vehicles per day and 15,000 vehicles in the peak hour. As shown in Table 11, operations on Highway 101 in the vacinity of the study area and are marginally acceptable, with levels of service ranging from D to E.t b. Local Roadway System. The local roadway system serving the East of 101 Area is shown on Figure 23. The diagram shows the major roadways in the study area and id of lanesthonleachoroadway segment a d the typelof traffic indicates the number control at each intersection. The major roadways providing local access are Airport Boulevard, Grand Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard. These roadways are described below: Airport Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard is a north/south arterial paralleling Highway 101 along the western boundary of the study area. The arterial is four lanes wide except for a short, six-lane-wide section between Grand Avenue and the undercrossing at the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Because of the close proximity to Highway 101, freeway connections are provided at several locations. It is via these routes that downtown South San Francisco connects with the San Francisco International Airport. Airport Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard currently carry approximately 25,000 vehicles per day. Grand Avenue serves as the principal east/west street in downtown South San Francisco outside the study area. Through the downtown it is two lanes wide with diagonal, metered parking on both sides, and is fronted by commercial developments. Its daily volume is approximately 12,000 vehicles. East Grand Avenue is an extension of Grand Avenue eastward from Airport Boulevard and in the study area. It functions as a six-lane arterial from Airport Boulevard to Gateway Boulevard. Near the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard there is a partial interchange with Highway 101 that provides freeway access to and from the north. The six-lane section of 11991 Traffic Volumes, Caltrans. II-112 EAST OF 1~1 ~~ AREAPLAN City of South San Francisco B A D: A N D A S S O C I A S E S ... ... .. .u.•.. . .. •.. FIGURE 23 Local Roadway System and Key Intersections MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN E}(1STING CONp(TIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION f Table 11 HIGHWAY 101 IMPACTS FROM BASELINE PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Year 2000 Base F.~dsting Conditions Conditions Volumeb V/C LOS` Volume V/C LOS` Segment Capacity' 8,800 g,200 0.93 E 8,230 0.94 E Sierra Point to Oyster Point g~800 8,250 0.94 E 8,460 0.96 E Oyster Point to Grand g,800 8,030 0.91 E 8,250 0.94 E Grand to I-380 13,200 10,730 0.81 D 11,100 0.84 D I-380 to San Bruno a peak direction capacity based on 2,200 vehicles per lane per hour. b From Caltrans Traffic Volumes, 1991 for peak hour with assumed 55/45 directional split. ~ Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, using 60 mph freeway design speed. East Grand passes under Highway 101 and is grade separated from the S.P. RR tracks by an overcrossing. Between Gateway Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard, East Grand narrows to four lanes. Eastward from there it continues as a four-lane arterial to a point east of Grandview Drive, where it narrows to two lanes. Two-hour parking is permitted on the south side of East Grand between Littlefield Avenue and Haskins Way. Parking is prohibited along the remainder of East Grand Avenue. Oyster Point Boulevard is chiefly atwo-lane roadway serving the Oyster Point Marina and Oyster Point Business Park. It widens to four lanes near the S.P. RR tracks and narrows back to two lanes at a location west of Eccles Avenue. At its western end is a partial freeway interchange providing access to and from northbound Highway 101. It currently carves up to 15,000 vehicles per day. Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane arterial that extends in a northeasterly direction from Airport Boulevard to Oyster Point Boulevard. North of East Grand Avenue the roadway is divided with a landscaped median. Forbes Boulevard is an extension of Harbor Way north of East Grand Avenue. It is a four-lane arterial with a raised median that extends eastward to Point II-114 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTMG CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION San Bruno Boulevard near the Bay. The traffic volume on this facility is approximately 11,000 vehicles per day. c. Study Intersections. The evaluation of traffic operations in this document focuses on the key intersections in or near the study area. The 22 study intersections are identified below: 1. Bayshore Boulevard and Highway 101 Southbound Off-Ramp 2. Oyster Point Boulevard and Airport Boulevard 3. Oyster Point Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue/Highway 101 Northbound Ramps 4. Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard 5. Oyster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue 6. Airport Boulevard and Linden Avenue/Highway 101 Southbound On- Ramp 7. Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue/Highway 101 Southbound Off- Ramp 8. Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue 9. Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard 10. East Grand Avenue and Dubuque Avenue 11. East Grand Avenue and Gateway Boulevard 12. East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard 13. East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue 14. East Grand Avenue and Grandview Drive 15. Executive Drive and Highway 101 Northbound Off-Ramp 16. Airport Boulevard and Produce Avenue 17. Produce Avenue and Highway 101 Southbound Off-Ramp 18. South Airport Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard 19. South Airport Boulevard and Highway 101 Northbound Ramps 20. South Airport Boulevard and Belle Air Road 21. South Airport Boulevard and Access Road/I-380 Westbound On-Ramp 22. South Airport Boulevard and I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp. The existing lane geometries at each of these intersections are shown in Figure 24. Manual turning-movement counts were conducted at these intersections during the month of February 1993. The counts were conducted during the periods with the highest volumes, the morning commute period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and the evening commute period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The highest one- hour volumes obtained from these counts represent the AM and PM peak- hour volumes used in the analysis of intersection operations. II-115 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDrTIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION r i -The AM peak-hour turning-movement volumes are presented on Figure 25. The PM peak-hour turning movement volumes are presented on Figure 26. The numbers on the intersection list above correspond to the intersection numbers shown on these figures. 2. Existing Intersection Operations a. pnalvsis Methodoloeies. The capacity of a roadway system is most constrained at the intersections. Therefore, the operating conditions at the intersections are indicative of the operating conditions of the roadway system as a whole. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description of intersection operations. It is based on the relative ease or difficulty with which vehicles are able to pass through an intersection, and is measured by delay or the relationship between the volume of vehicles entering the intersection and its capacity. An intersection's level of service can range from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or stop-and-go conditions with excessive delays. Based on the type of traffic control used at the intersection, different methods are used to analyze operations. Four types of traffic control are used at the intersections analyzed in this study: (1) traffic signals, (2) one or two-way stop signs, (3) one or two-way yield signs ,and (4) all-way stop signs. The level of service calculation methods selected for these types of intersections are described in the following sections. Signalized intersections, those controlled by traffic signals, are evaluated using the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Circular 212 planning methodology. Following the procedure used in the Transportation and Parking Strategies of the Genentech Facility, prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., lane capacity adjustments are incorporated into the analysis of intersections that would otherwise operate at LOS C or worse. Intersections controlled by one- and two-way stop signs are analyzed using the methodology outlined in the Transportation Research Board's 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. Because of the applicability of this method to intersections under yield-sign control, the one yield-sign controlled intersection included in this study is analyzed using this same methodology. This methodology cannot, however, be applied to intersections that are controlled by stop signs at all approaches. II-116 w .> ~v ,~ :> ;x ~v :a y O '_n ~~ .~ m N N 5 a ~~ 1 ~~~ ~ ~ h ~ L ~ ~ ~ ;~ .~ ~~+ r ~ 11 ~- ~ ~ i AUtPORT t L lyp ~ S Ip~ hh ~ ~/ ~ f ti ~^ ~~' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ,~~ S ~~ ~ ~ ~ +~~ ~~~~ /~d~ ~ ~~ -~ t ~~1° ~/~~ ~~ ® ~~ ~N ~~ yy~ ~ 4 ~r ~ ~s ~- 0 0 'n a H 0 ~D ~~ ~O a ~~ ,~ 1 ~* r /~ "~i ~~ ~ ~~ ~o ~g ~~~, ~~~~ ~N ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~g o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ w b 1 ti NAJt1 ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 1 *r~ ~ AVM31 ~ ,~ 1 1 A ~ 1 1 ~ - -r 1 b ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ A i ~~ t= z ~. C n °° a5 R O A D r A~ fD ~n --// L l r,~ ~~ 77 tr y~~~ ~~~ dl~.~. ~z M ~r A ~O i ~ 'x ~ ~ O .Y II "O _n . ~ m y ~. ~' M ~ ~~ ~~~ a R ~~ ~~'~ 0 ~ ~ O S. AIRPOgT ~ i1 e.o ~ p ~ ~., ~ ~ ° /~~11 iw -~-,~, 1 ~ ry `tb;~r qb Jib ~~ ~ ~~- t,_ 110 f : ~wPC+Pr `fit/ ~ 1~ ~ y M ~ M 4 ~ d ~~ ~ ~~ /off ,~ ~y ~ ~~'~ ~ 'q r R h~ ~ ~ O ~ o y ~ ~ Q ~~ 4,.,.~.~ ~ ~~ ~w~o ~,, ~ f°~ a ,~oa~ s ~ ` ~,lt,~,~ 1 `l 1(' 'T ~ G M O f ~ ~ Y 0~ ``//y-~ t ~ V'~ ~~~ Y~ V_` V~ N E ~ te` ~°J ~'` dyr .S ~~, •~ ~w~ a f r ~~,~P~- ~\ O`r ~ 4 n 0 0 ~+-~ >o ~' 0 ~ rn 0 ~ ~~ `~ 1 ~ ~.t-' ~ ~. 3~~ ~ r 'y . Ca ~~ h~~~ ~ ~r~ ~g ~ ~ A ~~ V ~ W u r ,~ ~ ~ ra ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~'o g ~ ~~ ~~x ~ Q ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ x ~~ a a ,~.~ ~~N X14 •~ ~ ,~ 1 a ~, ~'~ avru~ ~~ I •• r~- °~ oa0 -- n ~~~ "~,., X14 .L~ ~` w ,,; ~,- ,,, ~ yrr Xaa ~~ ~ ~~ ~~u //~~4 T N~L ~~\~G 10 ~, b ;`'Z `ltd' a~~ i i~ ~ j g z k y~ r ~~ s 'd ~ ~ ~ O ~n O ~ C O G ~~p N ~~~ .~ 14 ~t~ ~i '`~' ?0 '° Z - W .> ~o ,~ ,a 'x ~o 4a ~ ~ ''-n -i m V! /~ w p a 5 a a RN il. p F u 5 n n 0 cn 0 ar- A rT.~ -a A H 0 ~m O ~ ~~ CrJ i! ~~ ~ ~ b~ ~s b ~ fD d 7~ C C ^{ ~/ O G N n MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION All-way stop-sign controlled intersections are evaluated using the Transportation Research Board's Circular 373, "Interim Materials on Unsignalized Intersection Capacity" methodology. The level of service criteria for these three analysis methodologies are included in Appendix B. LOS obtained through through these methodologies were compared with LOS for the study intersections from previous planning documents and no significant differences were noted. b. Analysis Results. Based on the applicable analysis methods identified above, levels of service were calculated for the 22 study intersections during each of the AM and PM peak hours of operation. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 12. All but 3 of the 22 study intersections operate at LOS D or better during the peak-hour periods. Identified below are the three intersections that currently operate at LOS E or F. • The two-way, stop-sign controlled intersection at Oyster Point Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue/northbound Highway 101 ramps operates at LOS F during both of the peak-hour periods. The reason for the poor operations is the difficulty with which left turns are made from the minor roadways onto Oyster Point Boulevard (Intersection 3). • ''_'he all-way, stop-sign controlled intersection at Ovster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue operates at LOS E and LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The sLbstandard operations result from the high volume of traffic (eastbound in the AM, westbound in the PM) on Oyster Point Boulevard that is required to stop at the intersection (Intersection 5). • The two-way, stop-sign controlled intersection at Produce Avenue and the southbound Highway ]Ol off-ramp operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour. This can be attributed to the difficulty with which left turns are made from the off-ramp onto southbound Produce Avenue (Intersection 17). 3. Existing Trip Distribution The City of South San Francisco is a member of the Multi-City Transportation System Management (TSM) Agency. The Multi-City TSM Agency conducted an employee transportation survey in 1992. The survey asked employees several questions including their home zip code, the transportation mode they used to commute to work, and the times they arrived and departed work. The survey also solicited worker opinions on several transportation issues. II-123 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 12 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS MAY 1993 AM Peak H our PM Peak H our Intersection Type Method' Criterionb LOS Criterionb LOS 1 Bayshore and SB 101 Off-Ramp All-Way Stop 3 14 C 7 B 2 Oyster Point and Airport Signal 1 0.72 D 0.66 C 3 Oyster Point and Dubuque/NB 101 Ramps Two-way Stop 2 -108 F ~ F 4 Oyster Point and Gateway Signal 1 0.49 A 0.39 A 5 Oyster Point and Eccles All-Way Stop 3 33 E 116 F 6 Airport and Linden/SB 101 On- Ramp Signal 1 OSS B 0.68 C 7 Airport and Miller/SB 101 Off- Ramp Signal 1 0.42 A 0.36 A 8 Grand and Linden Signal 1 0.46 A 0.51 B 9 Grand and Airport/NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 OS8 B 0.67 C 10 East Grand and Dubuque Signal 1 0.24 A 0.48 A 11 East Grand and Gateway Signal 1 0.59 C 0.54 B 12 East Grand and Forbes Signal 1 0.59 C 0.65 C 13 East Grand and Littlefield All-Way Stop 3 26 D 12 C 14 East Grand and Grandview One-Way Stop 2 597 A 574 A 15 Executive and NB 101 Off-Ramp One-Way Yield 2 372 B 831 A 16 Airport and Produce Signal 1 0.66 C 0.74 D 17 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ramp Two-Way Stop 2 118 D 51 E 18 South Airport and Gateway Signal 1 0.49 A 0.67 C 19 South Airport and NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.44 A 0.49 A 20 South Airport and Belle Air Signal 1 0.31 A 0.42 A 21 South Airport and WB 380 On- Ramp Signal 1 0.30 A 0.48 A 22 South Airport and EB 380 Off- Ramp Signal 1 0.29 A 0.18 A a Level of service analysis method: (1) TRB Modified Circular 212 Planning, (2) 1985 HCM for unsignalized intersections, (3) TRB Circular 373. b Level of service criteria are: V/C for Method 1, reserve capacity (in PCPH) for the worst movement for Method 2, delay (in sec.) for Method 3. II=124 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The survey results are broken down into several geographical zones. The East of 101 Area comprises the four zones identified below. Zone 3: Oyster Point and north Zone 4: South of Oyster Point, to and including East Grand Avenue Zone 5: South of East Grand Avenue to Utah and Littletleld Zone 6: South of Utah to San Francisco International Airport The survey results for these four zones are included in Appendix B. Table 13 shows a summary of the employee residence locations by zone and for the entire study area. Based on the geographical distribution of employee residences, inferences can be made regarding the probable commute travel patterns of the workers in the study area. Of the total commute trips into and out of the study area, it is estimated that approximately 40 percent are to/from U.S 101 south, 30 percent are to/from Highway 101 north, 20 percent are to/from I-380, and 10 percent are to/from local surface streets. Access t~ the East of 101 Area is provided at several locations, via freeway ramps as well as surface streets. From the Multi-City data, it appears that approximately 20 percent of the vehicles entering or leaving the study area use Oyster Point Boulevard, 40 percent use Grand/East Grand Avenue, 20 percent use the Produce or Wondercolor ramps, and 20 percent use I- 380 or San Bruno Avenue. This data is used in this report to assign future trips from projected baseline development to the roadway network, and will also be used to assign trips for development under the Area Plan. 4. Future "Baseline" Operating Conditions This section presents a description of the baseline roadway conditions that will occur without any changes in the study area other than already planned improvements in 2000. Baseline conditions comprise transportation system improvements programmed for completion by 2000, expected increases in traffic volumes over existing levels, and traffic volume projections to include all currently approved developments in the vicinity of the study area. The traffic operations at several key intersections were evaluated to determine the excess capacity that might be available under baseline conditions. The intersections included in this analysis are the gateways to the study area at II• I25 M ~_ ~- a z 0 ~.. Q ryi ~ U ,~. z_ a `' h C i O m r O a ` ~z• o~ o U z V s ~ Z 4 r W I2~ 0: a Z Q U O W U Z W ...i r e+~ C/1 ^I w ~ a .. ~ ~ Gtr :=7 n Gz O e+1 ~O O; t~5 N aD ~D ..+ ... O .... O t~1 .-. G ~ P1 V'j ~v !~1 tV ~ V1 G tV ~+ O O~ 'C .. y O O ~ d N 0p 00 O ~p N v; po~p OO~~ O~ N ~~pp O r O~ ~ ~ d pp~~ O~ r ~ U ~ Q~ t~ N ~ ~D 00 N N: N N O d O ~ 40 !Y ~C d O ~ g ..i ~O L O a. O ONO ~ ~ y O N ~ O M ~ N N r r h 7 O U ~O d c+: e+. a0 a0 ^~ N N O d C N v'i ~ eV tV c~; c+i C 8 v C N N N ~ R N 4 `_ `~ G V ) 00 fV ~ ~ N O 7 ^i 0 U d r!, q d e~ r ~o ~o d o ~ x o fV O N fV N NS ~+i a ~O C O gl' .. d ~ Q N ~ pp N N ~ ~ e} ~ Oe+C .d. O O d N ~ a. d O ~ i O I U ' o cn r oo v~ c- ao a d o -- ao 0 ~ ~ O~ C erN C ~ v'; fV M ~ C tai O O ' ^" ~ C ~ Q l~vl v, r; r N N d Q. ~ N N ^ r O N r a0 ~ U t n Z ^ ~. ~ ~ C o i/1 a o c ci C v1 r 7 ~ ~ z 3 U y ca ~ C ~ 3 v > U a~i ca ~ C ~ a~ 3 > U a~i cv ~ C ~ ~. c U ~ ~~+ cCO w C ~ ~ ~ c`o ( j ~ C ~ r o ~ a :~ ~ ~ cC ¢ t o ~ ~ U ~ ~ 3 ¢ o y O U ~ C ~ ~ ~ U ~ U ~ C ~ ~ ~ r `' z ° u ca Da ~ o F lV cam; et V': ~ r 00 Q~ C (V u T cn c 0 .o~ G C ca F a~ a~ n. E w pNp~~ Q~ C 0 r U 3 ti U 3 O N .--~ .~: r. MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION which future development will have the greatest impacts. Shown in Table 14 are the intersection levels of service under baseline conditions, together with the expected available capacity for LOS D operations. a. Planned Tran~rtation System Improvements. The transportation system improvements projected to be in place by 2000 primarily include roadway improvements such as the Highway 101/Oyster Point interchange modification, construction of Gull Road between Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard, and the addition of traffic signals to several intersections. (1) Highway 101/O +Lster Point Interchange. The Highway 101/Oyster Point interchange modifications comprise the following changes: • Replacing the existing freeway overcrossing and at-grade railroad crossing with new overcrossing structures from Airport Boulevard on the west to realigned Oyster Point Boulevard on the east. The freeway overcrossing will intersect Airport Boulevard at the new four-way intersection with the Hillside Boulevard Extension, just north of the existing intersection of Airport Boulevard with Randolph Avenue. • Relocating the northbound on- and off-ramp and the southbound on- ramp, which will entail constructing a new flyover ramp to connect westbound Oyster Poin~ Boulevard traffic with southbound Highway 101. The new northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp will access the study area at a new intersection on Dubuque Avenue south of Oyster Point Boulevard. Construction of the Oyster Point interchange improvements is a City of South San Francisco project. The City awarded the bid for construction in April 1993. (2) Gull Road. The planned Gull Road is to be a two-lane roadway connecting Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard east of Eccles Avenue. Both of the two newly created intersections are to be signalized. Plans for the Gull Road connector are currently being reviewed by United Parcel Service (UPS), after which they will be submitted to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) for review. Initially, the BCDC had concens with the proposed filling of North Coastal Salt Marsh existing in the area. The plans for the connector have since been revised and now include mitigation for the potential impacts on the wetland areas. II-127 z 0 ~. H a U oa a J ~ ~ s. O W F ~ Z ["' o~ o U 'y, ~o oZ~ F Gat? Gt1 ~+ Z O .~ 'r .. Z O Z rl W O O O N x ~i ~ w 6a -Z ~~ rW U oG w O .a .a Z 0 Gt7 a LLl r Z rr j m ¢ ¢ ¢ G m ¢ as G m U G U ¢ ¢ C w G m ¢ m y 0 w Y a ~ 0 ~ Or Z +V+ p~ M M, O H ~ O N ~ O O OD O ... V'f O p. c' O ~ v~ O ... !~ O ~ v'1 O O ~D O N t~ O ~ ~ O e~ d 0D Q~ f~ O ~ N t~ O N vl O ~ O ~n v: O U ~ j G ¢ ¢ U w ca ¢ m U ¢ U U O ¢ m U w m ¢ ¢ ¢ 0 Y ~ ~ Q .C .~+ v~ N ~ C O~ d O O ~O O 1~ 00 G c+; v; O l~ ~ C O v; O 00 ~O O O~ N O ~ O t~ ~O C O~ N 00 er; C O v; P; O~ ~O C ~ ~ r'; v, O t~ et O c'r t~, C N t+5 O V U B ~ fir; •-~ t+: N N ~+ G a ~- ~', ~: 3 ~ a ~ c m ;~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ c m ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ c m ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ 3 ~ a ~ c ~ ~ 3 a~ ~ o R e ~ ~ 3 o 3 H R c ~ c ~ c ~ c ~ a v o .u d 61 .. ~ ~ a a o ~ R a ~ o o W ~~ o0 ~ a ~ ~ m '_' ° c ~~ ~~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ c c c c - M R td :Q ~ ~ ~v c c c 'v 'o ~ ~ .o .o _o = ~ ~ R 4 CL 6. CO GO O V V V V L L. ~ ` h V1 V1 ` ~ ~a~'~'~'aa ~ 9 ~ ~ c0 ~ CC ~ ~. `~ 0 m ~ v ~. ~ ~ cO 9 R ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ :Q 'v _ /L~ V H ~ R 3 ~ V 'v R 'o _ 4Ri ~ ~ ~ ~ ,y ~ R ~ _ L ~ N G~ ~ ~ ~_ -7 a R 'v _ L ~ N ~ _ ~ ~~~ V ~ ~ v _ 1R.. ~ h ~, a x o o m Z C cv ~ > = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ I.n ~ a ~ x O o m ~ c R U ', ~ ~ T 3 h ~ C ca V a '~ ~ a x o m z C ca V a 3 ~ a ~, x C ca V a '~ ~ °' ~ a o ~ m 3 C ca V a 7 ~ N tr ~! v'; ~O l~ 00 O+ O N r. c+; ~ v; ~D [~ 00 ~ N N N .-» ,~ ~oo ~ ,, y o Q as a v ~ ~ o ~ _ a U "' o F., O Q ~ Gc. O z a a i y 0 D Z Q :: 0 0 ~ c o 0 3 H F- J ~ ~ ~ ~ V W pq .~ ~ ~ ~ O Q A Q Q W ~^,c . , ~ . ~ =~ ,~ o ~ N O pp 00 ~ Q ~ ~ C t .+ O O O O O ~ U •~ `' W C ~ri h ~ ~ E $ o ~ ~ U Z 3 ~~ .~ .~ ~- N ... ^ ~ w C ~ ~ ° h ° o m ~ U y o o o o o o io y e (r Cn ~ ~ CA fA N v N U r ~ u ~ u V ~ W_ ~ .~+ w p` G d O . ~ ~ ` a ~ o ,~ ~. cn 9 ~ ~ U CO W ~° ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ R y = C ~ ~ ~ ~ C V ~ ~ C ~ R V C .fl ~ V t0 ¢L. ~.' ~ 3 ~ L ~ 1 U V ~ ~ ~ '~[~1` / ' 1 j[~ ' / ~ir L y y JJ t~ ~ V . r . [~1 T 'J '.~ N ~ N Ya N ~ y~ ~ ..] T N .""-~ ,. ,~ ~ ,- F :~ ~ ~. -~ - E~.. ._ ~ ~... : - Nx_. - ~ rk .- v ... .. _-"fir _.. '~ t .~~ ~ .~ ~ .1 .:. ..._.~ _ . ~od'F~ Avenue ~. ~ .- ~- Road ~ ~ r ~~ ~.~. ~, W . Easi"t3rand Av a~ic~and Cirandvicw Driv~e~~ ~ ~ Yx .~~ ' ~ - 'Fobes ABoi~kvard and Gull Road. ` ' ~ ~ µ ~ :> ,- h. The roadway system for baseline cvndi is presented on Fgure 27, Intersection geometric;a for_ the Z6 key intersections ~,_ _ - us 4 addedmte:r:echons--due to the system X22 e~oa inte;raxhons~°p1 _ _ _ Roadway _ ';r»~srk _ _ ~~. z k . .. .. .. ~ _.,.. _- ~. ml . dry -..~ ~• s n . ,. 4-.~ ~ _ ~~ ', - Other roadway system ProMea~en~s, Donne ~~ ~ between ~ E r w ~Pt.~'San Boulevai+d-and East Grand Avenue ~thrEug6 the Fuller-O'Brien site and ea~ras roads to the Sierra Point property, are not included under baseline con~tions. These ..improvements will be -addressed in the alternatives ~ analysis pdaae of the study. c. ADOroved Devebpments. There are eight sites in the study area that have beea-appmwed either_for new development_or.for a changedause-Sn an esiatinj:Jopnsent_:;~3escriptioffi of .these art are~resentedn ~"' ~~;t;< Table:1~, _ Y _~ The AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes generated by these developments were estimated by applying appropriate trip generation rates for the type of development to the proposed size. These trip generation rates are presented in 8~ sin cases where e~dsting uses ?wn'lI be :,converted :to new -uses, traffic generated by the existing uses were estimated and subtracted for the estgoatear-:the new rases. '"Fhe trip generation'estimates are presented in i .. ~ - .~~ saisid Traffic Volumes. I'taffic~projectkns forahe major roadway facilities in the study area were obtained by assigning trip .tables provided by the MetropoUtan Transportation Commission (MTC). The projections for Highway 101 show decreases in peak commute direction traffic volumes between 1990 and the year 2000. These decreases are attributed to a shift by San Mateo County residents from working in San Francisco to working in Santa Clara and San`Mateo Counties. Decreases are projected to occur on other study area roadway facilities as well, while new regional growth is NOT TO SCALE EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T fl S FIGURE 27 Year 2000 Baseline Roadway System EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION MAY 1993 Table 15 APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS Project Location Existing Uses Proposed Uses Gateway Business Park 900 Gatcvvay - 50,000 s.f. Office Heidelberg West 650 Gateway - 56,000 s.f. Office Parcel 2C 17,000 s.f. Warehouse 17,000 s.f. Service & Repair Pointe Grand 270 East Grand Avenue - 185,000 s.f. Office Business Park Genentech 434-437 Kaufman Court Bldg. 8 Buildings 8 and 9 25,150 s.f. Office 43,040 s.f. Office 53,620 s.f. Industrial 35,370 s.f. Industrial Bldg. 9 17,840 s.f. Office 60,470 s.f. Office 150,880 s.f. Warehouse 84,580 s.f. Warehouse 14,540 s.f. Utility Core 30,790 s.f. Industrial Genentech 451 Point San Bruno Add 20,000 s.f. R&D Bui;3ing 3 G.E.S. 343 Oyster Point Blvd. 22,610 s.f. Warehouse 22,600 s.f. Office Genentech Building 7 ::0,000 s.f. Office 150,000 s.f. Lab G5,~00 s.f. Warehouse Shaman Fast Grande/Forbes 64 S00 s.f. Warehouse 53,000 s.f. Office Pharmaceuticals 10,600 s.f. Office 75,000 s.f. Lab II-132 .> :o .> ;x ~O :~ "O =n ;~ . ~ . ~ m .•, ~^ ~' M ~' a ~~ ~~~, s R ~ ff h .~~ N ,. ~r Lz `~ yA` ~+ ~~.,.. ,~ 1 1 ~ ~~~~~ N W ~Q N F'~! X71 ~Q N FE A 0 0 sa Ti -, a ~- 0 ~m O ~ ~O i~ f~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ its' ~y~ ~~~ ,war ~l ~ w,. ~~ W ~~ ~~ ~~ ~N "~~ y ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~' ~~ ~g ~ ~~ ~~ ~n ~~ ~w l _ f ~ ~f ~ : ~uaar 114 L ""'qtr .J~, r ~~ f~-~ '~ ~' t ~' `~,~ ~ 77 rr ~~ 0 77 r ~s ,o, ~ ~ rr ~. O 1~ hh ~ ~, ~,~,~ .~.u~ `11 T T ~ ~ n Z ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ • '~ ~ ~ ~ k1/fp /~/ ~ f~ft I ~~ ~ ~~ ~ B~~ ~ f"D '1 C~ A yp pNp C~j07 ... ~ 8 tJ Q r f~D ~~ ~ 'ltd' ~, r MAY 1993 cAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING, CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTA ~ .ON AND CIRCULATION anticipated to relay more heavily on transit. Therefore, the traffic volume projections for future baseline conditions do not include a regional growth component. Traffic projections for the Airport expansion as outlined in the SFIA Master Plan have not been included because expansion of the facilities by 2000 seems unlikely considering no approvals have been received for the expansion. The existing vacancy rate in the study area is approximately 10 percent. A more typical vacancy rate for the area would be 5 percent. Therefore, the existing traffic volumes were increased by S.S percent to account for the expected change in building occupancy rate from the current 90 percent to the more typical 95 percent. The increased existing volumes were reassigned to account for the planned changes to the roadway system. Traffic from the approved developments were then added to the reassigned traffic volumes. Once again, the Airport expansion is not included as part of this analysis. If expansion were to occur, only one percent of the added air-passenger generated traffic and only 0.7 percent of the emphyee generated traffic would occur within the study are a.` The :~M peak-hour volumes for the ?.o key intersections :ire presented on. r'igure 29. T`le Phi peak-?~~our volt ;mss are preserted on Figure 30. e. Future Baseline Intersection Operations. Traffic operations under the year 2000 baseline conditions were evaluated using the intersection level of service methods described earlier. Included in the analysis are the 22 original study intersections plus 4 new intersections that will be created by the roadway improvements planned within the study area. Table 14 is a summary of intersection levels of service under baseline conditions. The results show that only 2 of the 26 study intersections are expected to operate at LOS E or F under future baseline conditions. The traffic operations at these intersections are described below. • The intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue is expected to operate at LOS E and LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. These conditions represent a slight improvement over existing (LOS E and LOS F) operations, due to the planned installation of a traffic signal at this intersection. The AM operating conditions would still be substandard, however, if the existing intersec- tion lane geometries are not improved. One eastbound lane on Oyster 2 SFIA Master Plan EIR II-135 y i O_ .:~ F O ~z~ o L¢. U ~ . ~ Z N r r z W W Z i~ Zr Q O x a s. e ~o ~ ...r r~ 6~ ','d ~ ~ QS :/.~ Z Q ~_ i. U S Z s z Q ~ S ~ d O~ 00 en ^I N' ~ N ~ ~ v1 c' O~ 00 ~D ~ r; `-' p~p N C~ h h [~ N O v; ~ ~ t+~ V r O ~ Y a ~ ~ h O~ ~ NI ~ ~ O ~ ~ 00 n ~ ~O v'; et ~ ~ N u O ~ ~ .~ Q L V d ~ ~ ~ po w N M ~ I 00 ~ ~O ~ N N et O ~ ...---yyy ~ N ..+ O ~O n ~.. ~ •^+ V O z 0 a. 3 0~0 S h NI ~ ~! ~ `-+ ~ O~ ~ N ~ O 00 N vN`, `1 ~ 10 N C r L O V ; ~D V ; h h v; 00 e+; N e+; N ~ v'; v: [~ v, ~O v r, ~ v; t~: v; v 1 ~ ~ O ~ O O I '~ O .. O O `~ 'C ... '~. ~ ~ U Gr7 E,., O h .~ O h .. a~ ~ O ~ 9 ~ O h ... O h .. n~ ~ p O h ... i-. ~ a~ ~ p O h .., O h ... ~ ~ c O ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ > U ~.~"". U ice.. ~ ~ , ~ Op U W U W ~ ~ 3 U W v O ~ ca 3 U fr6". J_ ~"' 0 ~ 7q U i~..i ~ OQ > 0 0 3 a o 0 0 0 ~ o ., i y ~ ~pQ ~pQ ~ ~ ~pQ ~p^ ~pQ C v~~ ~~ G .C C ^ ~ C C C7 r q~ CL ~ 1.. a C. ~ V a ~ 1.. a C. Q L. a CS. ~ V a CS. ~ V s ~ ri5 G Q 1.. a . ~ V s '~ ~ ti. h :~ ~ V a O V s f~ x Gtl a H a. ~ c U ~ '~ ~ ; 7 x U tQ ~ 7 ~ '~ ~ ~ C .~. v :d ~ a C ~ y o0 ~ ~ LL1 :a C C 6. V .+: a . C7 v~ C7 CG M .... ~+ ~. ~ao or ~~g ~~,_ Z `~ x o ~ U J. ~ O U ~Za z IXj. i :n ~. ('~7 Q O n N ~ O ~ N ~ M e~; ~~ O ~ p. ~ N v r ~O ~ ~ cr et ~t V ~ Q Y ~ C O N N ~ 00 ~ t~: n] O+ '~'~ v N C. 7 N N ~ t' cvv ..1 u ~ e .a a :7 n. ~ .-. ^ •L O e., K N H v :.1 et d N `a ~~ N `J ~~~...111 V 7 ~ O ~ ...., L 0. ^ O t^ v O N ^ N n o0 00 v, n ~O n o -.1 /. 0 _ o v ~ o ~ Q ~ ^ ~ U o ~ ~ c ^ ° °~ h ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ v E.. ~ ~ U e .. o ~. O y n i r ~ N ~ U Q ~.. U 0! ~ ~ : ^ 3 ~ p 3 ~ .~ ~ i . R v ' ~ ~ C C Q 4 L C G. G . G . QI ~ ~ ~ W W al al r [~' Q, M n u ~. d E a C 'n w 00 C 9 - c'a 7p C .fl -- 7a ~ C N ~ ~' V C N ~ ~ ~ C Z cC R E °' E ~ ~` c a~ e ,~ 3. ~ y ~' C O C " .a °' ~ 'o o ~ yN "> N ~ Od ~ t ~ U a ~ .C O 3C b ~ t ~ ~3 ~ Vl .~+ 6~ h V V A C C V Wi h N . ~~^ ~ i~~ C ~~ C ~ 0 V C ~J ~ ti ~ 'y N_ :Q ['~ VJ ~a a u rte-. EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION MAY 1993 Point Boulevard will not adequately accommodate the additional traffic drawn to the new Gull Road. The two-way stop-sign controlled intellection at Produce Avenue and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp is expected to operate at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours. These conditions are only slightly worse than the existing LOS D and LOS E at this location. The poor level of service reflects the difficulty with which vehicles turn left onto southbound Produce Avenue. The deteriorating conditions can be attributed to local growth factors that will increase ambient traffic levels. 5. Roadway Constraints and Opportunities Roadway constraints are locations where capacity is deficient due to excess demand, and include both roadway segments and intersections. The existing constraints in the area can give an indication of the parameters to overall planning for the area. a. Existing Excess Roadway Capacity. Available traffic capacity under predicted baseline conditions gives an indication of the growth that could occur in the study area without signficant traffic improvements. In such an analysis, the "weak link" in the roadway system is identified, and the excess capacity at this location is quantified. Base) on such ar, aralysis, and assuming th:~t all intersections are to operate at or better than LOS D, it appears that 30 to ~0 percent growth could occur in the East of 101 Area without significant traffic improvements. Table 17 shows the excess capacity under baseline conditions at seven key study area intersections. It can be used to End the "weak link" in the system and the maximum growth that could occur in the study area without major roadway improvements beyond those already planned. Table 17 shows three potentially constricting intersections: The Oyster Point/Hillside and Airport Boulevard intersection has only 10 percent excess capacity under baseline conditions. However, planned lane geometrics at this intersection could be revised to include a second left-turn lane at the north approach on Airport Boulevard. This would create ample additional capacity at this intersection, so that it would not be a constraining factor. • The Airport Blvd./Produce Ave. intersection has excess capacity of 30 percent. However, Airport/Produce is relatively removed from the East of 101 Area, and the City may not feel that it is necessary to improve it as a part of East of 101 development. r II-138 Cd A ~v ,~ :> 'z ;v :~ " O '_n ~~ .~ m N ` ~N ~~ # ~~ ~ ~ ~ .y ~~ ~ 9 ~'°~ ~ ~~~ .~ 14 ~t~ ~., a L ~ ~~ s ~t- a gib\~ a~ lyo1~+ ~t r i~ ~\ ~~ b~ b `! ~° •0 ~ ~ ~ v ry `r ~rO ~'`1 w~ ~- ~ .~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~~ h t ~ 1 I ~ ~j, : x ~,~~~~ ~ ~ ,~ 9 8 r }Q O ,~ . ~g ~, ~ N $~ W +r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r! d~ ~ 41 ~ ~ pT ~ N ~ ~ ~ c` y ~o /~~ ° 1t ~~~ ~~~ \~ ` ~ ` / ~ R//~ R~o ~c \ s ~s `fin ~,~~ ~ y ' o y R~ ~ ~'6~ ~ r ` \~ 1~ ~j -S ~\~ ~ ~ ` /~ ~ ~ ,6 'b i AMPORT ~ o ~ ~, ~ o o '1 ,y~ -.y rya Z ~~ ~'S ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~\ VI ~° ti d /y ° d' ff • ( 1w Z 1 1 ~ ~tl / ~~ ~ y A ~ ~ ~ ~° y ~~~ ~ A ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~3 ~ w 1~ ~~• r~r ~ 1 ~- ~ _ rr 1 ~ ~ . B - ~a ~.. ~/1 ,L b ~ o~~ ,~ ~ J ~ -- ~~- - ~ ,~ w u ~~ N ~ ti N ~ ~ N O y ~ g ~ ~°' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ I- ~ ~ ~ t i = '~ 1 1 `~ ~ ~ ~' '~~ " w "~ '1 t Tra u~ Z 1~ ~S 0 ~ ~ ° ° ~ A S ~4~~~ , ~'b oa -Z g ~ ~ ~ ^ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ac" y ~ a ~' ~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~~~a ~~ ~ M`~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ` \ Y ~ i \ ~AV `b~y~ ~~~'~ y ~yA~OAV V ~~ ~~ er '~ ~t ' D a ~' n 0 cn 0 cn a 0 ~D 0 ~ ~O ~~p W '7 $N G ••.• ~= ro 7C' s x~ C 7 ~ O C O C ~~p N N ~O .> p • ,< :> :x :v :Y 'o A • ' m N ~ a15 ~s ~ 3 ~ ~ w '~ ~, ~~ ~ ~# ~ n ~ ~ ^ ~~ J R~ ~~ 1 d \~ ~~ \ ~J ~ is ~~ ~ 1 ~ A4tIQRf ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ gsM ~ o~1r ~ C"7 0 ~~ ~~ ~~ of y i~ l~ C L ~ ,~ <<. ,,~ ~ f ~ ~~. _~o N U A cn 0 .'Y- N~ ~D 0 ~ JO ~~ ~~ ~• ~r d;~~ s ~° h~ ~~ ~ 01 ~ w ~ ylti /b ~ 0~~ A ~~ f' 2 7 ~~~ °A, ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 6a' ~ ~ b o ~ ~pe~ s ~ \ ~y~ ~~ tl b~, o ~~, ~ ~w ~~,'y ~w y ~-r ~/ '~'~- ~~ a„ ti ~r~.~ 1 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ti~ ~~ ~g ~ ~ y~ N ~t ~ ~r waw ..11 / .~ ~a ~~•~ ~ `' ~ 't• o / i y v ~e ~Y ~ b b y 7t \ R ~1~ \~e ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ .1y,~r ~,` ~ u+ bsb ''b \~~ ~~z 7r,~ ,~o, o~t~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~aa ~~~ ~ ~ ~ s .~ 1 ~~ ~rr~vo II ~ ,.~~ a ~ ~ A N ~~s ~ /d/~d NAG ~ ~~ +tf ~ 1 i .o ~,, W ~ ~ b b~~ ~ r bZ ~T~ ~~ ra ~ ~~~ /1~ W 1 N W A A ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ o ~ o c ~ ^r• ~/ C ~_ C MAY 1993 EAST OF 1oi AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 17 EXCESS BASELINE CAPACITY AT EAST OF 101 GATEWAY INTERSECTIONS Intersection Period V/C Excess Baseline Capacity° Oyster Point/HilLside and Airport AM 0.80 10% (with second left at North) AM 0.53 > 100% Dubuque and Oyster Point AM 0.49 > 100% Dubuque and 101 Ramps AM 0.37 > 100% Grand and Airport PM 0.71 50% East Grand and Dubuque PM 0.54 80% Airport and Produce PM 0.79 30% South Airport and Ga[eway PM 0.72 50% Described as the percentage increase in baseline volume on the critical movement that can be accommodated without exceeding LOS D. The Souch .~iiE~ort B1vd.;~.Jatc-Nay B:vd. interscc~ion is ttie Host constrained °.ntersection besides .-~irport/Produce. This intersection can accommodate 50 percent growth in trips on its critical movement before major improvements would be required. This is a simplified analysis to gauge the effect of study area growth on traffic congestion. Since not all trips from the study area pass through a given intersection, growth potential without major traffic improvements may be even greater than discussed in some individual areas. b. Needed Roadway Improvements. Identified in the following paragraphs are the potential problem locations identified under 2000 baseline conditions that would require further capacity improvements. Some of the other deficiencies that are evident today will be eliminated with the implementation of planned roadway improvements, as described above. (1) Ouster Point Boulevard. The intersection at Oyster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue is expected under baseline conditions to operate at substandard levels. This is attributed to the planned Gull Road connection, which would increase traffic demand on Oyster Point Boulevard. The demand is expected to significantly exceed the two-lane capacity of the existing Oyster II-143 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXIS'T'ING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Point Boulevard east of Eccles Avenue. Oyster Point Boulevard should be widened to at least four lanes from Airport Boulevard to the planned Gull Road. Because much of the property fronting Oyster Point Boulevard is currently undeveloped, there exists ample opportunity to accommodate a roadway upgrade of this nature. The planned new intersection at Oyster Point/Hillside Boulevard and Airport Boulevard is expected to carry a very high volume of southbound to eastbound left-turning vehicles during the AM peak hour. The current plan for a single left-turn lane at the north approach will not adequately accommodate this demand. Construction of the new interchange will likewise present the opportunity to install double-left turn pocket at the north approach of the new intersection at Hillside. (2) Gull Road. The planned connection between Forbes Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard is the two-lane Gull Road. Preliminary traffic projections for the year 2000 do not suggest a need for additional lanes on this facility. It is recommended, however, that liberal application of lane channelizations be incorporated into the plans so that the high turning- movement demand can be served satisfactorily. (3 j Produc° Avenue. Tt:c current design of :5e int~~aect~on at Produce Avenue and the SB Highway ? Ol off-ramp does not satisfactorily serve the demand of left-turning vehicles from the ramp. Although north- bound traffic is required to stop at this intersection, the traffic in the southbound direction is not. Because of the high volume of southbound traffic there are not enough gaps of sufficient length to accommodate the left-turn demand. (4) Grand Avenue Interchanee. Traffic safety and circulation are of concern near the exit to East Grand Avenue from northbound Highway 101. This is particularly so for northbound freeway traffic headed for the Gateway Business Park. This traffic must turn right at East Grand Avenue and quickly cross three lanes of traffic in order to turn left at Gateway Boulevard. The close proximity of the two intersections makes it difficult to negotiate this combination of turns. Furthermore, it is not clear to drivers by what route the business park can be accessed. In addition, the intersection of the Grand Avenue overcrossing, East Grand Avenue and the Gateway Boulevard is also confusing due to the five streets that come together at one point here. (5) Forbes Avenue. The raised median islands along Forbes Boulevard create unnecessary safety and circulation problems. The height of the median is such that it obstructs from view the opposing traffic lane. Also, II-144 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIC)#JS REPORT TRA.tiSPORTATION AND CiRt;l~cAT10N there are regularly-spaced median openings at locations that do not correspond to driveway locations along the street. The offset driveways and median breaks create unnecessary turning-movement conflicts, and the height of the median severely reduces sight distance. These features not only hamper traffic circulation, but make Forbes Avenue particularly dangerous to bicyclists. Changes to the design of Forbes Avenue would improve this situation. c. Additional Vehicular Circuation Issues. Besides the roadway improvements listed above, the following will be important issues to consider in East of 101 Area planning. The desirability and feasibility of these options will be investigated as the land use and transportation plan for the East of 101 Area evolves. (1) Siena Point Access. Access to the Koll property at Sierra Point is currently only available through Brisbane. To accommodate future development in this area, there would need to be either a Bayshore Freeway overpass to connect the property to the new Oyster Point interchange, or a surface route along the freeway onto the Shearwater site. If a surface route were developed, traffic from the existing Brisbane Sierra Point development could impact the Oyster Point Interchange. Tho~:gh improvements are currently planner for the interchange, these improvements potentially could not :handle chls a.lditicaa: capacity. Tat Gvster Point Interchange EIIt states that the ~~lanned interchange could not handle traffic from the Koll Site, but this finding is based on high-rise office development. Costs for these alternative improvements are estimated by the Koll Company at $10 million for a new bridge to the Oyster Point interchange, and $1.2 million for a roadway to the Shearwater site. The impacts of these alternatives will be further analyzed in the Area Plan EIR. (2) Genentech Campus. Genentech has requested several changes to the roadway configuration in its area to make its facilities more like a campus. Suggested improvements have included: • Narrowing Forbes Boulevard and Pt. San Bruno Boulevard to create a more pedestrian-oriented atmosphere for Genentech's campus. • Relocating this section of Forbes Boulevard adjacent to the Bay shoreline where the Genentech off-site parking lots are presently located. The parking lots would be relocated in front of Building 5 and 7. • Vacating Kaufman Court and Pt. San Bruno Boulevard to develop a campus for Genentech. II-145 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (3) Point San Bruno Blvd./East Grand Ave. Connection. Connecting Point San Bruno Boulevard and East Grand Avenue through the Fuller- O'Brien property would provide for looped emergency and vehicle access in the area of both Genentech and Fuller-O'Brien. The City's Engineering Department has expressed a desire to develop this connector to accommodate emergency vehicles. This would increase safety and might make it easier for vehicles to circulate efficiently through the area, but it would also create more through traffic in the Genentech area conflicting with Genentech's desired campus atmosphere. (4) Truck Traffic. Traffic operations and circulation are to some extent impeded by tractor-trailer trucks that park on local streets. Semi-truck parking and circulation has been identified as a problem on some streets south of East Grand Avenue. Tractor-trailer trucks park on the street and restrict sight distances for drivers of vehicles exiting driveways. Also, the maneuverability of trucks is hampered by a shortage of turnarounds that are of sufficient radius to accommodate them. In completing their turns, semi-trucks are therefore often required to maneuver back and forth in the middle of a street and block traffic. Such problems have been observed to occur on East Grand Avenue, Harbor Way, and Utah Avenue. (5) Railroad Crossings. Severa~ roadways within the study a:~a a:e intersected at-grade by railroad tracks. The existing at-grade crossing of the Southern Pacific mainline tracks at Oyster Point Boulevard will be eliminated with the construction of the new Oyster Point Interchange. Other notable at- grade crossings are on Forbes Boulevard just east of Eccles Avenue, on East Grand Avenue east of Forbes Boulevard, on Harbor Way south of East Grand Avenue, and on Gateway Boulevard north of South Airport Boulevard. All of these tracks are spurs off of the mainline that have limited use for freight service only. B. Parking The Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation has parking demand rates for a variety of uses. Rates for typical land uses in the East of 101 Area are shown in Table 18. The parking supplies should exceed the demand by approximately 15 percent. Thus, the parking supply rates should be 15 percent higher than the demand rates, as shown in the table. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space per 300 gross square feet of office floor area and one parking space per 250 gross square feet of research and development space. Though these requirements vary slightly from the above demand rates, they are fairly compatible. However, the City II-146 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 18 SAi1~1PLE PARING DEMAND AND SUPPLY RATES BY LAND USE Use Demand Rate (Spaces per 1,000 sq.R) Supply Rates (Spaces per 1,000 sq.R) light Industrial 1.55 1.78 Industrial Park 1.48 1.70 Manufacturing 1.59 1.83 Warehousing 0.50 0.58 Convention Hotel 0.81 spaces per room 0.93 spaces per room Office 279 3.21 Office Park 252 290 only requires one parking space per 1,500 square feet of Industrial space in the Planned Industrial zone. This requirement is substantially less than the demand rates for light industrial, industrial pa*k, and manufactu:~ng developed by the hstih~~e of Transportation EngineArs. Figure 31 identifies developed parcel:, with less than one space per 2,000 sq.ft. This standard represents an extreme parking shortfall based on typical demand and supply rates. Shared parking could be a solution for existing parking problems. A shared parking program would require agreements between owners of parcels with excess parking and owners of parcels with insufficient parking. Other solutions would include providing parking off site. Parkers would either walk, bike, or use a shuttle bus to their place of employment. Parking could also be provided within the abandoned rail spur right-of--ways. Another measure to mitigate parking problems is increased use of modes other than the single-occupant automobile such as carpooling, biking and CalTrain with shuttle bus. City parking requirements do not include any reductions to account for decreased vehicle use as required by the trip reduction programs. Therefore it is recommended that City parking requirements for new developments be either reduced or revised to allow for more Flexibility for individual projects that demonstrate less parking demand. II-147 ~-- I ~ i ~ ~e~TU1F ~ ti1 3 ,r ~ ~ ~. I ,,,/ lam` r~ ~ ;,~ x L~tl r ~ ~ ~' ~ ~.. .,,r., c:• ,t,~ ~ ~:: •,' ~ I T / r ~_ / ~- _ r . r . ~ _ ;,i,~ ~ ~; ~~ ~" .t.` ~ _--~~~ - _ __ ,ice -{- f, ~• -- -r . ~~. t .; ~, r; ~. ` ; ~. ~ U'~ ~, i.~ _ ,. t ~,~-. . ,' .. ~ .. .... ~.:1 S C A L E 1'.1800' a sov faar 2oav FIGURE 31 EAST OF 1~1 I~AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y AND ASSOCIATE 3 Parcels with Low Parking Ratios (less than 1 space per 2,000 square feet) MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION C. Public Transportation There are two major public transit operators that provide service to the study area, Peninsula Commute Service (CalTrain) and San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans). Shuttle bus service is also provided in the area through employer TSM programs. The existing services provided by these operators are described in the following sections. 1. CalTrain a. Existing Service. CalTrain is the commuter rail service operating on the San Francisco Peninsula between San Jose/Gilroy and San Francisco. It operates 60 trains each weekday, 26 trains on Saturdays, and 20 trains on Sundays. The weekday trains operate between San Francisco and Gilroy, a distance of 76.8 miles. On weekends and holidays, the trains operate between San Francisco and San Jose, a distance of 46.9 miles. Service hours are 4:40 a.m. to 11:35 p.m. on weekdays and 5:50 a.m. to 11:39 p.m. on weekends and holidays. A late train leaves San Francisco at 12:01 a.m. on Saturdays and Suadays. Service headways vary between individual trains, but weekday a::ak peg iod headways average approximately 0 minutes in the t~e:,:~t directior. znd 30 tr.,nutes in tht.; rever~L ~i:e~~tion. Mic'_-Gay hea~iways are 6n minutes an both directions and tale evening headways are 120 minutes in both directions. CalTrain is operated by the Joint Powers Board, which is a public agency consisting of representatives from San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The Joint Powers Board took over ownership of the CalTrain tracks from Southern Pacific Railroad in December 27, 1991. Southern Pacific retains ownership of local spur lines used for freight, as well as the right to run freight trains on the main line tracks. CalTrain's annual patronage for Fiscal Year 1991/92 was 6,969,703. This represented a decrease of approximately three percent from the previous fiscal year's ridership of 7,160,900. The decrease was attributed to the September 1991 fare increase and perceived difficulties with the ownership transition that occured in 1992. There are 30 stations and two special event stops in the 18 cities that CalTrain serves. The South San Francisco CalTrain station, which serves the study area, is located on Dubuque Avenue near the East Grand Avenue overcrossing. A map showing the location of the depot and the CalTrain line is presented on Figure 32. II-149 NOT TO SCALE EAST OF 1 O1 AREA PLAN City o~ South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 32 Public Transportation MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The South San Francisco station building is closed for passenger use. Two semi-enclosed shelters serve as passenger waiting areas. With no ticket agent available, tickets must purchased on the train. The parking lot has approximately 85 spaces and is typically 95 percent full. There are 20 bicycle lockers and a bike rack at the station to accommodate passengers using bicycles to access the station. Pedestrian and vehicle access is poor, and there is no feeder bus service. The South San Francisco station is served by 49 trains each weekday, and all of the trains on Saturdays and Sundays. The results of ridership counts from October 1990 indicate that an average 488 people boarded and 496 people alighted trains at the South San Francisco station. Of the boardings, 31 ~> were southbound and 172 were northbound. Of the alightings, 202 were coming from the north and 294 were coming from the south. The time of day when these counts were taken is not available from the survey published in the CalTrain Station Location Study, so it is not possible to know whether commuters use the train primarily to come to South San Francisco or to go to other cities. b. Improvement Plans and Opportunities. ThP adopted CalTrain Capital Improvement Program includes projects in both en!lance:nent and replacement. The majur proje::ts that have teen id~nt;ied foc f~Inditlg arc rehabi:ita:ive in nature. a~~~i include track upgrading, station improvements, and equipment refits. The Joint Powers Board (JPB) is programmed to receive 23 accessible passenger cars to satisfy Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements in 1994/95. Long-term capital priorities include the San Francisco downtown extension, a new CalTrain airport station, line electrification, and expansion of service from 60 to 66 trains. The CalTrain Station Location Study, conducted by Wilbur Smith Associates, recommended that improvements to the existing station near Grand Avenue be undertaken. These improvements would require the relocation of existing railroad freight facilities used by Southern Pacific. Currently, implementation of these plans is delayed due to budget constraints. The study recommended that the City of South San Francisco retain the option of relocating the station to the Shearwater area should the improvements to the Grand Avenue station prove to be infeasible or if future development in the area would warrant the relocation. Existing CalTrain service is primarily northbound to San Francisco in the morning and southbound in the evening. The commuting patterns on the Peninsula have been changing, and are expected to continue to change as San Mateo County residents shift from working in San Francisco to working in San II-151 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EX1S'rlNG CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. CalTrain service will be adjusted to meet the emerging travel patterns. These adjustments could result in more service to the South San Francisco station. 2. SamTrans a. Existing Service. SamTrans operates fixed-route bus service in San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara Counties. Of its 86 bus routes, 34 primarily run north and south on the Peninsula, providing trunkline service to San Francisco and Palo Alto. An additional 49 lines provide east/west crosstown service, one route provides transbay service over the San Mateo Bridge to Hayward, and two routes provide local seasonal weekend service to recreational areas. A majority of the service operates between 6:00 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. on weekdays. In Fiscal Year 1991/92, SamTrans ridership was 18,793,000. As with CalTrain, this represented a decrease in ridership from Fiscal Year 1990/92 of 19,114,358. The decrease was also attributed to a fare increase. Only one bus route serves the study area, Ro~ite 7B. Roue 7B provides local service from Redwood City to San Francisco International Airport and the TransEay Terminal (San Franciscc-). "ibis route operates be;~een 4:40 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. Its headwavs are 30 minutes on weekdays and during the day on weekends and holidays. After 6:00 PM on weekends, its headways are 60 minutes. The route is wheelchair accessible and carried an average of 5,487 weekday riders in 1992. It was one of the 10 most efficient routes in the area 1991 route analysis. In the study area, Route 7B operates on Airport Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard. This bus route, its bus stop locations, and other bus routes in the vicinity of the study area are shown on Figure 32. b. Potential Improvements. During interviews conducted in preparation of the Area Plan, almost every landowner and employer contacted stated that the major problem with the study area is its lack of transit service. Thus, provision of additional bus or shuttle service, particularly from the CalTrain station and downtown South San Francisco, needs to be ahigh-priority in East of 101 Area planning. Currently planned SamTrans improvements include replacing buses that have exceeded their life spans, retrofitting bus stops and paratransit vehicles to satisfy the requirements of the ADA, and the provision of a "jump start" shuttle service from the Daly City BART station to San Francisco International Airport. A fleet of four buses will be added to provide this service. II-152 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION On four different occasions, SamTrans has initiated bus route service to the East of 101 Area.3 On all four occasions, the routes were evaluated as unsuccessful by SamTrans. Part of the reason for the difficulty in providing bus service to the East of 101 Area is that access to the CalTrain station is not adequate. SamTrans has no plans to increase bus service in the study area. According to SamTrans, the existing development density is not conducive to transit service based on traditional transit planning standards, and the fact that most vehicle trips to an from the study area occur during peak hours would make all day transit service inefficient. SamTrans, through the Joint Powers Board, has determined that the most efficient, cost-effective way to provide transit service to the East of 101 Area is through a shuttle bus program. Corrine Goodrich, of the Multi-City TSM Agency, has been successful in securing AB434 funds to support the shuttle bus program. It is estimated that these funds support 50 percent of the costs, while local employers fund the remaining 50 percent. Additional sources of funds are being made available to support similar programs in the future. D. Bicycie Facilities Bicycle facilities comprise bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. • Bike paths are paved facilities that are physically separated from roadways and are designated for bicycle use. • Bike lanes are lanes painted on roadways and are identified with legends and signs. • Bike routes are roadways that are designated for bicycle use but do not have any other provisions for bicyclists, except signage. 1. Existing Facilities There are very few bicycle facilities in the East of 101 Area. In the study area, Airport Boulevard is designated as a bike route. Outside the study area, it has a northbound bike lane from Linden Avenue to the City limit, and is designated as part of the San Mateo Intra-County Bike Plan. There are bike lanes on Gateway Boulevard between Mitchell Avenue and East Grand Avenue. Oyster Point Boulevard, Harbor Avenue and Utah Avenue are also 3 Jim DeHart, Planner, SamTrans. II-153 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDIT70NS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION designated as bike routes, but have no signs or markings. A map of the bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the study area is presented on Figure 33. 2. Potentiallmprovements Several employers in the area, particularly Genentech, have indicated a need for improved bicycle facilities to serve the area. In addition, the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission has expressed an interest in bike facilities expansion. Such improvements would encourage trip reduction and could help employers to attract physically-oriented employees to the area. There is sufficient pavement width to extend the existing Gateway Boulevard bike lanes to Oyster Point Boulevard. Oyster Point Boulevard also provides an opportunity for improvement to the bicycle circulation system. In conjunction with new development to be located on the northern side, Oyster Point Boulevard could be widened to accommodate bike lanes and possibly bike paths. Bike lanes could be added to East Grand Avenue to connect businesses along it to the bike route on Airport Boulevard. In addition, employers need to add bike lockers to encourage the use of bicycles for commuting. Signs alerting motorists should be included as part of any bicycle path or route improvements. lw Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities provided in the study area include sidewalks, intersection crosswalks, and a Highway 101 pedestrian overcrossing. The locations of sidewalks on the major roadways and the overcrossing are presented on Figure 34. The lack of sidewalks in the East of 101 Area is related to the lack of transit. On South Airport boulevard aright-of-way currently exists for sidewalk facilities, however, only a portion of the street has sidewalks. Pedestrian facility improvements and expansions should be a priority for the City in order to increase safety for pedestrians and encourage alternate forms of transportation. F. TSM Programs Transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) programs include actions to reduce vehicular trips and to increase vehicle occupancy to improve air quality and to reduce congestion. These programs are required by several pieces of legislation and addressed in II-154 NOT TO SCALE EAST OF 101 .~. AREAPLAN City of South San Francisco B R w D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 33 Bicycle Facilities J ` ~' _ ~~, ~O r w N 1~, ~'Y E A ~~oO~ Syr ~ .owes aw \,~ J ,. ~ ~o ~~ ,~,Yo ~©v D,Y o w~ °~,~ ~, 0 .~ f ~Y MAIOOf AV i AV 'LAV Ua1tpl~f ~ ~.. u IL a-gt AY ? i ~ > > i < < < 7~ O r , ~~' aaj LEGEND P.d.strlan Focalty ' Aeaess w @ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b Gw HMO I Soutce: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 34 EAST OF 1~1 ~- AR.EAPLAN City of Sonth San Francisco B A A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S Pedestrian Facilities MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDTI70NS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION numerous plans and policies. The congestion management program legislation and Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) Regulation 13, Rule 1 are two examples. Regulation 13, Rule 1 requires all employers with over 100 employees to develop a trip reduction program and has set performance objectives for average vehicle ridership (AVR), also expressed as vehicle employee ratios (VER). In addition, employers with 25-99 employees must implement a trip reduction information program. The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) includes a TDM element. The TDM element is based on the County's TSM Plan adopted in June 1990. The TSM Plan and the CMP require that each city adopt a trip reduction ordinance (TRO). Regulation 13, Rule 1 allows cities with local ordinances to accept delegation for the rule. Otherwise BAAQMD will oversee its enforcement. South San Francisco has adopted a TRO with the Multi-City TSM Agency its coordinator. They may still elect to decline delegation for Regulation 13, Rule 1. a. Existing TSM Programs. Many employers in the East of 101 Area have active Transportation System Management (TSM) programs. The following locations have TSM programs: • The Gatewajr • Comfort Inn Suit: s • UPS Distribution Center • Genentech • South San Francisco Business Center • Pointe Grande Business Park • Gateway Corners • Embassy Suites • Oyster Point Business Park All of these TSM programs comply with the City of South San Francisco TSM ordinance and they all have similar elements, which include the following: • An on-site TSM Coordinator/Manager. • An annual survey of employees and report to the City of South San Francisco that details the status of the TSM program and ridesharing among employees. • A carpoolfvanpool match program with either SamTrans or RIDES. • Preferential parking for carpools, vanpools and bicycles. II-157 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION MAY 1993 Staggered work hours that begin and/or end outside the peak commute hours. • A commitment to future shuttle service among the area employees to local transit stops (including CalTrain, SamTrans, and BART). • A commitment to encourage SamTrans to provide increased bus service in the East of 101 Area. Additionally, some of the employers have unique elements to their TSM programs that are either site specific or specific to their type of business. b. Shuttle Service. Shuttle service is an important part of eadsting TSM programs. Shuttle bus service is provided by the Tomoe-Oyster Point Marina Business Park, Homart-Gateway, Imatron, and Genentech, Inc., as described below. • Commute period service is offered from the Oyster Point Marina Business Park to CalTrain and to the Balboa BART station. Mid-day service is provided to Grand Avenue in the downtown. • Commute period service is provided between the Gateway and the C31Tr^in station cnd the Gien i s:i: BART staticn. The Gateway shuttle also provides service to Tanforan Shopping Center on Tuesdays and Thursdays at noon. Service to the San Francisco International Airport is available between 10:30 AM and 7:00 PM. • The Imatron shuttle provides service between Imatron and the CalTrain station and Balboa BART station during commute periods. • Genentech provides shuttle service to the CalTrain station during commute hours. In 1994, the Multi-City TSM Agency will be consolidating several of these services. The need and support for additional public transit service can be shown as the ridership on the shuttle buses increase. G. San Francisco International Airport 1. Passenger Service The largest airport in the Bay Area, San Francisco International Airport (SETA), is located just to the south of the study area. This airport served 30.3 million annual airline passengers in 1990. According to the Airport's recently II-158 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRAiVSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION adopted Master Plan, annual passengers are projected to increase to 51.3 million by 2006, as the Airport adds a new international terminal and greatly increases international flights. Airport employment is projected to increase from 31,000 to 38,000 by 2006. As part of its Master Plan, SFIA will be adding an Automated People Mover system providing access between terminals and to long-term public and employee parking lots along North Access Road and South Airport Boulevard in the study area. According to Airport representatives, the People Mover will operate free of charge, and it will be possible for people to use it to travel from the southern edge of the study area to the Airport. 2. Airfreight According to the SFIA Master Plan, domestic cargo loaded at the Airport has declined almost 25 percent in the last 10 years. Oakland and San Jose airports maintain a greater percentage of domestic airfreight. It is forecasted, however, the SFIA will maintain its share of domestic cargo while greatly increasing international airfreight. International a~rfrei,ht has been, and wia continue to be, :he major growth coraponen- of :airfreight at the ~irrort. i~::ernatioaal cargo has incr~ s~.c' frcm 20 percent of the total airfreight in 1975 to -i0 percent in 1986. Forecasts for international cargo predict that this percentage will increase to 50 percent by the year 2006. Though Oakland may increase its handling of international freight, SFIA will continue to be the Airport of choice for international cargo. The proximity of the San Francisco International Airport makes the East of 101 Area particularly attractive for freight service businesses. The Airport's air cargo operations are concentrated at the north end of the Airport, therefore, cargo firms have access to the airport cargo operations without using the freeway. In addition, the United States Customs facilities have recently located in the East of 101 Area, further enhancing the area for cargo distributers. H. Rail Freight Southern Pacific Railroad operates one freight train per day, six days per week, to San Jose and Warm Springs in Fremont from its switching yard located just north of the South San Francisco CalTrain depot. Between this station and San Jose, the frequency of freight services is one southbound train per day, departing at approximately 11:30 p.m. The northbound train arrives once a day at the station between 4:00 and 8:00 a.m. Freight trains operate north of the II-159 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION South San Francisco station at a frequency of four trains per day, two during the day and two at night. There are three sidings to store freight trains on the east side of the mainline, and one siding on the west side of the mainline that splits into three industrial °team" tracks near the South San Francisco station. All freight-switching movements south of Millbrae originate in San Jose. A11 freight-switching movements from Millbrae north originate in South San Francisco. Only two spurs, or branch tracks leading from the main track, are in operation within the study area. The active east/west spur diverges from the mainline at Airport Boulevard just north of San Mateo Avenue, and extends to the Fuller- O'Brien property at the east end of East Grand Avenue. From this spur, an additional north/south spur is located near Harbor Way. This active north/south spur crosses East Grand Avenue and follows Forbes Boulevard and Eccles Avenue, proceeding to the east. Although freight service on these two spurs does not operate on a regular schedule, the east/west spur handles approximately two trains per day and the north/south spur handles two to three trains each week. The east/west spur serves Georgia-Pacific (paper products in standard freight cars) and Fuller-O'Brien (paint products in tank cars). The north/south spur sen•es Pacific-A_gri Froducts on Eccles Avenue, which transports food products in refrigerated ~~eight cars. Besides these two spurs, there are many other abandoned and unused railroad tracks in the study area. Members of the public have suggested that these tracks be protected for future freight service and/or be used for internal passenger transportation, pedestrian or bicycle paths, or parking facilities. The area at its current development level is not supporting either increased freight service or transit service. The possible future use of the tracks will depend on the future land use plan. I. Potential Ferry Service The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has undertaken several studies regarding Bay Area ferry services. In one of the studies, transbay ferry service from San Leandro to Oyster Point was evaluated. The study concluded that the operating costs of such service would outweigh the modest ridership. Potential future ferry service routes to the East of 101 Area would be selected based on linking area employees with their residence locations. The most likely route would serve San Francisco, since 25 percent of area employees reside in San Francisco in comparison to 13 percent residing in Alameda and II-160 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDR7ONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Contra Costa counties. Ferry service to San Francisco would have to compete with CalTrain, and therefore would not likely be feasible. II-161 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION MAY 1993 II-162 Chapter 10 NOISE This chapter describes the noise environment in the East of 101 Area and discusses the impact of the on-site noise environment on development of the East of 101 Area Plan. A. Measures of Noise In this report, noise is generally measured in terms of average exposure over time, using the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL is a measure .~f the average daisy noise level a± a given location. The calculation procedure includes a 5 dBA penalty for noises that occur during the evening hours t7:(IC PM cu 1G-0(; °M) ar_d a 11 dB.~ penalty to noises that occt+r between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:U0 AM. CNEL is essentially equivalent to Ld,,, or day-night average noise level metric. There are other descriptors that can be used to evaluate environmental noise. However, in this report, the CNEL and a descriptor termed the Lm~ are used. The Lm~ is the maximum instantaneous noise level generated by an individual event, for example, an aircraft flyover. Persons not familiar with the fundamental concepts of environmental acoustics and/or definitions of acoustical terms are referred to Appendix C. B. Human Responses to Noise The typical response of humans to aircraft noise is annoyance. Annoyance is tied to a wide range of factors, among which are a person's feelings about the necessity or preventability of the noise, the activity taking place at a time an individual hears the noise, the person's general sensitivity to the noise, feelings of fear associated with the noise, and the time of day. A review of various studies done to determine the aggregate community annoyance response to II-163 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDfI7ONS REPORT NOISE aircraft noise shows wide variation in the response to noise at different levels.l However, they all indicate that as the noise level increases, the percentage of people highly annoyed by the noise source also increases. Figure 35, taken from a census of social surveys on noise annoyance,2 gives an example of this trend. Figure 35 shows that at an Ld„ or CNEL of 65, between 12 and 21 percent of the population would be expected to be highly annoyed by the noise. At an Ld„ of 55, less than 8 percent of the population would be expected to be highly annoyed by a noise. Studies of aircraft noise show a close correlation between annoyance and interference with speech or sleep. The FAA has concluded that if maximum instantaneous noise levels are kept below 55 dBA, there will be minimal potential for sleep disturbance. C. Noise Control Policies The following sections summarize noise regulations and criteria applicable to the East of 101 Area. 1. Federal Aviation Administration Noise and Land Use Compatibility The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has identified land uses that are normally compatible and non-compatible with various exposures of individuals to noise. These noise/land use compatibility guidelines are contained in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150. All federal grants for noise compatibility planning or development at Airports must be in accordance with FAR Part 150. FAA compatibility requirements for a number of land uses are shown in Table 19. The table shows, for example, that residential development is compatible with an aircraft-generated day/night average sound level (Ld„) below 65 dB. 1 Aveation Noise Effects, Report No. FAA-EE-85-2, prepared by J. Steven Newman and Krisry R. Beattie. 2 Theodore Schultz presented in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Volume 6~1, 1978, II-164 EAST OF 1~1 ~~ AREAPLAN City of South San Francisco B A A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 35 Summary of Annoyance Data from Airports EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDrr10NS REPORT NOISE Table 19 COMPATIBLE NOISE LEVELS OF SPECIFIC USES Use Compatible Noise Lsvel Compatible Noise Level w/ MitiQatioo Non- Compatible Noise Level Residential less than 6S dB - over 6S dB Schools less than 6S dB - over 6S dB Hospitals & Nursing Homes less than 6S dB 6S-7S dB over 7S dB Churches less than 6S dB 6S-7S dB over 7S dB Auditoriums & Concert Halls less than 6S dB 6S-7S dB 6S dB Offices less than 70 dB 70-80 dB over 80 dB Retail & Wholesale less than 70 dB 70-80 dB over 80 dB Manufacturing less than 8S dB -- over 8S dB Recreation Activities less than 70 dB 70-80 dB over 80 dB Source: Federal Aviation Administration Code of Federal Regulations, Part 150. 2. California Airport Noise Regulations Under the State Airport Noise Standards, (Title 21, Sections 5000 to 5080.4 of the State Administrative Code), the County may declare that an Airport within its boundaries has a noise problem. If the Airport has a "noise impact boundary", that is, a 65 CNEL contour that extends over noise sensitive uses, the Airport must establish a noise monitoring program and submit quarterly reports to the State documenting the areas within the 65 CNEL contour. Such an Airport is not allowed to operate without a variance granted by the Department of Transportation. The variance, which must be renewed every three years, may include conditions on the Airport to reduce noise impacts on sensitive receptors. San Francisco International Airport has been declared to have a noise problem as defined by State Noise Regulations. The Airport is currently operating on an extension of the last variance granted by the State of California, which ended in November of 1989. State Noise Standards define land uses that are compatible with Airport noise levels greater than a CNEL of 65 dB. These include the following: II-166 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AR::A PLAN EXISTING CONDtT10NS REPORT NOISE • agricultural, • Airport property, • industrial property, • commercial property, • property subject to an aviation easement for noise, • zoned open space, and • high-rise apartments in which adequate protection against exterior noise has been included in the design and construction together with a central air conditioning system. Adequate protection means the noise reduction "exterior to interior" shall be sufficient to assure that interior Community Noise Equivalent Level in all habitable rooms does not exceed 45 dB during aircraft operations. Acoustical performance of the building shall be verified by calculation or measured by qualified officials of the Building Inspection Agency of the city or county in which the buildings are situated. 3. Other State Noise Standards f;~.:~• 2=t. Part 2, .~f the California .~amir~istra`_i-,~e Code r°quires that noise ievcts inside n~:w multi-family dwellings attributable to exterior noise sources not exceed 45 dB. The statute further requires that in areas where the exterior Ldp exceeds 60 dB, a report shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer describing how the interior standard will be met. The State of California, Office of Noise Control, also recommends that maximum instantaneous noise levels in bedrooms not exceed 50 dBA and that maximum noise levels not exceed ~5 dBA in other rooms. This protects against both sleep interference and speech interference. 4. San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission Policies3 The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has adopted noise compatibility standards to evaluate proposed land uses affected by aircraft noise from San Francisco International Airport. The ALUC policy allows residential development without noise insulation in areas up to a CNEL of 65 dB. In areas where noise levels from air traffic at the Airport are 3 Airport Land Use Plan, San :tifateo County Airport Land Use Commission/Regional Planning Committee, prepared by Regional Planning Committee, San Mateo County, March 12, 1981. II-167 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT NOISE between a CNEL of 65 and 70 dB, residential uses are allowed with special noise insulation. The ALUC has limited authority to implement its policies and guidelines within the East of 101 Area. The ALUC works with local jurisdictions to achieve consistency between the ALUC plan and the plans and policies of local jurisdictions. The ALUC may review zoning or plan changes within ALUC boundaries and make advisory recommendations to the local jurisdiction. The ALUC also has review power over any change in development plans made by a public agency owning an Airport within its planning boundaries, such as the San Francisco Airport's Commission. 5. City of South San Francisco Noise Policies The Noise Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan contains the following policy regarding compatibility of noise sensitive land uses and environmental noise. Policy N-1 states "all new noise sensitive land uses developed within areas impacted by 65 dB CNEL or more, regardless of the noise source(s), shall incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL." The plan does not contain criteria for the development of commercial or industrial land uses, although it implies that these sand uses are corpatihle wi!h noise levels significantly in excess o± a CNEL of 65 dB. D. Major Noise Sources The East of 101 Area is exposed to noise from a variety of sources, which are described below. Information on measured noise levels in the area are included in the next section. Aircraft flyover noise is audible across the entire area. Surface traffic noise is significant along Highway 101, the major arterials and the Southern Pacific railway line. Surface transportation noise primarily impacts the western portion of the site. Industrial noise sources such as the Folger's Coffee Plant and the Berkeley Farms Ice Cream Plant are also locally significant. 1. Aircraft Noise Levels Aircraft taking off from San Francisco International Airport are audible across the entire East of 101 Area. There are approximately 420 air carrier takeoffs per day. Figure 36 shows the generalized Flight tracks for the Airport and the runway layout. Ninety-five percent of the aircraft departures are to the II-168 .r ~~ :. y4:- .~-- ~•.'.'-y _ f ~' --'fti`_ ~ ~ 'Wi't` ,; ~~ _ =~ s~ ~."rs:- 1. j _ c ,ate -. ~ t~ .t a-~ ~ ~. .. ~, t. ,..w• ".. r .,., ~ r I -~-"..~ , ~,,.- used by ``~ S~(1~~e`\'~e .__ '`~, ~ ~:~.,' -tea y _ ... 2°.~0 \ ~;~,;~.~ ~ Stud Area ~ ~--^ ~ .~ -~ _. . . , .~... tOL 19R !~ 10R 1L 2BR 7R 28L ~~: Airport ~ * Used by fewer than !~ of departing airaah. 0 d y Milest ~d/\) EAST OF 1~1 AREAPLAN Arrows are representative of flight corridors that are up to several miles wide and encompass a greater area than shown by these lines and arrows. Actual aircraft flight patterns are more widely disperses than shown. Percentages shown represent average annual use of the tracks by departing air carrier aircraft (except B 7aTS) duhng the daytime. Actual use of a track on a particular day depends on what runways are being used. FIGURE 36 San Francisco International Airport Generalized Flight Tracks City of Sonth San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E 5 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT NOISE northeast over San Francisco Bay on Runways 1L and 1R, and to the northwest over South San Francisco on Runways 28L and 28R. Runways 28L and 28R are used by almost all the arriving aircraft4. The aircraft noise environment in the East of 101 Area is dominated by aircraft taking off from Runways 1L and 1R. These aircraft typically do not fly directly over the area, but rather pass by the area to the east over the Bay. There is one departure route that does pass directly over the East of 101 Area. This route is termed the "Visual Shoreline Departure Route" by the Airport. The Shoreline Departure Route involves a right turn for aircraft departing on Runways 28L and 28R. This departure path was developed as part of the Airport Noise Mitigation Action Plan in 1981. The quick right turn after takeoff avoids flying over the existing residential areas of South San Francisco, San Bruno, Colma and Daly City. This flight track is typically used on summer afternoons when there is a strong sea breeze from the northwest and under certain storm conditions, when takeoff routes on runways 1L and 1R cannot be used. The Visual Shoreline Departure Route is integral to the Airport's noise abatement procedures. This route produces significant noise levels in the area when it is used, but does not result in high average noise levels in the East of 101 Area because it is only used for one percent of all takeoffs. Also audible in the area are aircraft taking off through the San Bruno Gap from Runwavs 2~sL and 28R. Tclis path is lsed by a:: B-747 aircraft which. due to operational const*aints, cannot use the Shoreline Departure Route or Runways 1L or 1R. Aircraft at SFIA range from noisier Stage 2 aircraft, such as B-727s, to quieter Stage 3 aircraft, such as B-757s. Classification of aircraft as Stage 2 and Stage 3 refers to noise standards established by the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 36. Currently, Stage 3 aircraft account for about 64 percent of the total average daily operations. The Airport plans a gradual phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft, so that there will be no more Stage 2 aircraft using San Francisco International Airport by the year 2000.5 4 San Francisco International Airport Master Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volrune I, prepared try Department of City Planning, City and County of San Francisco, July 11, 1991. 5 San Francisco International Airport Master Plan, Draj Environmental Impact Report. Volume I, prepared by Department of City Planning, City and County of San Francisco, July 11, 1991. f II-170 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING COND(TTONS REPORT NOISE 2. Surface Transportation The major surface transportation noise source in the area is Highway 101. Also of significance is the noise generated along Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, Utah Avenue, South Airport Boulevard, and Gateway Boulevard. These streets currently experience a high level of truck traffic due to the industrial nature of the East of 101 Area. The noise generated from these sources creates higher average noise levels than experienced on properties close to the Airport within the East of 101 Area. Though these average noise levels are higher, instantaneous noise levels from the Airport are more excessive and notable. The noise generated by train traffic on the Southern Pacific line is significant in a small portion of the East of 101 Area. 3. Other Sources In addition to the transportation noise sources that affect the site, noise from industrial activities is important in some areas. The major industrial noise sources include the Folger's Plant and the Berkeley Farms Ice Cream Plant. E. Nuist ::xposure iL the Stady Area Noise measurements were made at six locations to quantify the noise levels generated by the significant noise sources in the study area. The measurement locations are shown on Figure 37. In addition to these measurement locations, the Airport also operates a remote noise monitor in the study area which is known as Remote Monitor 15 and is located on San Bruno Point Hill. Data from this monitoring station is used to develop the Airport's noise contours, but is not reported on a daily basis. The noise measurements were conducted with Larson Davis Laboratories, Model 700, Integrating Sound Level Meters equipped with Bruel and Kjaer Type 4176 pre-polarized condenser microphones. The instruments were calibrated before and after each measurement with a Larson Davis Laboratories Model CA 250 acoustical calibrater. The surface noise level contour locations were determined in accordance with standard transportation noise models. Traffic noise levels were dropped off at a rate of 4.5 decibels per doubling of the distance to the acoustical center of the roadway, and train noise levels were dropped off at a rate of 4.5 decibels per doubling in distance out to a distance of 200 feet, and at a rate of 5.5 decibels per doubling of distance beyond that. II-171 EAST OF 101 AREA P1AN MAY 1993 EXIST[NG CONDR'IONS REPORT NOISE 1. Average Noise Levels Noise measurements were conducted at the six measurement locations for varying time periods of between 24 and 72 hours. The measurements were conducted between Thursday, March 18, 1993 and Monday, March 22, 1993. Table 20 shows the results of the noise measurements at each location in CNEL. The table does not include site RM-15 since no daily noise data is available from it. The highest CNEL was measured adjacent to Highway 101. A CNEL of 80 dB was measured at a distance of 50 feet from the right-of-way fence, and these high average noise levels affect sites near Highway 101 including the Koll and Shearwater properties. The lowest average CNEL of 64 dB was measured at Site F in the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Industrial Park. Average noise levels tend not to reflect the high instantaneous noise levels generated by sources such as the San Francisco International Airport. These instantaneous levels will be discussed further below. 2. Noise Exposure Contours Figure 37 shows the average CNEL noise contours in the area for surface sources and nor aircraft flyovers. The 65 CNEL noise contour for existing aircraft activity was taken from the Quarterly Noise Report of San Francisco International Airport, prepared by San Mateo County Planning and Building Division. The area north and west of the contour is exposed to an aircraft- generated CNEL of less than 65 dB. Noise levels are highest in the western portion of the site in the vicinity of the railroad and Highway 101. These aceas have higher avarage noise levels because of constant noise generation. Noise sources such as airplanes create high instantaneous noise levels, but avarage noise levels tend not to reflect the impact of these noise levels. Several general conclusions can be drawn from the figure. The first is that there is no place in the area where the CNEL drops below 60 dB. The combination of aircraft and surface noise combines to generate a noise environment that exceeds 60 CNEL at all locations. Airport, freeway and railroad noise levels will probably not change significantly regardless of the land use plan implemented in the East of 101 Area. Similarly, noise levels along the major streets in the area are not be expected to decline, and if industrial uses are pursued, the increased truck traffic might increase noise levels somewhat along these streets. II-172 ,_, _ LEGEND ~ - ~ • ~---- • ~~ ••• Surface Transportation CNEL • • . `~ `~ ~ % i i Z a '~ ~ x ',~''~ ~r ~ (Noise Contours (dBA) ; ~ • _ ''4~w." Y ~' _ - © Aircraft CNEL Noise ~ i" :~•~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~`~~ Contours (dBA) r..:: 75 • • . Q Noise Monitoring Location ~. ~ ©SFO Noise Monitor ~ ~ 1 ~~ _ • 1' z ' _ - yam" ~, ........ ` • s_ ~`~... ~ . - - _ ~' -. .~,? ..,~ ~ • ~ x,65 ,... .. -,.~..._ •. Ann e- '~ ~. ;~~ `'• n,,...~y ~,,,,~,,~p•. yr ~ ~ i ~.^ .*^ •. ~__, ~•~ '~p~.~ ' ..~_ ice. _ 15 ~~ . ~~ .-~ ~, ~` ~ -0 ~ - -.,.. ' ~ ., y . i _ , > ~,: . ~ ~. ` 65 ~^ , ~ i,r~ • n i 1, 70:..,: • ` • ~~^~ ~• • • -' `' s • • ~ • \ ~ ^^ :~ ~- 4 ~y:~ • I =_-~ _ - 65 • ~ i, : :: 3 _ _ _ , ,~_ - ~ - ~~ - ~ . . S C A L E 1'.1800' v saa faro azrr EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAN D FIGURE 37 Noise Measurement Locations and Contours Cify of South San Francisco B R A D Y AND A S S O C I A T E S EAST OF 101 AREA P1AN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT NOISE Table 20 NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS AND MEASURED NOISE LEVELS Slte Location Dates CNEL A 38 ft. from the centerline of Oyster Point Blvd. 3/17-19/93 74 dBA B 50 ft. from Hwy. 101 right-0f-way fence 3/17-19!93 80 dBA C 60 ft. from nearest set of mainline tracks 3/17-19/93 71 dBA D 53 ft. from the centerline of E. Grand Ave. and 110 ft. east of the centerline of Forbes Ave. 3!22/93 74 dBA E 66 ft. from the centerline of So. Airport Blvd. 322!93 72 dBA F At the end of the parking lot behind warehouses on Eccles Ave. 3/19-22193 64 dBA The San Francisco International Airport Master Plan EIR includes an assessment of Airport-generated noise levels as a result of implementing the Master Plan. The assessment concludes that, although more aircraft operations will be accommodated by the planned Airport expansion, there will be an overall nec reduction in the average noise level around the Airpor: due to elimination of Stagy 2 aircraft from the fleet. Figt:re 37 includes the location of the projected 2006 65-CNEL contour, and shows that none of the East of 101 Area is expected to be exposed to a CNEL greater than 65 dB by 2006. 3. Single Event Noise Levels So far, this discussion has documented average noise levels measured over time. As stated above, however, people also respond to loud single-noise events even if average noise levels are relatively low. Therefore, this section looks at single-event noise levels in the study area related to aircraft takeoffs. Site F was chosen for noise measurement because it is remote from all surface transportation noise sources. The purpose of measurement at this location was to determine the range of maximum instantaneous noise levels generated by aircraft taking off from San Francisco International Airport. On the days of the measurements, aircraft taking off from the Airport were primarily using Runways 1R and 1L. As noted earlier, all B-747s fly out the San Bruno Gap and these were also recorded. Figure 38 shows the distribution of aircraft- generated maximum instantaneous noise levels measured over a 72-hour period at Site F. The sound level meter was set to record all events which generated II-174 Distribution of Maximum Aircraft Sound Levels at S rte F (d BA) 80 a c 60 ------------- -----------_..__._.....--------------------.--._._..._..-----------------------------..-------------- O 40 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 L Q~ ~'y 0 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 Lmax (dBA) Source: IIlingworth do Rodldn, Inc. EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAN City of Soutk San Francisco FIGURE 38 Maximum Aircraft Sound Levels at Site F B R A D Y A N D ~- S S O C I A S E S EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDfT10NS REPORT NOISE a maximum instantaneous level in excess of 75 dBA Two hundred seventeen aircraft events were recorded. Aircraft flyovers that did not exceed this threshold were not recorded. Maximum instantaneous noise levels ranged from less than 75 dBA to 91 dBA Since the Visual Shoreline Departure Route (VSDR) was not used during the noise measurement survey, the Federal Aviation Administration's Aircraft Noise Prediction Model (Integrated Noise Model Version 3.10) was used to calculate the maximum instantaneous noise levels at representative locations in the East of 101 Area, generally north of Forbes Boulevard, where impacts from the VSDR would be lowest. The calculations indicate that Stage 2 aircraft using the VSDR generate maximum noise levels ranging from 89 to 95 dBA in the area. A maximum noise level of 89 dBA is calculated at the Koll property, and a maximum noise level of 92 dBA is calculated for the Shearwater property. For Stage 3 aircraft, a maximum noise level of 79 dBA would be expected at the Koll property and a maximum noise level of 81 dBA would be expected at the Shearwater property. These calculations assume that the aircraft is flying exactly on the set flight path. In reality, planes can deviate significantly from the assigned path, which means that anywhere in the northern part of the East of 101 Area maximum noise levels as high as 95 dBA could be expected from Stage ?aircraft and maximum noise levels as high ss 84 dBA could be expected from Stage 'i aircraft. F. Noise and Land Use Compatibility The following section describes potential future land uses in the East of 101 Area and their compatibility with existing and future noise levels. 1. Non-Noise Sensitive Uses Land uses, that are not sensitive to noise, such as commercial and industrial activities, would generally be acceptable anywhere within the East of 101 Area. These uses are primarily indoor-oriented and any noise sensitive components of these developments can easily be isolated from high exterior noise levels. Noise levels in the East of 101 Area, except immediately adjacent to Highway 101 are generally less than a CNEL of 75 dB. This is not considered an excessive exterior noise level for commercial and industrial development. Marina activities would similarly be compatible without any mitigation up to an Ld„ of 70 dB, which would essentially include the entire shoreline area with the exception of the area of the Shearwater site adjacent to Highway 101. II-176 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXIS'T'ING CONDfTIONS REPORT NOISE 2. Noise Sensitive Land Uses Determining the appropriateness of noise sensitive uses within the study area is complicated. All applicable federal, State and local guidelines indicate that no residential or noise sensitive developments should be constructed where the aircraft-generated CNEL exceeds 65 dB. The only portions of the site exposed to an aircraft-generated CNEL of 65 dB are the very southern and eastern edges of the East of 101 Area. By the year 2006, none of the East 101 Area is expected to be exposed to an aircraft-generated CNEL in excess of 65 dB. In addition to the noise generated by aircraft, traffic and railroad noise levels are high over a large portion of the area. Most of the Koll and Shearwater properties, along with significant portions of the rest of the study area, have CNEL over 65 dB. However, regulations do not preclude development of noise sensitive uses in areas with CNEL over 65 dB caused by non-aircraft sources, as long as appropriate indoor insulation is provided. Noise levels will not be significantly below 65 dB anywhere in the study area, even after Stage ?aircraft are eliminated they will not go below 60 dB. The outdoor noise exposure in the area would be considered, at best, marbinal for residential tl:;e. Based un tt:e Existing levels, the area is most appropriate for hct:,ls, c~~rlr.~erciai ana indus.rial uses. .f resiue;ltia! uses are c~rsidered, they should be prima ily indoor oriented, for example, 'sigh density apartment uses. It would be possible to provide the requisite noise reduction to reduce interior noise levels to ~0 dBA in bedrooms and 55 dBA in other rooms as recommended by the State of California. Currently, maximum noise levels on the site reach up to 95 dBA. This would require 45 dBA of noise reduction for bedrooms and 40 dBA of noise reduction for other rooms.. Achieving this level of noise reduction would require that the exterior walls and ceilings of proposed residential units, as well as windows and entry doors, be specially designed. Double glazed sound-rated windows would probably be necessary. While it is feasible to achieve the required noise reduction, it would require a great attention to detail during the design and construction phases. By 2000, when Stage 2 aircraft are to be eliminated from the Airport, maximum noise levels for aircraft Flying over the site would reach 84 dBA. This would require only 34 dBA of noise reduction for bedrooms and 29 dBA of noise reduction for other rooms. Achieving this noise reduction would be significantly easier than achieving the noise reduction required for Stage 2 aircraft flyovers. It is probable that only slight modifications to the wall and roof assemblies would be required, but it may be necessary to install double- glazed, sound-rated windows. The noise reduction that would achieve the II-177 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT NOISE maximum instantaneous noise level standard would also provide more than enough noise reduction to reduce the interior noise level to less than a CNEL of 45 dBA as required by the South San Francisco General Plan. However, residents in the vicinity of airports have complained about aircraft noise at levels of less than 65 dB CNEL, and the studies cited in this chapter show that some people are highly annoyed by noise at 55 dB L°a or less. Some people may be particularly sensitive to high single-event noise levels, which occur in the study area when the Airport uses the Visual Shoreline Departure Route. Based on these facts, the City may find that residential use is not appropriate in the area, even in places with CNEL under 65 dB. If residential development or other noise sensitive development occurs in the East of 101 Area, it should not be undertaken until Stage 2 aircraft are eliminated from the Airport. This would assure that maximum noise levels over the area are significantly lower then they are today, and would also significantly reduce the amount of noise attenuation that must be provided by the buildings. II-178 Chapter 11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This chapter characterizes hazardous substances on properties within the study area and identifies potential releases of toxics to the environment that could limit, constrain, or shape land use and development in the area. Numerous industrial and commercial operations, both past and present, have involved the manufacturing, handling, storage and/or disposal of hazardous substances in the study area. Hazardous material sites have been identified through review of a computerized database of regulatory agency lists of known or potential hazardous waste sites, historical aerial photograph review, and a reconnaissance visit to the study area. Over 100 facilities were identified within the study area. The sites include heavy manufacturing operations, active anu abandone;i landCil:s..acil;ties v~th ical:ing cndergrourd storage tanks (USTs), permitted waste dischargers and generators of hazardo~ls waste. The presence of hazardous materials in soil or groundwater could constrain development of certain areas due to the actual or perceived threat to human health arising from these substances and the costs associated with cleanup of hazardous waste sites. The actual health threat at a given site depends upon a number of factors such as the quantity and toxicity of contaminants, exposure, and the available pathways for contaminants to affect human health. Cleanup of hazardous waste sites is mandated by law and enforced by the appropriate regulatory agencies in order to protect human health, State resources, and the environment. Sites can either be remediated for all types of development, or for development other than residential. Costs and the level of remediation required are most significant for residential developments. A. Regulatory Setting Cleanup of hazardous materials sites is driven by federal and State laws. Regulatory agencies have been established to set regulations and standards for the control of hazardous substances and cleanup of hazardous waste sites in accordance with the law. Agencies have the power to administer f nes or II-l79 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDI'T'IONS REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS penalties to enforce environmental regulations and also have recourse to file civil, or even criminal, actions if responsible parties refuse to comply with cleanup orders. 1. Regulatory Agencies Regulations governing hazardous materials and hazardous wastes in the State of California are contained in various provisions of the Health and Safety Code, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and other legislation. The principal agencies that enforce these regulations are: • The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for issues dealing with degradation of the State's waters; • The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), formerly the Department of Health Services (DHS), for human exposure issues and where State bond monies are used for cleanup; and, • Local, county or municipal agencies for underground storage tank (UST) related activities and hazardous materials permits. These agencies and their activities are further dscussed in :4ppendix D. The functions of thes:, agencies overlap i:l some situati~rs. m whic-~ case the "lead" agency responsible for overseeing cleanup is decided on a case by case basis. All of these agencies compile lists of sites under investigation for hazardous materials and maintain files pertaining to enforcement and cleanup actions taken at the listed properties. 2. Regulatory Process The site cleanup process has several goals: to identify responsible parties, to address immediate threats to public health or the environment, and to investigate, characterize and clean up the site. The actual cleanup process involves several steps. The time required to complete each step depends on the size and complexity of the site as well as the nature and distribution of hazardous constituents. The steps in cleanup are listed below: • Site Discovery: Sites are discovered by agency investigations, reports by responsible parties, or reports by the public. • Preliminary Site Assessment: Background information is compiled to evaluate the severity of the problem. Short Term Actions: If an immediate health risk exists, short term actions such as fencing the site or removal of hazardous levels of wastes II-180 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA P1~1N EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS or contaminated soils are implemented as temporary measures before the more lengthy site investigation is complete. Investigation: The investigation phase involves defining the nature and extent of contamination. Information concerning the site's geologic conditions and groundwater flow patterns is needed to understand site conditions that govern the spread of contamination. In addition, and if warranted, a Public Health and Environmental Risk Assessment details the possible routes of exposure and the health effects that might result from specific exposures. The risk assessment is used to ensure that cleanup actions adequately protect public health and the environment. Feasibility Study: Possible cleanup alternatives are analyzed in terms of their effectiveness, feasibility and cost. The chosen alternative must effectively protect public health andlor the environment, including State water resources. • Remedial. Action: Following the selection of a cleanup alternative and design of a remedial plan, the actual remedial action takes place. Remedial actions may include excavation of contaminated soil, soil remediation, and extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater. • mite Closure: After successful rem,:diation of a site to cleanup levels .,stablished by the approFriate regulatory ag°rcy, the agency m~.y conclude that no :urther actions are necessary to protect public health and the environment. The agency may, however, reinitiate investigation and cleanup actions at a later date if it deems it necessary. The outlined cleanup process may be streamlined for fuel leak cases because the type of contamination, health risks, and applicable cleanup technologies have generally been established. Regulations and cleanup processes are the same for public and private sites. B. Cleanup Implications The cost and timing of hazardous waste cleanups are principally affected by two factors: (1) the type of contaminants and their hazards, such as toxicity to human health or the environment; and (2) the affected media, i.e., soil, surface water, groundwater, or some combination. II-181 EAST OF 101 AREA PiAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS In summary, the duration and expense of cleanup depends on the selected remedial method, which, in turn, is dependent upon many factors, including the type of contamination, the appropriate cleanup level, and the media affected. While each site is unique and must be evaluated independently to determine the type of remediation required, some qualitative generalizations regarding remediation, timing and cost are summarized on Table 2l. This table does not include all possibilities, and individual site characteristics may not fit into the categories presented on this table. Surface water cleanup problems are not included because these problems, in reality, involve the removal of the contaminant source, which may be contaminated soil or groundwater. 1. Toxicity In terms of toxicity, contamination involving solvents and chlorinated solvents is a priority due to the carcinogenic nature of these substances. The Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and cleanup levels set by regulatory agencies are stringent and allow only very low concentrations of these compounds to remain in soil or groundwater. Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination typically consists of gasoline, diesel, waste oil, and BTEX constituents (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes). While harmful, these substances are not as carcinogenic as the compounds in the solvent category, with the exception of benzene. Regulatiors for the cleanup of hydrocarbon re'.eases have been established and are enforced by fuel leak divisions of the regulatory agencies. Because fuel leak problems are so common, a number of cost-effective remediation techniques have been developed for the cleanup of these sites, although long-term remediation can still be costly. Metals are hazardous to a lesser degree and cleanup levels usually depend upon the future intended use of a site. 2. Affected Media Remediation of soil contamination can often be accomplished in a relatively expedient manner if contamination is located in an isolated area, such as soil immediately underlying a leaking UST. In these cases, soil can be excavated and removed from the site. The cost of disposal to an appropriate facility depends on the level of contamination. Where soil contamination is more widespread and removal is impractical, other treatment technologies may be utilized, which considerably increase cleanup costs and range from chemical fixation to immobilize contaminants to soil vapor extraction. Surface water cleanup typically requires removal of the contaminant source. The source area may be excavated, encapsulated or isolated to prevent contaminants from coming into contact with surface water bodies. These II-182 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 21 GENERALIZED COMPARISON OF SITE CLEANUP ISSUES SOIL GROUNDWATER SOLVENTS HYDRO- CARBONS ~41QT a„S Remediation varies with extent of Extensive remediation likety . rnntamination, removal or treatment options. Cleanup likety to take several years. Lengthy cleanup (10+ years) Costs depend on disposal casts and treatment options. Costs: Over $1 million Removal or treatment options are Remediation probable likely. Cleanup ranges from short term to Cleanup time frame several years. (2-15 years) Costs: $50,000 to $1 million Costs: $50,000 to $1 million Remediation scenarios typicalty Remediation probable depend on future use. Shirt term cleanup. Cleanup time :rrme ~2-10 years) Costs: $_50.000 to $1 million Costs: $500,000 to $1 million Note: Site cleanup costs are broadly grouped. Actual cleanup costs will depend upon many factors including the degree of contamination, the duration of cleanup, and regulatory constraints. remedies usually are of shorter duration than groundwater cleanup, and somewhat less expensive. Generally, contamination problems involving groundwater require a longer remedial process and, consequently, may be more expensive than soil or surface water contamination. Groundwater problems are compounded by the mobility of contamination, which can migrate away from its original source in a contaminant plume, thus extending the area requiring cleanup. Groundwater remediation may involve the design of slurry walls to halt contaminant migration, installation of "pump and treat" groundwater extraction systems, or a variety of alternatives. Treatment can often continue for ten to twenty years. Without exception, all of these methods are time consuming and very costly. II-183 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS C. Hazardous Substances Sites in the Study Area As mentioned above, regulatory agencies compile and maintain lists of sites under investigation for the release or potential release of hazardous substances to the environment and the generation, storage, and handling of hazardous materials. A review of applicable agency lists was performed using a computerized database to identify hazardous materials sites within the study area. A listing of identified facilities and their locations is presented in Tables 22 and 23 and in Figure 39. More information is contained in the database report presented as Appendix E. 1. Known Toxics Sites Due to the voluminous number of sites which were identified on the database search, only the major known hazardous waste sites for which information was readily available are discussed in this section. These sites typically were industrial facilities or landfills in the past. Additional information on other sites may be gathered from Tables 21 and 22 and Appendix E. a. Koll Site. The Sierra Point Landfill, which is now known as the Koll site, was located at Highway 101 on the South San FranciscoBrisbane boundary. The site received :nixed municipal waste and construction and demolition deoris from 1967 through 1971. The former landfill occupied 130 acres, of which approximately 80 acres were used for waste disposal. According to the Air Quality Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) Report prepared by Kleinfelder in December 1991, the refuse layer has an average thickness of 10 feet and is overlain by approximately 12 feet of clean cover material. The Air Quality SWAT report evaluated surface emissions, landfill gas testing, and gas migration monitoring. Total organic compounds were detected in surface emissions at levels of 2 to 190 ppm. According to the Bar Area Air Quality Management District, a point source emissions permit is not required. Landfill gases were present in the two wells installed at approximately 13 to 65 percent methane by volume. Toxic gas was not detected. Gas samples collected from five probes along the western property boundary appear to indicate that landfill gases are not migrating laterally off-site. A soil/bentonite slurry wall was installed in 1981 along the northwest edge of the site to prevent migration. Other engineering controls at the site include methane gas collection systems in each building. II-184 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXIS'T'ING CONDITIONS REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS According to Mr. Douglas Thomas of The Koll Company, a draft Water Quality SWAT report has been recently completed. The investigation included the installation of 18 groundwater monitoring wells in two zones at depths of 6 to 8 feet and 100 to 105 feet. The report was unavailable for review. Future development of the site would require a gas collection system and continued monitoring for toxic gas, which is most often a result of the degradation of plastic products. b. Shearwater Site. This site, which is Numbers 9 and 15 on Figure 39, was formerly owned by U.S. Steel Corporation, but all steel mill buildings on the site were demolished in the 1980x. Concrete slabs and footings are "stockpiled" on the site. Using steel manufactured at other facilities, U.S. Steel fabricated steel into various shapes, primarily pipe and tanks at the site from the mid-1930s until 1978. For a brief period during the 1940s, the facility fabricated, repaired and launched Liberty Ships for World War II. Other operations at the site included rolling pipe and tank shapes from plate steel, cutting and welding, assembly of large structur:.s using fabricated pipes and tanks, painting of pipes, tanks and ships with lead- and phosphorus-based paints and primers, :.nd pipe coatings using tar. A large dip ke~tle used fo- coating pipe with tar was located at the western boundary of the property until it was removed in the 1960s. The main fabrication building reportedly contained fuel oil piping systems to supply individual machinery. No slag production or galvanizing operations were known to have been conducted at this facility. As a result of these activities, conducted over the nearly 50 years of operation, a variety of contaminants were introduced into the soil and groundwater, including lead, heavy hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In addition, acidic soil and groundwater was found at the south boundary of the site, which had apparently migrated north from the Edwards Wire Rope Company site located on the current Gateway site south of Oyster Point Boulevard. In March 1990, Treadwell and Associates completed the Site Preparation Plan for the Shearwater development, which included a preliminary site remediation plan. The plan proposes to excavate and encapsulate contaminated soil on-site beneath a proposed concrete parking garage. A Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) was also performed for the site. According to Mr. Richard Jones with the DTSC the project has been on hold and no further investigations have taken place since that time. II-186 r;, - - LEGEND ~` `' s i"---' ~ CERCLIS: E.P.A. Supafund Sites , , ~ ~ -"`' ~ LUST : W.R.CB. Underground '-~ =~~ ~ ~ ~ '~ i" ~ ~ Leaking Tanks ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CAL-Sites . E.PA CAL-STfES• d ~\ i '~ ~ WDS: H.M.D.M. Wute _.., f ,' Discharge System ` , - ~~ , ~ CLUSTER ~ i" ~~ ~ _ ••C4 - ia Individual Site Number y (indicates site number in 1~ '-' ~ I i Tables 16 and 17 inAppendu E) ~ ' ~is ~•9 (~~6 ;~ Co . cz) Clustered Site -- -- ~~ - ~ - ~, " ~ '~~` ^V •- Indicates number of known - - •," ~ _- ~~ - - _ hazardous sites in cluster ~• Indicates site number in Tables 16 «Zl and 17 in Appendix E - ~` ~. LLL~~~~.. ~dicatcs cltutered site ~ •~ ~ ~ i~ .~ k _: . ., _- ,~r o / 8 +~ ~ )• ,, ,.., - _ .. ~, "~ - ~` ~ '~V _~~]+ 14 SCR- 2 ~ ; ,, ~ Gl m,:o _ ~ ~, ", j _ . ..rt - ~?~ ,` ,. «C~y - (z) s~ i ~ -"~' - _. ..~ Saurre: Environmental Disclosure Report, NATEC Environmental Reporting Services, Ltd. S C A L E 1'•1800' o s~ i~ EAST OF 1~1 ~m AREA PLAN FIGURE 39 Known Hazardous Material Sites City o~South San Francisco B R A D Y AND ASSOCIATE S MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT HAZr1RDOUS MATERIALS The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), which has jurisdiction regarding development plans within 100 feet of San Francisco Bay, has objected to Shearwater's proposed plan to encapsulate contaminated soil. The apparent concern is that the lead and other contaminants in high concentration in the groundwater may leach into the bay, and that the groundwater will have to be remediated. Mr. Jones indicated that additional remedial investigation and a risk assessment would be required before development could occur on the site. c. Ouster Point Interchange. A Preliminary Site Assessment Report for the Oyster Point Interchange and Grade Separation project by CH2M HILL in January 1992 describes contaminants that could impact proposed construction activities. Elevated levels of soil contaminants including total petroleum hydrocarbons, lead, mercury, zinc and copper were detected at levels exceeding State criteria for hazardous waste. (This is Site 19 on Figure 39.) The report identifies contaminant "hot spots" to be excavated during project construction and estimates 13,000 cubic yards of soils contain oil and grease at concentrations below 1,000 ppm. In addition, approximately 2,00(? cubic yards of soil is to be :.xcavat::d from the ~hzarwaler propel ~y. Of this soli, apprexlma-ely 1,500 cubic yards ~.ontai:l : oil and grease or lead at levels greater than 1,l~00 ppm and wilt require more costly disposal methods. There are several alternatives for the disposal of these contaminated soils. These include off-site disposal, disposal in a Class II landfill, bioremediation of oil and grease impacted soil, and on-site stabilization of lead-impacted s.... The remedial costs range from $470,000 to $1.6 million. d. Wildberg Brothers Site. The Wildberg Brothers site, located at 349 and 385 Oyster Point Boulevard and shown as Site CS on Figure 39, is also known as the Boliden-Metech site, was originally adjacent to San Francisco Bay, but is now approximately 275 feet south of the bay shoreline, due to progressive filling of the bay margin. Presently, the site is undeveloped and adjoins a warehouse facility and a business park. The Oyster Point Marina is located approximately '/,-mile east of the site. The original owners of the site, the Wildberg Brothers, ran a precious metals refining and recovery operation from 1907 until 1980. The property was sold in 1980 to Refinement International, who in turn sold the property to Boliden- Metech in 1983. In 1980, overflow from the storage lagoon on the Wildberg property was observed flowing onto the adjacent Healy Tibbits property to the II-187 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS north. This led to the investigation of the property as a potential hazardous waste site. As a result of sampling and analysis of pond sediment, water and effluent, six areas of the property were found to have concentrations of copper, nickel, lead and zinc in excess of the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) set by the State, and trace levels of cyanide were also found. Refinement International removed an underground tank and a slag pile, demolished the copper treatment building and dewatered, dredged and filled in the lagoon area. In December 1986, Boliden-Metech conducted sampling of the former lagoon area, and in July 1987, the Site Mitigation Unit (SMU) of the DHS performed a full sampling inspection of the site. The results of the sampling indicated that concentrations of copper, lead, nickel, zinc and cyanide were well below the TTLCs. The area formerly occupied by Healy Tibbits has been filled with approximately 20 feet of clean fill and a business park has been constructed on that property. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a site evaluation inspection of the Wildberg site and the Healy Tibbits property and concluded that both sites fail below EPr~ cleanup leveL;, and recommended no Further action be taken by the EPA. According to DHS evaluations, the shallow groundwater underlying this site would not affect seven California Water Service wells located three miles west of the site, so DHS required no additional groundwater sampling and monitoring. The SMU determined that the site had been remediated as ordered by the DHS and the RWQCB, and recommended that the site be certified as adequately remediated and delisted from the DHS State Bond Expenditure Plan. However, the RWQCB felt that, due to this site's proximity to San Francisco Bay, a threat to the Bay may exist, a result of possible contamination of the shallow groundwater underlying the site and subsequent potential migration into the bay. The RWQCB does not recognize use of the State's TTLC as adequate to protect water quality, and recommended a groundwater monitoring program. The site has been placed on the RWQCB's North Bay Toxics List for further evaluation, but there is no record that further action has been undertaken at the site. Until these further investigations are performed, it is not possible to estimate the extent of remediation necessary. II-188 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT HA7ARDOUS MATERIALS e. Ouster Point Dump. The Oyster Point Dump, also known as the South San Francisco Municipal Dump facility, accepted mixed municipal wastes until its closure in 1970. The dump site is now developed as the Oyster Point Marina and Park. According to the Facility Profile Report for this site, this dump received a wide variety of hazardous wastes including acidic and alkaline solvents, oxygenated solvents, waste oil, organic monomer waste, organic liquids with metals, paint sludge, fly ash, household waste, and liquids containing cyanides, chromium, and lead. The landfill has a clay cap and cover, and slurry/bentonite trenches and cut off walls to control the leachate problem. Leachate is a hazardous liquid that forms as water percolates through contaminants in the soil. f. Gateway Site. The Gateway site includes the former sites of both Bethlehem Steel and the Edwards Rope Company, and is indicated as sites C16, C20, 21, 25, 27 and 28 on Figure 39. At this time, the two sites are occupied by office buildings, parking lots and vacant fields. The southeast corner of the properly has begin bisected b~~ the East Grand Avenue overcrossing, and a hotel is now situated south of the overcrossing at the interse:;ti,,r, cf Ens: Grand Avenue a-.d Executive llrivP (forlrerl3~ i:rdustr:ai Way). Bethlehem Steel Company operated a steel mill and fabrication plant on most of the southern and central portions of the site from 1903 to 1977, producing steel from iron ore using coal-fired open hearth furnaces until 1960. The plant became solely a steel galvanizing operation in 1960. Edwards Wire Rope Company produced galvanized steel wire and netting from 1916 to 1978 in the northernmost portion of the area, adjacent to Oyster Point Boulevard. Over the plants' operational lives of 75 years, metallic slag, soil and debris containing heavy metals, oil and acids were deposited on the surface or used as fill material throughout the site. These activities resulted in locally high concentrations of arsenic, chromium, zinc, copper, nickel, low pH materials and PCBs throughout the site. Extensive toxics work was conducted on behalf of Homart Development Company, developers of the Gateway, by Cooper & Clark and Kennedy/Jenks Engineers to characterize the site and develop remediation plans. Based on the groundwater studies documented in these reports, the DHS approved on- site retention or relocation of heavy metal contaminated soils, demolition debris and acidic soils. Materials left on site were covered with one foot of clean compacted till. PCBs and asbestos contaminated soil and debris were II-189 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTMG CONDI'I10NS REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS removed and shipped under manifest to a hazardous waste disposal facility. Other remedial actions included mixing lime to increase the pH of acidic soils. Both the RWQCB and the DHS required that precautions be taken to inform and protect anyone who may excavate soil at this site in the future, including a "Notice to Contractors" indicating locations of contaminated materials on the site and safety precautions to be taken during excavation. A "Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions" is included as part of all future deeds and leases. g. Fuller-O'Brien Site. This site, located at the end of East Grand Avenue, is shown as Site C3 on Figure 39. According to Mr. Damon Austin of the former California Department of Health Services (DHS) the site is a paint manufacturer and was operating a treatment facility with two surface impoundments that had a high concentration of lead. The impoundments have been closed and the DHS has allowed a concentration of 200 parts per million (ppm) residual lead in soil. There was also a drum storage area on the south side of the site that has yet to be closed. There is a background monitoring well to the north of the property and groundwater monitoring wells on the south side of the property. Mr. Mark Allen of Fuller-O'Brien states that numerous investigations have been performed. The U.3. EYA, curent:y the lead agency does not consider the site fully remediated, but has not established criteria for site closure. It is unknown at this time what additional work will be required. 2. Suspected Hazardous Waste Sites Several facilities suspected of handling hazardous materials were observed either on historical aerial photographs or during the site reconnaissance of the area conducted for this report. At this time, there is no evidence of hazardous materials released from these sites recorded on the regulatory agency lists reviewed. However, these sites are listed in this section because operations at these facilities appear to use, generate or store hazardous materials in fairly significant quantities. Information regarding these sites is limited or not readily available. Further investigations concerning environmental conditions at these sites should be made prior to future development to evaluate the potential presence of toxics in soil and/or groundwater. a. San Francisco International Airport. The United Airlines Maintenance Operations Center, airport cargo storage, and Chevron jet fuel tanks are situated at the south end of the study area along North Access Road. Soil and II-190 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS groundwater contamination was encountered near the hazardous materials storage area at the United facility during a foundation investigation in 1991. d The character of substances stored at the airport cargo facility is unknown, and potential releases from storage of hazardous substances cannot presently be evaluated without additional information. The presence of above-ground storage tanks, in itself, does not necessarily represent a threat to soil or groundwater conditions. Because the tanks have been present for approximately 30 years, it is possible that releases to the environment have occurred from overfilling, pipe leaks, or corrosion of the tanks during their operational history. Should redevelopment of this area occur, investigation of the airport property would need to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions in this area. b. South of Colma Creek/Bel Air Road. The South San Francisco and San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant and Shell Oil Company storage tanks are located in the area south of Colma Creek and north of the airport property. As discussed above, possible releases from fuel tanks should be considered if future development is planned. In regards to the sewage treatment plant, the storage and handling of wastes, including potentially hazardous wastes, should be further reviewed to evaluate aay impacts on soil and gmurdwater conditions. 3. Fuel Leak Faci'.ities Thirty-four facilities within the study area were identified from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) List of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) as listed on Table 22. These facilities are distributed throughout the study area, with several clusters of sites along South Airport Boulevard, Grand Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, and Executive Drive. The type of contaminants typically found at these sites include petroleum hydrocarbons (such as diesel, gasoline and waste oil) and other organic constituents (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX)), which are potential carcinogens. Contamination is often discovered during tank removal, tank testing or through inventory loss. In many cases, contamination is localized in the soils and/or groundwater beneath the tanks; however, in some cases a plume of contaminated groundwater may have migrated away from the source. Due to the shallow depth of groundwater within the study area, it is likely that groundwater has also been impacted at many of the LUST sites. The RWQCB and San Mateo County Department of Health Services oversee fuel leak investigations and are responsible for requiring remedial actions or approving closure of these facilities. II-191 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4. Permitted Hazardous Waste Generators MAY 1993 Within the study area, 67 permitted generators of hazardous waste materials have been identified from EPA hazardous waste manifest disposal records. The quantity of hazardous materials generated varies by site. The handling, generation, or storage of hazardous materials does not necessarily represent a threat to environmental conditions of soil or groundwater at a specific site. However, the presence of a relatively large number of generators concentrated within the area could create a cumulative problem. II-192 N a 0 o. y z 0 F 0 z U J z r k Q 0 S w :~ ~..~ ..a z s7 /'~ xe N ~_ O +1 :zl N •~ '~ H L yO L" 'C C ... v ao C_ rr_k_\ .~ ~ a~ u G ~p 9 ~ ~ u ~ ` - ` . •~ . ,O y a ~ 6~ 6> 37 ~ o ~ V oD C („^ V V V V ~ a . ~ E E E E E c y ` .3 h y ~ C CC C C C o _ ~ ~ C y + C ~ c C C Q Y ~ .~. ~ u ~ v ° ~ . u o ' m o ~o ~ ~ m 3 U E E E ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ,~ 0 8 8 w w ri ~ w ~ _ ~ = 0 ~ ~ r.~ 0 ~.` Z1 ,y ~ ,` ~ ~ ~' ~ c~ a :_v ~ o c_v ~ C o c ,o a ,0 9 e L :~ ~ ~ E E E ~ a E ~ ? a E a E a !~ E„ v v a °: u u a~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ `' ~ o H :~ x x x a x ~ a a a P a z h ~ . cn y h ~ N ~ h ~ h cn N~ V1 h N h h :A ~ U U CR U~ J :~ U L U C~ 3 3 ~ C~ J C~ ~ J c i~ C i '' i ~ C M 3- e 8 a. a ~ ? :a ~ ? n > :Q C ~ , V r > > > ~ `" ^ 3 ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _ ¢ ¢ ~ ¢ ~ U _ 3 a ~ a ~ U 3 c V H ~ L ~ Q~ V y ~ V y ..~ ~ '' ~' ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ J :ri a ::7 . c:] s 0 3 C ~ c ~ o00 ~ ~ ~ o ~ o0 ~ M ~! N C a J _C >+ ~ . ~ C/] ~ 7C.1 ~ U p, ~ ~ a .7. N ~ ~ ` O + ` ~ O O 9 C O ~ O Z G" 7 C C U > ~J v 3 ~ ~ • ~, ~ s , . r ~ y ~ ;, ~ , , ~ ~ t E 3 ~ a; t y ~" ~ ~ r ~ C o 6~ o 'a 4 y ~' U ~ y 3 C ~ 3 :C N a. 3 _ .S7 v? N o0 O a V^, N N ~. U 00 ~D ~ v': N `~' ~ U N r, N c U U U U U U f+; a ' '~ 4 ~ - E .~ = y .~ = V .° = ~ V E ~ c ~ ~ N `~ N oc E E E ~ m ~ ~ .. `~ `~ a °' H ~ E ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ .=. ~ S c t0 ~ E e p e q e q ~ ~ W W W GZl ~ [~ `c. ~ ~ ~ s~ '~'•~ Z'•~ Z'•~ .f i. y a. ~3 nom. ~ ' E ~ E 6 ~_ ° ~ ° ~_ ° z . z 3 g.° ! u ° ` ~ °' .~ ` ~ g °' .~ ~ ` H °' .y ~ o~ 'ca $ .~ '$ E O i W u~ > > e n , , a a , a ~ ao ~ oo n cn :~ ~ ~n ~ 0 Q ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ 3 3 3 3 9 N ~ a c ~ ~ ~ ~ , a ~. T ~ ~ ~ a ~ _ ~ U ~ a rA vi Gtl R M O ~/% ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ v C7 cn . v; LL '/1 U ~ = CN cCp o ' ~ a 4. ~ a. x ~ Z ~ ~ p E 0 o, u oo ~ ~ ~ ° c 'o Z ~, ~ ~ z ~ ~ .:. S ° U c U ~ o ~ U - m O „ ~ O z ~ ~ .>' .~.~ ~ ~ vi u. N U = O ~ Lt. z A O ~ ~ ~p U ~ N N U N U ~ (~ M, U N~ c mow = Q a w ~ ~ ~ vi ~ ~ 3 r ~ ~~ ~ ~, o 0 ~ V C Ci ~ ~ > U v $. a ~ x h .= cCq ~ y~y~~ _ ~ y y ~oa0 ?, ~ N ~ m U C ~ yCUj ~ ~ :~ o ~ ¢ ~ 3 ~ 4 :~ ~~ ~ o T ca ~ c . ~O y ~ ~ u V U '~ '0 ~ 3 m :z7 n i ca c °~ ~c ~ c .o v U O w '~ O i. ~ V1 C '> G , . L ~ o f% ~ Rai cd~ `~'~ ~ R c ~ ~ ~ D C U ~ V (Q L ~ ~ v p a~ V ~ ...~ c z. T ~ c •~ ~ ~ v C vi a' ° W n ~ E E ° a i ` ~, a°. c •` ° ~ C v s'n~ 00~ ~ ~ L' ~ ~ r ~ h ~ c N ~U ~ ° ~3 `'3 U ~ N < 9 ~' Q z ~ ~ ~3~'~ U ? ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~~3~3 ~ c a O . o. (s] ~ ~a ~z~ 0 ~~~ O O oz c.. O Z r.. Z d :'a ~^ V z r. ~ :ia '~ Z Z_ .fir :ti ^x V Q 0 0- ~ v h ;~ c `~ n. E .~ _ a o ~ ?3 /~ u ~ ~ v~ y O ~ ~ ce ;3; cC ca R N 'C ~ R ~ ' " Q ~ >. L ~ T U y > . C ~ ' ~ ~ ~ C 7 ~ ~ C R ~ p 3 J '7 ~ ~ ~' ' ~ 7 ~ 7 7 ~ 3 C ~ ~ ~ C 9 Q> u > V :n y /} ~. V V ~ V ~ V ~. C ~ L ~ V Q 4 ~ 5 a. a u a rv, u u ~ u R o, u C ;q c a. ~ ~ ... v S 3 cv ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ O CC ~ CO ~ ~ 3 ~ L ~33j O ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ v R. C C V p ~~ C p p ~! C C C C ~! p C ~ pQ Y ~ ~ O ca Y ~ O ~ O O C L. C C. s ~ C. C C V 7 C > C > O O V 7 O V 7 -: .O O L. 7 C. ~ V O C ~ ~: ~ V '~ V C7 ~ ~ ~ o ~ C Z C C rn C J z C7 z V v e _ V N ~ v N 6~ C ~ N ~ Q ~ ~ C ~ d ~ n ~ ~ C C C C C C C ,~^ C C C r, ~ ~ ~ ~ p 3l Q JJ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ p ~ o J1 ~ > T J J ~ J J V ~ v ~' p ~„ n ~ ~ ~ ~ k ~ , ~ 7 C7 ~ f ' 00 a I i ( ~ ~ ' ~ I ~ V Q ¢ ~ 4 3 :C 3 ~ ~ R O z z ; ,, Q z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m 9 ~ 3 > ~ ~ 3 3 ~ .. m 3 3 y ~ L _ ~ y ~ ~ ` V ¢ V V C ~ y h N I1 :7 J y J o ~ ~ R ? v ~ ? ~ ~ a ; a ~ w ~ : ~ ~ ~ ' ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ : ~. ~ U N V ~ .0. ~~' ~C ~ p 00 OV p O ~ ~ O a ~ ~ O p ~ p ~ pp ~ im N ~ t7 ~ N of 0 ~ N N f~ N N f+; O v ; ~O N; N , H = 3 ~ ~ '~ 6 o e ~ Z ~ T Q ; ~? a~ a~ v E a~ '~ .~ 9 Lyy ~ U ~ 3 y ~ ~ C ~ O. _ ~ U G. oa C L h y U ~ ~ . R o r ~ :7 'n y cc ~ ~G ~ F '~ '~ p 3 ~ 21 '~ . a 'y . . 0 ~ o ,.'nv a, a~ O O ~' :a ~ i a ~ E a i v a~ ~ ca p •C [i. ~ U :~ o a U U o o ~ o r :~ ~c x ~- .~ a a ~ o ~ ~ O. N_ n -- ~_ N; 00 O c+. '" ~' `~ _ N et r N ~ ~ 00 U 00 '" ~ K N .p ~ ~ U U U U U U U U :J U U U U ~ ~_ r o ~ ~ H .~ .~ CO ~ ~ y U .Vr ~ .~.. ~ ~ C ~ U C ~ ~ U U ~ °~ ~ ~ a c~~v ~ c ~ o 0 ~~ 0 ~ F v ~ ~~ ` `n c ° a W y V ~ co O y V ~ O y ~. o o O LQ a . V a . V u ~ c ~ c V V O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ 'j ~ w ~ ~ ~ '3 a o a C C C 3 ~ 7 ~ '" ~ > > ~ O C7 C ~ O C7 C > O C7 y U 7 ~ ts. O C7 O V _ ~ O Z O C7 O V ~ C O O (y 9 C C_ C _ C C_ C O Lz ~ 00 ~ ~' 0 '~ 0 ~ u ~ id ~ ca (a Q ~d ~ (a O ~ ~ O E O 3 ~~ > ~v v v v v ~~ ; ~ :o ~ 1 ~. a ~y/~y '" ' ' ~ ~ ~ ° ' B a m 'O ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ Q .5 ~ m co m x c L ~ /> ~ ~ o c yy aA 3 V ~ N O ~ ~ L ~ V S V s V a V s. ~. o ~ y 3 ' a ~ ~ ~ o . a . a . a a s ~ s :~ 3 ~ o ~' 3 ~ ~ ~ oa ~ ~ m 7a z E pp ~ 8 ~ ~ +5 O ~ !'~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ -~ v: O v1 N `" O ~.. N [ [ .; C w h v N ~ ~ ` cv 00 C ,~ ~ U r `' 9 E ~3 L o ~ v ~ o ~ ¢ o ~. ~ Q ~ w a c~ r~] Zd ~ ¢ V o y U LL. ~ ~:. U .UC. d U C ~ C ~. C • C E O ~, g ~ ~ Z, ~ ~z~ oN L °UO O Y Q p ~ t~~t N ~n vn: ~p (~ ~~*'; ~ t~~S U N U N U ~ N U N U N U ^ U z3 cC `j Cj U U ~ a ~. ~ X W ~ ~ • ~ a O ct 6 v i ~O a Chapter 11 GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS This chapter assesses the geology and seismicity of the study area, and describes geotechnical hazards in the study area. Hazards include bay fill and closed landfills. Definitions for terms used in this chapter can be found in the glossary at the end of this report. A. Geology 1. Regional Geology i'Ite San Francisco Peninsula lies within the roast Range's Geomorphic Province. "I' e .;emF~lex structure ~f she Coast Range is a result of u ':ong history of tectonic deformation, or movements of the earth's crust. The Coast Range Province, tike much of California, is characterized by northwest-trending structural features, including folds, faults and geological units. The East of 101 urea is located along San Francisco Bay, which is a depression of the earth's crust controlled in shape and orientation by the regional tectonic setting. San Francisco Bay is a drowned river valley that developed approximately 2 million years ago when the San Francisco-Mann block tilted towards the east along the Hayward fault, which is located along the Berkeley Hills and continues parallel to the San Andreas fault. The uplifted western edge of the block formed the hills of Marin and San Mateo Counties, while the down-dropped eastern edge created the depression that is now occupied by the San Francisco Bayt. A portion of the study area is a northwest trending ridge that is a part of San Bruno Mountain and extends into San Francisco Bay. Other similar long linear ridges and valleys are evident to the west of the area. The remainder of the ` Bailey, E.H., 1966, "Geology of Northern California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 190. II-197 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1943 EXIS'T'ING CONDTIIONS REPORT GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS area is land reclaimed from the San Francisco Bay by progressive filling of the adjacent shoreline, and is referred to as the "flat bay margin zone". Bedrock in the region is divided into several major structural blocks by the San Andreas and related faults. The San Andreas fault separates the bedrock in this part of the Coast Ranges into two distinct types: agranitic-metamorphic complex to the southwest, and the primarily sedimentary Franciscan Complex to the northeast. The subject area is situated within the complex San Andreas Fault System, which includes the Hayward and Calaveras faults on the east side of the Bay. The San Andreas Fault itself lies about three miles to the west and transects the San Francisco Peninsula to the north-northwest. Z. Specific Geology The area around the San Francisco Bay includes three types of sedimentary deposits, apart from artificial fill placed during historically recent development. The top layer is Recent Bay Mud, which is described by the U.S. Geological Survey as "unconsolidated, water-saturated, dark, plastic, carbonaceous clay and silty clay". An alluvial deposit of relatively dense material comprising sandy clays to clayey sands is under parts of the Recent Bay Mud. The source of the alluvial material is the erosion of nearby hills. Where the alluvial deposit exists, it is thicker towards the Bay margins, aad thinner towards tale center. The Recent Bay Mud, or alluvial deposit, is underlain by Old Bay Clay, which is overconsolidated and contains varying amounts of silt, along with lenses of sand and gravel. The Old Bay Clay was deposited in an estuarine environment. It is generally suitable for deep foundation support. All sedimentary deposits in the area are Quaternary in age, and probably less than about 120,000 years old. Recent Bay Mud is important because it is generally not an acceptable material to support building foundations. Many parts of the study area consist of fill over Recent Bay Mud, and these locations require special design to ensure adequate building footings. Recent Bay Mud is also softer than Old Bay Clay, which is firm enough to support building piles. Within the study area that consists of fill, Recent Bay Mud is encountered down to about 80 feet below the Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) in the deepest area. Figure 40 classifies the surface soil and bedrock of the study area in a simplified manner. It indicates the shoreline and tidal flats of Recent Bay Mud as surveyed in 1830 to 1860. Areas that are not shown as Recent Bay Mud or fill have bedrock or relatively firm soils at or close to the surface. Further differentiation of soil and bedrock types can be found on geological maps of the area. The selected classifications used on Figure 40 are the following: II-198 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS • Bedrock: The exposed and surficial bedrock in the area is generally Cretaceous sandstone and shale of the Franciscan Complex. Some serpentine, which is more resistant, is also present, forming the high point of the area. In places, the rock mass is sheared and forms a matrix containing fragments of hard rock of various sizes. • Soils: The Soils category includes all unconsolidated sedimentary deposits landward of the historical shoreline, generally surrounding the higher areas of bedrock. The soil is mainly slope debris and ravine fill comprising silty to sandy clay, or silty to clayey sand or gravel. Part of the area is overlain by the Colma Formation, which is mostly sandy clay and silty sand. A narrow strip close to Highway 101 contains alluvium, that is mostly sand and silt. Artificial fill has been placed as development of the area has continued. This classification excludes Recent Bay Mud which is a separate category. • Filled Marshlands over Bay Mud: This area was historically marshland, but has subsequently been reclaimed either by draining and filling, or by filling directly on the marshlands. • Fill over Bay Mud: This area represents the area bayward of the historic coastline that hay been filled by pushing till out from the shore, dur.~pinb of dredged material, or by hydraulic placer.Ient of fill. B. Seismicity The East of 101 Area is located within a region characterized by the seismically active San Andreas fault system shown on Figure 41. A description of the San Andreas system, and the major faults that lie in close proximity to the project area, are discussed in the following sections. The San Andreas fault system is the principal tectonic element of the North American/Pacific plate boundary in California. This fault system accommodates the most motion between the two plates, including nearly all of the lateral motion; as a result, the San Andreas has the highest slip rates and is the most seismically active of any fault system in California. In the San Francisco Bay Area and to the north, seismic slip occurs along several subsidiary faults that are distributed across the Coast Ranges. The most active components of the fault system are the San Andreas fault, the Hayward fault, and the Calaveras fault. The characteristics of several of the major faults within the San Andreas fault system are summarized in Table 24. II-199 ;+i~~.~ ~~iw~~~/'-jam)/ // \ %4 / s _;~ i~. } h 7~ ~~~ .I ~tl - _.. ~, \ ~ ~ •1L~ _ i ~ ~ ~j~, . ~ }~T ~, \ ~• ~ ' _ ICI ~:•'•. ~. . ` t ~~ *Area to the south of this ~,-: .~• r boundary may experience f .. '~ surface displacements during earthquakes on the Coyote ='~ ` Point fault zone. The area to the north appears to lie outside ~ ~.. of the Coyote Point/Hillside ~ fault zone. (Interpretation based on preliminary data collected by USGS.) ' S C A L E 1'.1800' a soo laoo atov EAST OF 1~1 AREAPLAN FIGURE 40 Study Area Geology Cify of Sauth San Francisco B R A D Y AND ASSOCIATE S r, ~~~ ~ ~;' ~ ~ ~-~ - _ ; .p c ~ ~,;` I . I R \ .\ '~, a ,~ '~i` ~, ~ ' I ~ ~ . \v. . . 9 ~, ~ ~~ ~ t• ^ \ ~. \\ ~ \\\. T*1 ~~ ~~ • C • ~ ~ •p, ~- ;~: ~- G ~, ,, J~~ \ ~ ~~ ~\ ' O' J `' ' \'~,123°` ~ `„~ ~.~ ~.~ ~~' ~~ ,: . • ~ ~ ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ` \ ~ .~ ~~ `~±~ ` ~~~ 'Study Area .~ ~`: ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ - ~,. ~~. i `~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ i ~ C \~ V" ~ ems. \ \\' . ~ \\\\ \ o ~1'\ 1 `\ .~ _ ~~ .\ ~ \ i ` `~``~ ~~\ \ ~ \ q .~ ~.~ `\ \ ~.~:. \ \ \ ~ ` Z,' _ . c ~~~: `~~ ~ z- ~~ ~ ~`a `~ \~ \ \ . ~\ `~ • ac3 i ~, -- I \ \~ ~`\ 1\ \ ~\``v \\ . \ .` `\` ~ ~~~ 1, \ ~, ~ .,:\ ~! ~. ~ `.~ ~.. NOT TO SCALE EAST OF 101 AREAPLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 41 Major Active Faults in the Bay Area EAST OF 101 AREA PIrMi ~Y 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS Table 24 SUMMARY OF REGIONAL FAULT CHARACTERISTICS Fault Estimatcd Magnitude (1~.) Distance from Site ~1 Peak Ground Accelcratioa San Andreas 7.8 (7)~2~ 3.5 0.64 (0.49) San Gregorio 7'/z 15 0.25 Hayward 7 24 0.17 ~~~~ 7 40 0.11 Coyote Point 7 0~1~ 0.52 Hunters Point 7 8 + 037 ~i~ Assumes xismogenic depth of 3 km. (Z) A magnitude 7.0 event on the San Francisco Peninsula xgment of the San Andreas is considered to have a 37 percent probability of occumng in the next 30 years. We have therefore provided values for both the maximum historical earthquake, and, in parenthesis, the event with a high probability of occurring in the next 30 years. 1. Regional Faults a. San Andreas Fault. Recent investigations of the San Andreas fault indicate that the fault consists of at least ten major segments. Three segments, located in Northern and Central California, are characterized by frequent small to moderate earthquakes and a seismic fault creep. These segments are not believed to be capable of individually generating great earthquakes, which are defined as having magnitudes of 8.0 or greater. In contrast, two separate areas along the fault, which ruptured in 1857 near Fort Tejon in Southern California and 1906 in Northern California, have had low rates of seismic activity for many years and are believed to be the likely sources of future great earthquakes along the San Andreas fault system. Great earthquakes such as the 1857 and 1906 events involve the sequential rupture of multiple fault segments. The northern portion of the San Andreas fault zone strikes approximately N35W through the Coast Range. This portion of the fault extends from near 2 Wallace, L.E., 1990, The San Andreas Fault System, Professional Paper 1515. ,r II-202 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS San Juan Bautista in San Benito County to Shelter Cove in Humboldt County, for a total length of about 280 miles (450 km), and is made up of three major segments: the North Coast segment that extends from Menlo Park to Olema; the San Francisco Peninsula segment that extends from Menlo Park to San Juan Bautista; and a subsegment of the San Francisco Peninsula segment called the southern Santa Cruz Mountain segment. The recent October 17, 1989, magnitude 7.1 Loma Prieta event was associated with the Santa Cruz Mountain subsegment. Long-term slip rates across these three segments have been estimated to be approximately 16 mm/year. The working group of seismologists and geologists coordinated by the USGS estimated the probabilities of earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault in California 3 This study considered an event in the vicinity of the October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake to have a high probability of occurrence. Following the Loma Prieta earthquake, the study group reconvened to examine in more detail the probability of events on faults in the San Francisco Bay area during the next 30 years. The results of this study estimate a 37 percent probability of a magnitude 6.5 to magnitude 7.0 event occurring on a segment of the San Andreas fault that extends south from Crystai Springs Reservoir to the northern end of the Loma Prieta rupture zone. Such an event will include a large displacement due to the close proximity of the San Andreas fault, and ~s the earthyuai:~ That is moF; ~ik..ly to occur. b. Havward Fault. The Hayward fault is an active strand of the San Andreas fault system that extends from the Evergreen area of San Jose at least 60 miles (97 km) north along the East Bay foothills to Point Pinole near Richmond. It was responsible for magnitude 6.8 earthquakes in 1836 and 1868. Historically, the most active and best recognized portion of the Hayward fault extends from the Warm Springs District of Fremont to Point Pinole near Richmond, 45 miles (72 km) through a highly populated area. The USGS working group estimated that the Hayward fault has a 23 percent to 28 percent probability of generating a magnitude 7.0 or greater event in the next 30 years. We assume a limiting magnitude of 7.0 for the Hayward fault. c. Calaveras Fault Zone. The Calaveras fault zone branches from the San Andreas fault near Hollister and extends approximately 80 miles (130 km) along the east side of the East Bay hills. The predominant behavior of this 3 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1990, Probabilities of Large Earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Region, California U.S. Geol. Surv. Circular 1053. II-203 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING COND(T70NS REPORT GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS fault in the northern section appears to be non-seismic slippage. Its southeastern extremity lies close to, and parallel with, the San Andreas fault south of Hollister, but the fault departs from this trend becoming more northerly through Hollister, continuing to the northwest past Danville and Walnut Creek. The southerly section of the Calaveras fault has been the site of recent events such as the 1984 magnitude 6.2 Morgan Hill earthquake. We assume a limiting magnitude of 7.0 for the Calaveras fault zone. d. San Gregorio Fault Zone. The San Gregorio fault zone is located west of the San Andreas fault, and extends from the Point Sur area southwest of Monterey Bay to Bolinas Bay where it intersects the San Andreas fault. The San Gregorio fault zone is at least 170 km long, and may extend at least 370 km if it is structurally related to the Hosgri fault further to the south. Right- lateral offset of marine terrace shoreline angles suggest an average late Pleistocene rate of movement ranging from 6.0 to 11.0 mm/yr. This rate compares favorably with rates determined from offset stream channels (5 to 9 mm/yr.). Based on a rupture length of 110 km, we assume a limiting magnitude of 7.5 for this fault zone. 2. Faults in the Study Area Recent evidence incicates that the Coyote Point and Hunters Point fault zones may run through the area, but more data are needed on the extent and likely consequences of these faults. General locations of these faults are shown on Figure 42; however, specific locations are not known at this time. These faults could cause both groundshaking and fault rupture. The U.S. Geological Survey investigated the occurrence of these faults in the offshore area between Hunters Point and Coyote Point between November 3 and 5, 1992. The study was conducted in this area due to the occurrence of small earthquakes that were located along the west side of San Francisco Bay. The results of the study were publicized in a USGS press release dated December 10, 1992, concurrent with a presentation at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in San Francisco. The results of studies related to the Coyote Point and Hunters Point fault zones are preliminary and have not yet been published or reviewed by the geologic community. The location of the inferred fault zones shown on Figure 42 is based on information obtained along a limited number of surveys. Neither the northwestern onshore, nor the southeastern offshore extensions of the faults have yet been mapped. The USGS will be continuing its investigation of the Hunters Point and Coyote Point fault zones in September 1993. .~ II-204 cetan - Gne OI 0 •. ~' ~~ p '~ ~ .. ~~ San Francis o O O C e p Oakland O (~ Cho p p" p e ~p p ~p ~\ ~ p O O 66"0 ° 6.t'~ • e ~' ° 7~ p o 6py ~ e p p ~ p t 4 a ® ®O~ p~~0 O 0 o° 0 O 0 0 Ahmed ~ p~~~ Hwner'e Fein •~.. 1~ •'`' `' Study Area :••'• • ~.~ , oyaa mini ~p O i.> \~. O p ~S~ :. ~'. \~! `p ~~..~~,,~ .\ ~l Jb/_~~e,' Fend//c Ao~ '~ \~ kerb?\ ~\r\'a ~•\ ~ F ::emu. o' p 0 0 O 8 ewer . ....., ~ Daly City. ~ p ~• p ° o p p~ ~ '•. `'s``~r~ch I p •pO p sooin ~•~:~,o~ 6 ''•:'4 n cisco o San Fra pp ,,,, ~o ~ J~\~ `•o~ "., B' • fit p p d~ p 2' ~ . C, ''~J" i ~ I ~ 7 aO t \ D ' •~ ~ . ~ i ~i7 ~~ i ~ J ~ -V~ ^O ~ a ~ r ~ °~` ~ ~~~ ~ ~... . p ~. o O 8 p p 8° p ~ Sen ~ O 6 O O p®~ O Op Ahpo(1 p ~ ° °p ~~ ` \ ~ \~ p o 6 6 O p p 6 G o r OtD p ® ~\p ~ O t ~ ~ p ~p p, ~ p 0 p~ Opp p,+'~ e ~ ~ \ ~ iI C Y p p O p 8 p o p p op~ -~t~. eeeeo v ~~, ~o ° o° O 6 J p Ma~eo 5~ e 1 mlk 0 -• (wll .....•• ue.u fwn -rr-aio.eclUe Foster City ,,,,, ,,,, „,,,e ~,, ~, eiiiie ,,,,,,, O ,...1.... kkw., w e..e ...R e-~ ~.ew..~..q.a ..~.e... NnT T[) SCAt F „;,~~ ~.~ .i C°Y°n Ptoin '••. ~l FIGURE 42 Major Historic Seismic Events in the Bay Area 707 AREAP 0 City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S ,~ EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXIS7TNG CONDITIONS REPORT GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS As shown on Figure 42, the Coyote Point fault zone consists of a complex two- -mile-wide zone of faulting that appears to contain three prominent fault strands. The northeastern edge of the fault zone is the most well defined continuous strand recognized on the profiles, and projects into the Hillside fault ° The middle strand consists of a complex zone with numerous faults and fractures. The southwestern side of the zone is composed of a well defined zone of faults that have been mapped from Coyote Point on the southeast to San Francisco International Airport on the northwest. The southwestern extent of the Coyote Point fault was not determined during the November profiling because the survey boat was limited by shallow water. The Coyote Point fault zone appears to have displaced units within the upper one meter of the Recent Bay Mud. Preliminary ages of samples indicate that movement of the fault has occurred within the last 700 to 1,500 years. Progressively greater displacements within the Bay Mud dated around 4,000 years suggest that repeated Holocene deformation has occurred along this fault zone. Although multiple surface rupturing events within the last several thousand years are inferred by the USGS for the offshore Coyote Point fault zones no evidence for active faulting has been identified for the ofshore Hillside fault 6 Tile lack of evidence for surfac 'suit rupt4re along the Hillside fault may be a result of the absence of suitable materials to evaluate the earthquake record, destruction of evidence due to the extensive development of the area, or the lack of faulting. The record of multiple surface rupturing events in the offshore area may represent secondary or subsidiary structures that formed as a result of movement of the Bay Mud deposits in response to earthquakes on the San Andreas or Hayward faults, or primary fault ruptures along the Coyote Point fault that were preserved as a result of the Bay margin environment. At this time, the relationship between the Coyote Point fault and the Hillside fault is not clear, and the tectonic origin of the features recorded along the Coyote Point fault have not been evaluated by the geologic community. However, if the offshore features represent primary tectonic surface displacements, then surface displacements along this fault zone would also be 4 Bonilla, M.G., 1971, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point Quadrangle, California; U.S. Geological Survey. SGary Mann, personal communication G Manuel Bonilla, personal communication II-206 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING C0NDfI1ONS REPORT GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS expected to extend onshore along the trend of the Coyote Point and Hillside fault. The Hunters Point fault zone, shown on Figure 42, contains numerous individual fault strands that are mapped from Hunters Point to the approximate center of the Bay. The Hunters Point fault zone is believed to extend northwest toward the San Andreas fault and southeast to the Coyote Hills fault zone in the East Bay. Consistently offset marker beds along this fault zone suggest that the sea floor was displaced along the entire mapped length of the fault zone, probably during a single event during the last 1,000 to 4,000 years. As with the Coyote Point fault zone, progressively greater displacements of older deposits suggests that repeated events have occurred during the Holocene. Additional studies are being conducted by the USGS to evaluate the extent and activity of faulting along the Hunters Point fault zone. The seismic hazard associated with the Coyote Point and Hunters Point faults has not been demonstrated. Although the features identified by the USGS may be related to seismic surface deformation, the length, continuity, and activity of specific structures have not yet been established. Based on the interpretation that surface rupture events may have occurred, and nn published fault length/earthquake magnitude relationships, the Covote Pont and Hunters Point fault zones may be considered capable of producing moderate to iarg:, earthquakes. However, because the location and continuity of potential fault traces have not been identified onshore, the hazard to specific facilities from surface fault rupture events associated with fault segments cannot be accurately assessed at this time. The CDMG has not yet evaluated these fault zones with respect to potential surface displacement, and does not anticipate that such studies will be conducted for at least two years. Because CDMG has not evaluated the fault zone, and the existing evidence is offshore, the faults are not included in Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones. However, because the available evidence suggests that an Holocene active fault zone may project through the study area, careful consideration should be exercised, and appropriate geologic and geotechnical investigations conducted prior to future development within this area. ~ Bill Bryant, CDMG, personal communication II-207 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS C. Geotechnical Hazards and Considerations This section summarizes geotechnical factors and hazards that must be considered in planning for development in the East of 101 Area. The known locations of site-specific hazards are shown in Figure 43. 1. Settlement of Fill and Mud As noted above, much of the study area consists of fill over Recent Bay Mud. The fill in these areas, even if properly engineered, has a tendency to settle, and the Recent Bay Mud below it is unable to support major building foundations. This creates several foundation issues. Building in fill areas will require features to accommodate settlement. One- to two-story structures can probably be constructed in areas of fill with normal footings, presuming that settlement is considered in design, while taller mid-and high-rise buildings would require piled foundations. The length of the piles will depend mainly on the thickness of the Recent Bay Mud. Piles in excess of 100 feet in length will not be uncommon. Even in portions of the study area composed of soil and bedrock, pockets of fill also exist in areas that were previously used as borrow pits or quarriex. A previous Dames & Moore investigation on the were side ui the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Industrial Park encountered fill to a depth of about 25 feet in this area. The precise locations of borrow pits and quarries throughout the area is not known, but their presence should be anticipated. Fill replaced in borrow pits and quarries appears to have been placed in an uncontrolled manner, and is subject to settlement, so buildings constructed in such areas will require special foundation engineering. 2. Cut and Fill Slopes Because of the original topography of the subject site, and the considerable filling that has taken place during its development, extensive cut and fill slopes have been constructed on the north portion of the area. Most of the slopes have either been created or modified based on engineering design. Very few natural slopes and unplanned excavated or fill slopes are evident. The south portion of the area is flat having been developed by infilling and draining of marshlands. a. Cut Slopes. Cut slopes are generally around summits where successive levels of terraces have been created to provide flat sites for development. Slope heights are in excess of 50 feet in some areas. Both bedrock and overburden soils are exposed in the cut slopes. The cut slopes appear to have II-208 ~- - --_ ti,,,r --- ~ • ~ .~• . i ~ ' / /- ~ _ ,'! ~ - '~ ~: ,~ .. , ~, 1µ'~ , _~~ '_~ `fit' ,1 ~~ R ~ / i ~ ` .~ ~ x ~ '/ Y _~ ' ,.,~ ~- tit .. ~ ~ ..,,,a ^/t ~~ / _ '~_~-.~ .` ;, -. - ,._ __ ... _. .. ~ _ f _ _. ~- • _- -- _ T , _ _ ` Y a r ~_ j i. `~ . .. ! - .x ~. - ~ : ~ _ ~, ~ ~ ] _ ~~ ~ •1---r _ -__ ~ _ _ - _ _ _ _ 'sM~... \ i ~~ ' ~ i II I _ ~ f _ , S C A L E 1'.1800' ,~ City of SoYtk San Francisco EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAN ` of FIGURE 43 Known Geotechnicat Hazards in the Study Area B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I ATE S EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDfI'[ONS REPORT GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS been designed at 2H:1V, with benches at about 20 foot intervals (measured vertically). The slopes are almost entirely vegetated with grasses and occasional shrubs and small trees. In some places, irrigation is provided. On some of the cut slopes there are concentrations of bushes, probably indicating areas where groundwater seeps from the slope. Where the area above a slope has not been developed, a concrete drainage channel has been installed along the crest of the slope to prevent precipitation runoff flowing down the slope. The channels have also been installed on some of the benches. Where the area above a slope has been developed, a curb has been laid along the crest of the slope to serve the same purpose. No channeling of runoff down the slopes was noted. However, several drainage pipes were observed extending down the slopes to carry runoff to lower levels. At the south side of the Genentech buildings, additional level ground has been created by excavating a few feet into the toe of the slope, and constructing a retaining wall a few feet high. The wall appears to be in good condition and the stability of the slope unaffected. On the basis of a preliminary visual reconnaissance, the cut slopes appear to be in good condition with no evidence of sloughing or other slope instability. In particular, a spot-check of the asphalt pavement of parking areas at the too of the slope revealed no craclring o~ linear patching, which would indicate lateral slope movemen~. Dames ~ Mloore~s assessm:.nt is that the slopes nave been correctly designed and a detailed drainage network has been installed. Future development of the area, where grading is required or where a site has to be re-graded by cutting slopes, should proceed along similar lines. b. Fill Slopes. The main fill slopes are associated with the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial/Office Park in the north-central area. The higher sections of the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes area are built on this fill. The fill slopes have heights up to about 40 feet, and also appear to be constructed at a slope of 2H:1 V. The fill slopes are not benched, but are vegetated with grasses and bushes. Where the fill slope is highest, site development has been held back about 100 feet from the crest of the slope, and this setback diminishes with the height of fill slope. A drainage ditch has been formed close to the slope crest where the fill is highest. Two channels have been constructed on the slope face to allow runoff to flow from this ditch down the slope without damaging the slope. The ditch eventually leads down the slope to a gravel filled catch basin, from where the runoff flows to a channelized outfall into the Bay for stormwater runoff. Where parking areas encroach on the crest of the slope, curb has generally been laid to prevent runoff from flowing down the slope. II-210 Mqy lggg EAST OF I01 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS On the basis of the preliminary visual reconnaissance, the fill slopes also appear to be in good condition, with no evidence of sloughing or other slope instability. The placement procedures for this Ell are not known, and it cannot be determined if the material close to the face of the slope was compacted or in some other way stabilized prior to vegetation becoming established. If additional fill slopes are required, they should be designed by a geotechnical engineer, and should incorporate, at a minimum, densification of the outer sections of the slope close to the face. Drainage schemes similar to those currently in place should also be included in future work. c. SloQe Instability. There are only two small areas where slope instability was noted in the study area. Both are close to the Fuller-O'Brien Paint Factory. North of the Marine Magnesium access road, which runs on the north side of the paint factory, there is a fenced area containing a single storage tank. The area has been cut into the original hillside in two directions, northwest and northeast, probably to obtain borrow material for filling elsewhere. Although the area was not accessible for close inspection, the bank appears to be sand and is steeper than, other trimmed slopes in the area. Surficial sloughing has occurred in several s~Iall areas of the slope, and nil?ing (erosion.) from er,::Ipitati::c :z:roff is visible along moss of tae: score. V~"ater has p~nded against the slope indicating the occurr°nce of less permeable material underlying the sand. The slope is vegetated, but only with sparse grass, since the sand is not capable of producing and maintaining a dense cover of vegetation. The slope steepness, lack of vegetation, impermeable layer and lack of runoff control have contributed to the condition of the slope. If this area is developed in the future, the slope configuration, slope protection and drainage should be designed by a geotechnical engineer in accordance with the techniques incorporated into the stable slopes in other parts of the subject area. At the south end of the Marine Magnesium property, where it abuts the Fuller-O'Brien property, it appears that sand fill has been placed to extend the level area of the Marine Magnesium property. The slope visible from the access gate is about 15 feet high and is currently standing at about 1H:1V. There are sections of the slope without vegetative cover, and sloughed material is visible at the base of the slope. The sloughed sand is being distributed over the flat area at the base of the slope by runoff. Future development should ensure that such grade changes are designed by a geotechnical engineer. II-211 EAST OF 101 AREA PL.P-N MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS 3. Landfills Prior to the 1970s, public and private landfills were operated in the study area to dispose of refuse and to increase the area available for development. Aerial photographs from the mid-1950s show extensive activity in this regard in the Oyster Point/Point San Bruno area; landfills are also known to have occurred on the Koll property. Figure 43 indicates the approximate areas of known landfills in the study area. Former sanitary landfills in the study area represent special geotechnical problems because their settlement is greater and more unpredictable than that of standard fill, and because they release both fluid and methane gas, as organic matter in them decomposes. Study and remediation of sanitary landfills will be necessary before additional development occurs. 4. Landslides Apart from the two areas noted in the section above, there was no evidence of instability in either the cut or fill slopes in the study area. There would therefore appear to be little likelihood of landslides due to heavy precipitation or erosion. However, a major seismic event may trigger localized sloughing or slurping in the fill slopes. Such damage would likely be concentrated in areas of loose fill, if they exist, and could easily be repaired. The higher areas are generally bedrock outcrops or firmer soils and are not prone to landslides. Minor sloughing or spalling of exposed weathered rock may occur infrequently but is unlikely to interfere with activities in the area. The low-lying shoreline is classified by the U.S. Geological Survey as having "unstable" slope conditions, as are most areas along the margins of the Bay. Although shoreline slopes are less than 5 percent, the tidelands and marshlands underlain by the soft Recent Bay Mud are susceptible to lateral spreading; a type of ground movement in which material having a very low shear strength slides along a relatively flat surface. This movement may be triggered by strong ground shaking. 5. Liquefaction Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction during strong ground shaking are loose, clean, fine sands, and silts that are free of clay. In addition, these materials must be below the groundwater table (saturated) for liquefaction to occur. Geotechnical investigations in the vicinity have not, for the most part, encountered such material within the Recent Bay Mud. Any sand layers appear to be predominantly medium dense to dense silty and clayey sands. ~^' II-212 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA P1AN EXISTING CONDI'I10NS REPORT GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS However, San Mateo County has mapped the Recent Bay Mud as having "variable" liquefaction potential, because it contains, or in places is underlain by, sand lenses that are saturated and may have relatively high liquefaction potential. In this regard, settlement of up to 4 inches was reported at San Francisco International Airport's wastewater treatment plant at the southeast extremity of the subject area, after the October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Therefore, while seismically-induced liquefaction may not be widespread, the risk of it occurring within the study area does exist. Geotechnical investigations should therefore examine this aspect, and take appropriate measures if liquefiable material is found. Seismic liquefaction causes movement along shallow and relatively flat failure planes in Recent Bay Mud and substantially reduces the shear strength of the liquefied soil. Failures generally occur along creek beds or in coastal areas where there is an abrupt change in elevation and where liquefiable soil layers slope towards this change in elevation. Since the Recent Bay Mud is classified as "variable" in terms of seismic liquefaction potential, failures would be localized, increasing in frequency with earthquake intensity. This type of failure would likely be restricted to a strip within 100 feet of the creek bank or shore. historic ground failure pattenls indicate that earthquake-induced lateral spreading has occurred in the area south of San Bruno Avenue just west of Highway IOi, outside bu*. in the general viciniy of the subject area. 6. Ground Shaking Historic earthquakes have caused strong ground shaking and damage in the area. The maximum expected ground shaking intensity is Mercalli VIII, described as: "Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, ...walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water ..." An intensity of ground shaking up to and including this level should be expected during major earthquakes, and buildings should be designed accordingly. II-213 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EX1STiNG CONDITIONS REPORT GEOTECHNICAI. FACTORS 7. Fault Rupture Hazards In addition to strong ground shaking, surface fault rupture also may present a hazard for the study area along the Coyote Point Fault zone. The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) has established requirements for the siting of structures intended for human occupancy within special zones along faults that have moved during the past 11,000 years and have sufficiently well defined geomorphic evidence of recent activity. Development within these zones, referred to as Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones, requires that geologic investigations be conducted to determine whether an active trace of a fault lies under a specific building site, and recommended fault set-back requirements be provided if a trace is identified. These requirements apply to faults that have been evaluated by the CDMG in accordance with provisions of the Alquist-Priolo legislation. The recently identified Coyote Point fault zone has not been evaluated by CDMG and is not currently scheduled for review. However, the preliminary data compiled by the USGS suggest that the offshore Coyote Point fault may connect with the onshore Hillside fault, and could create surface rupture hazards. The available evidence suggests that a surfacc; fault rupture hazard exists within a significant portion of the East of 101 Area. This area has been defined by a projection of the Hillside fault, since offshore data indicate that the Bay deposits on the north side of the offshore projection of the Hillside fault have not been affected by faulting. Based on this information, the potential surface fault rupture hazard on the north side of the Hillside fault trend may be significantly lower than to the south of the Hillside fault along the Coyote Point fault zone. Because the locations of specific active fault traces within the Coyote Point fault zone are not known, additional geologic evaluations may have to be conducted prior to site-specific development to assess the location and activity of potential fault traces and to develop fault set-back requirements, if needed. In the area south of the Hillside fault trend it is likely that trenching or other appropriate geologic investigations will have to be performed by a qualified geologist to evaluate whether an active fault trace crosses a specific site. If an active fault trace is identified, fault setbacks would be required for habitable structures; setbacks are typically on the order of 50 feet from the trace of an active fault. s II-214 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PIAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS It would be possible for the City of South San Francisco to establish a fault zone through a City Ordinance after preliminary study of the area for onshore extension of the faults. This fault zone would be similar to an Alquist-Priolo Zone; however, the State would not adopt the fault zone until it was established by the CDMG through a fault evaluation report. A preliminary study would cost between S20,000 and 540,000, and take two to three months. Subsequent study to pinpoint faults could be required if faults exist in undeveloped areas. If no faults were identified, the need for a special fault zone would be eliminated. II-215 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT GEOTECHNICAI. FACTORS MAY 1993 ,~''~ .. II-216 Chapter 13 BIOLOGIC RESOURCES This chapter describes known biological resources in the East of 101 Area. It relies on several sources, including the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society's (GNPs) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Smith and Berg, 1988), and the Wildlife Habitat Relationships (WHR) Data Base of the California Departments of Fish & Game (CDFG) and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. In addition, CDFG biologists were consulted to assess potential biological issues of concerns, and cone-day site reconnaissance was conducted on March 5, 1993 to visually verify information identified in the above mentioned records search. No in-depth field surveys were conducted. Det7nitians for terms used in this chapter can be fottnd in the glassary at the end of cnis repr.t~. A. Environmental Regulations A detailed discussion of regulatory requirements for plants, wildlife and wetlands is included in Appendix F. 1. Special Status Plants Sensitive plant species consist of State and federally listed plants, federal candidates for listing, and California species of special concern. Listed species include those recognized by the federal government as threatened or endangeredl, and/or by the State government as rare, threatened or 1 USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1991. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species; notice of review. Federal Register SS:6184-6229 No. 35. February. II-217 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT BIOLOGIC RESOURCES endangered2. Federal candidates for listing include taxa which are currently under consideration as threatened or endangered. Plant species of special concern are taxa included in any four categories of sensitivity developed by the CNDDB3. Plants on the CNPS List 1B are considered rare and endangered in California. Those on the remaining CNPS lists do not have the same degree of rarity and vulnerability. These lists include: List 2 (plants rare in California, but common elsewhere), List 3 (plants about which more information is needed), and List 4 (plants of limited distribution - a watch list). In this chapter, plant species are also considered that qualify under the definition of "Rare" in the California Environmental Quality Act, section 15380. 2. Special Status Wildlife Sensitive animal species consist of State and federally listed species, federal candidates for listing, and California species of special concern. Listed species include those designated by the federal and/or State governments as threatened or endangered4. Federal candidates include taxa which are currently under consideration for federal listing as threatened or endangereds. California species of special concern are taxa included on the list of regionally declining wildli fe6. 3. Wetlands Protection Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act regulates discharge of fill material into "waters of the United States", which include wetlands. The U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers (COE) must issue a permit for any project that proposes 2 California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division. 1992a. Designated Endangered, "Threatened, or Rare Plants and Candidates with Official Listing Dates. Endangered Plant Program. 3 Smith, J. P., Jr. and K Berg. 1988. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. 1 (Forth Edition). 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Endangered and "Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 50 CFR 17.11, 17.12. August 1992. 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Endangered and "Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or 'Threatened Species, Proposed Rule. SO CFR Part 17. 21 November 1991. 6 CDFG (California Department of Fish & Game), 1991. 1990 annual report on the status of California's listed threatened and endangered plants and animals. The Resources Agenry, Sacramento, CA. II-218 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA P[.AN EXISTING CONDfTIONS REPORT BIOLOGIC RESOURCES 611ing wetlands. Filling of less than one acre of wetland requires no formal notification of the COE. To determine whether a wetland exists that would be subject to COE jurisdiction a wetland delineation must be performed to determine jurisdictional wetlands. B. Existing Biotic Resources The majority of plant communities and wildlife habitat within the project area is moderately to highly disturbed as a result of industrial and commercial development and landscaping. Most of the remaining undeveloped or relatively undisturbed portion of the area consists of non-grasslands in vacant lots, and tidal wetlands and mudflats along the perimeter of San Francisco Bay and banks of existing drainages. Therefore, almost all sensitive biological resources in the study area are related to wetlands. San Bruno Mountain, a recognized habitat for many sensitive plant and animal species, is northwest of the project area but separated from it by U.S. Highway 101. Sensitive habitat and species on the mountain are not expected to be affected by proposed activities within the project area. 1. Vegetati+-n The natural areas of vegetation within the study area include three vegetation types: Non-Native Grassland, Northern Coastal Salt Marsh, and Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, as described by Holland in his Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. In addition, some seasonal wetlands were identified in the study area. Vegetation types are shown on Figure 44. Landscaped areas in the study area consist of exotic plant communities, which are not described by Holland or considered to be important biotic resources. a. Non-Native Grassland. Non-Native Grassland vegetation consists of annual grasses and herbs, which grow primarily during the winter and spring months. Within the study area, non-native grassland occurs in historically disturbed sites, such as fields and vacant lots in the northwestern portion of the study area, and are dominated by introduced non-native annual species. Common and characteristic species include wild oats (Avena barbata), soft- chess brome (Bromus mollis), fillaree (Erodium spp.), barley (Hordeum spp.), and wild rye (Lolium multiflorum). Non-Native Grassland intergrades with ruderal vegetation throughout the study area. Ruderal vegetation is a common component in Non-Native Grasslands and consists of annual and perennial herbs and grasses that occupy currently II-219 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT BIOLOGIC RESOURCES MAY 1993 ~`•. and previously disturbed sites. Ruderal vegetation often occurs on vacant lots and along roadsides subject to continuous disturbance from maintenance activities. These disturbed areas are dominated by common, invasive and weedy plant species, including yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitalis), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), and anise (Foeniculum vulgare). In some less frequently disturbed sites, coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), a common component of coastal scrub, has began to colonize the site. b. Northern Coastal Salt Marsh. Northern Coastal Salt Marsh is a highly productive, herbaceous, and suffrutescent assemblage of salt-tolerant hydrophytes, which form a moderate to dense cover up to three feet tall. Most of the plant species in this community grow during the summer and are dormant in winter. A distinctive elevational zonation pattern is characteristic in this type of marsh, with cordgrass (Spatina spp.) occurring near open water, and a dense cover of pickleweed (Salicornia spp.) replacing the cordgrass at the mean high water line. The diversity of species in this community increases on slightly higher ground and along tidal sloughs, with plants such as rushes (Juncos spp.), silverweed (Potentilla spp.), jaumea (Jaumea spp.), and gumplant (Grindelia app.) occurring as likely components. This plant community is usually found along sheltered inland margins of oays, lagoons, and estuaries, where hyd:ic soils are subject to regular tidal inundation by salt water for at least part of each year. Northern Coastal Salt Marsh occurs within the study area along the Bay margin and the banks of drainages exposed to tidal action, including Colma Creek. This salt marsh community is most prevalent in the southern portion of the study area. Much of the marsh has been fragmented and degraded in the past from development, drainage alteration, dredging, and dumping. c. Coastal and Valle~Freshwater Marsh. The Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh community is dominated by perennial, emergent monocots in areas that are permanently flooded with freshwater. Prolonged saturation of the soil permits accumulation of deep, peaty soils8. Vegetation can be up to 15 feet tall and is usually dominated by cattails (Typha spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.). ~ ESA (Environmental Science Associates, Inc.). 1991a. Alameda County Congestion Management Program Environmental Impact Report. September. ~ Holland. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of F'~sh & Game, Nongame Heritage Program. October 1986. II-220 ~, LEGEND ~ [ -- - ~; SM North Coastal Salt Marsh ~ t FM Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh ~~ SW Seasonal Wetland ~ MF MF Mud Flats SM EST Esturine ~~"~~~ _, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. - f f 1IIF ~, b~ ~ ll t y l ~ :e~ _ ~ •~ _i ~~, ~~ ~ ',~ ., , I :r .,, ,. ,. -~ (7 ~ r ~ ,y ~ ~. f, ~~ ~f1'~r- ~ ~~ f + ~ 4,l ~ Iq ~ rte' ~ / ~ p C~ r/ ~~ Y \ / r ~, . .. / _ ' • ~ . •,~ ,, - ~~ / .~ ~ Mf' r~/ / ./ f lSl GII MO •Y[ `~ \ ~~~+~/"' /' \ ? 4 t.- ~ 'J. fns ( ~oi i - ~~..~ ~. •' - ~ t ~" ~ ~ x P / - .._r 1 1 ~ ! ., J i ~~ f1 ~_~~ ~~~~ ~ .. I~' ~ ~ ~ ~ --- ~i~ F ~ ~ 1 1 ~~~ ~ ~ -- - l ue _. _ . J ~ ~,~ ~',' ~r ,,~ j~ ,I~ ;~j ~ ~ ~~° i /~ r. ~. 1 m ~ ,1 ~ ~' ~ - \~~ ~ ,. , ~c~~ ice, .,,,...,,,. ~,.,,,.~~..~; ~.t:~iz I ~~ ~ 'I ~ ~• ~ ~_ e~ PV ~ ye- ^aqp ~al._ ~+~ / ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ ' ~ ~~ '~~~~ Ali ~ sg 1 I ~' `.,,~~ ~~ ..~, ~ ; , ~, :,. s ~ e>~y ~s~~x. ~ 1 ~~ ~ I ( S ~;;~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ' ~~ 1 ~ M t,„ t :l h .~~'~ ~ k ~~ . ,. l :, ~1 I t. I ~ PI - ` 1 t ~1~~ ~ ~ I 1 •~~ t -_` ~I it , ~ ~ _ .~ ~~~ ' ~ t~,r~ -~~ ~~ ~ ~ - , -.± a ~~ I ,~ ,1 ~ N •IIOMO [Nll Wit : ~1 ~ \~I~~ III ' ~ ~, _ - - i~ ,I ;i Source: Dames do Mcwre and National Wetland Inventory Map ': ~' 1~pp.. F y ~ u4f3 ~' } j ~ ga s a / M1 y ~ ~';a 4 a ~. >a . ~~~,. i .. ~:~..~. kv r 1. Note: 'llle ma ority of the pproject arw ounsists of Urban ~labitat (URII) and some Annual Grassland Ilabitat (ACS) occurring in open fields. S C A l E I'•I700' a soo taoa Zoav EA5T ~F AREA PI~'~N City o~ South Sn.n Francisco FIGURE 44 Sensitive QilogicAl Resources B R A U Y A N D A S S O C I A 'f 8 S [ L ~ N M ~ [ [ • N • [ • N ~ 1 c • f ^ • \ C ~ 1 i ~ i i [ MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDI'I70NS REPORT B10LOGIC RESOURCES In the study area, this plant community occurs at only one location, near the abandoned wharf on the Shearwater site. This vegetation occurs in and adjacent to a small, concrete-lined, abandoned drainage ditch and consists almost exclusively of small, dense patches of cattails with a few small willows (Saliz spp.). d. Seasonal Wetlands. There are two seasonal wetlands in the study area. They are highly disturbed, artificial wetlands with sparse vegetative covering. A relatively large seasonal wetland occurs in the southwest corner of the study area near the Highway 101/I-380 interchange and consists of a salt marsh intergrading into a freshwater wetland in higher areas. A small wetland also occurs at the southeast corner of the study area on the perimeter of the Airport property.9 2. Wildlife and Habitat The majority of the study area is currently developed, limiting the quantity and quality of undisturbed wildlife habitat. A total of 229 terrestrial vertebrate species (6 amphibians, 16 reptiles, 159 birds, and 48 mammals) are predicted t;~ oc:.ur w~tilin or in the immediate vic:zity of the project area, as described in fables 25 and ?6. B~~ a,.d large, ioc~l wilalite Populations consist of species adapted to grasslands, freshwater or saline wetlar..ds. or ~stt;arine :yaoitat. Urba;l areas also provide lour-quality habitat for some wildlife species. The remnant wetlands that fringe some portions of the San Francisco Bay and the estuarine habitat of the Bay itself comprise the only moderate to high quality habitat for wildlife in the study area. Wildlife habitats are depicted on Figure 44 and are described below using A Guide To Wildlife Habitats Of California.10 These wildlife habitats are similar, but not identical, to the vegetation communities described above. Table 27 shows the relationship between vegetation communities and wildlife habitats in the study area. a. Annual Grassland. Annual Grassland habitat typically consists of a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses, often associated with numerous species of annual and perennial (orbs. These grasslands grow actively during the winter and spring, while remaining dormant during summer and early fall, 9 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). 1985. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April. 10 Mayer, KE., and W.F. Laudenslayer. 1988. A Guide to the Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 166 pp. II-223 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT BIOLOGIC RESOURCES ,~" -. Table ZS t THE NUMBER OF PREDICTED SPECIES OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES WITHIN THE MAJOR HABITATS OF THE PROJECT AREA Habitat Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals Total Grasslands 5 15 83 40 143 Freshwater Emergent 4 7 87 24 122 Wetland Saline Emergent 0 0 79 13 92 Wetland Urban 4 2 88 32 126 Estuarine 0 0 85 3 88 and persisting as seed until conditions are favorablz for germination. The Annual Grasslands within the stucy area xcur in combination with rude: al vegetation in vacant lots adjacent to commercial and industrial development. All grassland areas are heavily disturbed, a substantial portion of the vegetation is ruderal or barren, and fragmented by development. Amphibian and reptile species common to this habitat include California slender salamander, western toad, Pacific treefrog, coast horned lizard, western skink, western fence lizard, racer, common kingsnake, western aquatic, western terrestrial, and common garter snakes. The ample seed source produced by the Annual Grassland, along with its insect life, provides food for birds such as killdeer, long-billed curlew, rock dove, mourning dove, white-throated swift, Lewis' woodpecker, northern flicker, black phoebe, Say's phoebe, cliff swallow, tree swallow, barn swallow, loggerhead shrike, rufous-crowned, savannah, and lark sparrows, American crow, northern mockingbird, European starling, western meadowlark, Brewer's blackbird, pine siskin, lesser and American goldfinches. Small mammals are also prevalent in these grassland habitats. Such species as the vagrant shrew, ornate shrew, black-tailed jackrabbit, bush rabbit, Botta's pocket gopher, western harvest mouse, deer mouse, pinyon mouse, house II-224 F a 0 C. LL1 H Z z O U V Z F- K w L Q, ILl cc. O F H ii7 x N a J J O .~ O m J z x x U J O ::. O ...a :-~ Z .i. ~ h .. y ~r ~ r~.i ~ ~ ~1 ~.1 3 :J ~^^ ~..1 .a .. 3 x Q rw w Z F x y 0°OG X X X X >G X x X X F X x x x x X x ~ .. w X ~ X x x X x :c X X x X X X X X X X X X X ( f ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ f I ~ 1 ~- i 9 e.i h {' i~ y 7 E ~ ~ v~ to ~ ~ y r ~ O C ~ ~ 0~ ~, E C r ~ Z z` _ ~_ ~ a, ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ± ~ ~ h ~ y ' ~ y N ~` Q y .~ Q :r C V C O ~ ~ ~ -v0 N ~. ~ O h ~ ~ ~ v '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = y ~ ~ C Q ~ v h C y ~ ~ 0~ 01 v ~ U O ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ O ~ ~ 0 ~ g c Y C H ~ g o E Z Q ~ e ~ ~ Y ~ a9i ~ ce tr L C v 3 L z 3 ~ Z r h ~ E ~ v~ y v> 7 ~+ L. y O ~ ~ C O C a. ~ o > ~ V ,O ~~ ~ ` Y 7 ~ V ~ c-vC co ~~, ~ ~ p z ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ O .J U ~ '. - y ~ ~ T ~ C7 _ td ~ C ~ C 8 ca a y ~ 3 'D ~ r op O ..~ ~~ ~_ a- e L. O (.] z p U Q ~_ x~~ z v ~ J U Z C7 ~ y O O ttl W m x x x =' F a x x m r., x x x x x x x H ~ U r 0 ~ ~ Z u ~ .. a .~ ~ ~o ti -~_ ~. ~ .~ ~ ~ '~ t ~ a, o ~ ~a ~ .~ ~` o C 7 Y h d ~ r C ~.. C ~ E v v ~ ca Gb N C ~. ~ a~ 3 Y y ~ ~. '~. ~ ~ m V 6) ~ u ~ ~ F= :a R T a z 3 .C a~ O N m 9 C ~O c 3 ~ :v a~i ~ m3 ~ w C~ ~ ~ a~ R 3 ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~~'~~~ v33 a~~~:~ C N a N ~ ~ ~ y y ego a°i ~ ~ ~ ~ cp '~ 'fl :D y O W ~ ,.3 ~ ~~ c0 T ~, 7~ R R ~C v i0 :v ~ ~ v ~,~„ u i O ° ° ~ cs.~iyUUU L U L' O J 'u ~. 0 H N ., :o .C F-~ 5; U GWr. Gc. i, vii vFi U U ~o N N r1 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT BIOLOGIC RESOURCES Table 27 WILDLIFE HABITATS AND CORRESPONDING PLANT COMMUNITIES OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA Wildlite (WHR) Habitats' Terrestrial Plant Communitiesb Urban None Annual Grassland Non-Native Grassland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Coastal and Valley Fresh Marsh Saline Emergent Wetland Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Estuarine None a Mayer, KE., and W.F. Laudensiayer. 1988. A Guide to the tdrildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. b Holland. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish & Game, Nongame Heritage Program. October 1986. m~~.~se, California g~aund squirrel, and ~aiif~rnia ~ pie either burrow in the soil or t~uilc i-ests anC runways ,-.rough ±he roller Grasses in search of small insects and seeds. Bats, such as the little brown, Yuma, and California myotis, big brown bat, red bat, pallid bat, western pipestrelle, and Brazilian free-tailed bat may forage over this open habitat. Abundant populations of small birds and mammals also attract predatory birds and mammals such as the common barn owl, merlin, American kestrel, red- tailed hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, short-eared owl, black-shouldered kite, gray fox, long-tailed weasel, badger, striped skunk, and bobcat. b. Saline Emergent Wetland. Saline Emergent Wetland habitats are salt or brackish marshes, consisting mostly of perennial grasses and fortis that are often succulent and suffrutescent. This habitat occurs above intertidal sand and mud flats and below upland communities not subject to tidal action. This wetland habitat provides food, cover, nesting and roosting habitat for a variety of resident and migratory bird species, as well as habitat for many mammal, reptile, and amphibian species. The Saline Emergent Wetland habitat occurs prirnarily in the southern portion of the study area along the fringe of the Bay and banks of creeks and drainages that are open to tidal action. Several reptile species frequent the II-227 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT BIOLOGIC RESOURCES edge of high marshlands, such as western fence lizard and common garter snake. Amphibians, including the Pacific treefrog and western toad likely occur in slightly brackish marshes or after heavy rains. Migrant, winter migrant and resident birds occur in this habitat, including the ruddy duck, mallard, Canada goose, gadwall, lesser scaup, cinnamon teal, California black rail, great blue heron, snowy egret, virginia rail, American coot, common yellowthroat, marsh wren, common barn owl, western kingbird, Belding's savannah sparrow, tree swallow, red-winged blackbird, Brewster's blackbird, and western meadowlark. As this habitat is regularly inundated, small mammals populations are limited and occur primarily on marsh margins. Typical small mammals include the western harvest mouse, California vole, and house mouse. c. Fresh Emergent Wetland. Fresh Emergent Wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted herbaceous hydrophytes. Dominant vegetation is generally perennial monocots. All emergent wetlands are flooded frequently by freshwater, allowing the roots of the vegetation to prosper in an anaerobic environment. The vegetation may vary in size from small clumps to vast areas. One narrow freshwater wetland occurs along and adjacent to a small drainage ditch near an abandoned wharf in the northwest portion of the study area. This wetland occurs in a highly disturbed area and is probably too small and fragmented to function as a typic:.i wetland habitat and support wildlife species unique to a wetland environment. However, wildlife species present in the surrounding Annual Grassland and Urban habitats probably frequent this wetland. Reptile and amphibian species that may occur include the California tiger salamander, Pacific treefrog, western toad, bullfrog, western pond turtle, racer, gopher snake, common garter snake, western terrestrial garter snake, and western aquatic garter snake. A number of bird species use this habitat for food, cover, and foraging, including the pied-billed grebe, American bittern, great egret, Canada goose, green-winged teal, northern pintail, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, merlin, American kestrel, rough-legged hawk, western meadowlark, American coot, burrowing owl, common barn owl, turkey vulture, black-shouldered kite, norther harrier, sharp-shinned hawk, red-shouldered hawk, peregrine falcon, western kingbird, tree swallow cliff swallow, tree swallow, red-winged blackbird, Brewster's blackbird, white-throated swift, belted kingfisher, western kingbird, northern flicker, black phoebe, and lesser goldfinch. Small mammals that can be found in these habitats include the Virginia opossum, vagrant shrew, ornate shrew, shrew-mole, black-tailed jackrabbit, Botta's pocket gopher, western harvest mouse, deer mouse, California ground squirrel, pinyon mouse, and California vole. Additionally, several bats forage II-228 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PI11N EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT BIOLOGIC RESOURCES over this habitat including little broom myotis, Yuma myotis, California myotis, big brown bat, red bat, western pipistreUe, and Brazilian free-tailed bat. d. Estuarine. Estuarine habitats occur on periodically and permanently flooded substrates and open water portions of semi-enclosed coastal waters, where tidal seawater is diluted by flowing fresh water. The various physiological stresses exerted in the estuarine environment, especially those related to changing salinities, result in natural communities that are low in species richness but high in density for many bottom dwelling organisms. This creates a food source for many higher order animal species. This habitat provides for reproduction, feeding, resting, and cover for many species of birds. The Estuarine habitat in or adjacent to the study area consists of shallow waters and mud flats of the Bay adjacent to the Saline Emergent Wetland habitat. This habitat is utilized by many bird species in conjunction with Saline Emergent Wetland habitats and deeper waters of the Bay. Estuarine habitats in the study area occur primarily south of Point San Bruno, in intertidal and open water areas. Water environments provide the primary habitat for a number of water birds such as mallard, ring-neck duck, northern pintail, American white pelican, Canada goose, spotted sandpiper, and California gull, iNestern gull, Forster's tern, common tern, American bittern, snowy plover, pied-billed grebe, eared grebe, western grebe, double cresce:i cormorant, great blue heron. black-crowned night heron, green-winged teat, northern shoveler, gadwall, canvasback, redhead, lesser scaup, and common goldeneye. e. Urban. The structure of Urban habitat varies with vegetation type and frequency of maintenance activities. Urban areas include residential, commercial and industrial developments, roadways and shoulders, and other highly disturbed sites. Factors contributing to the establishment of Urban habitat include a number of conditions commonly encountered in areas with a relatively large human population. Most urban vegetation is relatively static in species composition because of frequent maintenance. Unmaintained urban areas are eventually invaded by exotic and native species. Many areas throughout the project area are urbanized or highly disturbed, making the Urban habitat type the dominant wildlife habitat in the study area. Ruderal, urban, and landscaped areas support common opportunistic wildlife species, such the Norway rat, house mouse, and Botta's pocket gopher. Common bird species include the rock dove, European starling, house sparrow, American robin, Brewer's blackbird, house finch, Anna's hummingbird, northern mockingbird, and mourning dove. II-229 EAST OF I01 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT BIOLOGIC RESOURCES 3. Special Status Species a. Plants. Twelve rare and endangered plant species are known to occur in the San Francisco South USGS Quadrangle and are listed in Table 28. Only two of these species were identified by the CNDDB or CDFG as known to occur in or near the study area. In addition, CDFG identified the saltmarsh bird's beak as potentially occurring in the area, although it has not been found in the study area before. Serpentine rock formations also occur in the study area, and some rare plants are associated with serpentine in the Bay Area. However, the identified sensitive species are not restricted to serpentine soils. The three special status species that could occur in the area are described below. Surveys for these species should be conducted in areas with habitat suitable for them before development occurs in these habitat areas. San Francisco Owl's Clover (Orthoca-pus floribundas). The San Francisco owl's clover is a 4 to 12 inch tall annual plant with white or cream colored flowers that blooms in April and May. This clover occurs in coastal prairies, grasslands, and northern coastal scrub from San Mateo to Marin Countiesll This plant is in the federal category 2 for listing and on the CNPS list 1B. There are three known occurrences of fan Francisco owl's clover in the San Francisco South Quadrangle, two of which may be located in the study area12. However, indications are that all remnants of this species may have already been forced out of the study area. One known location of the clover was at San Bruno Point, where the most recent recorded observation was in 1965. Substantial development in the area has occurred since that time, so it is unlikely that any suitable habitat for this species remains. Another population occurs along the western border of the study area and may extend into the study area. The CNDDB is not specific on the location of this population, although it is probably located on San Bruno Mountain, separated from the study area by U.S. Highway 101. The grasslands that occur in the study area are highly disturbed and are unlikely to provide suitable habitat for San Francisco owl's clover. 11 Munz, P.A. and D.D. Keck. 1973. A California Flora and Supplement. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 12 CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Data Base). 1992b. RAREFIND data base search for sensitive plants and animals of the San Francisco South USGS 7.5' quadrangle. December 28. .- II-230 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDfI70NS REPORT BIOLOGIC RESOURCES Table 28 RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO SOUTH QUADRANGLE Listing Status Taxon Federal State CNPS CARYOPHYLLACEAE: Silene verecwrda var. verecunda Category 2 - 1B (San Francisco tampion) ERICACEAE: Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp franciscana Category 2 - 1B (Presidio manzanita) Arctostaphylos hookeri var. ravenii Endangered Endangered IB (Presidio manzanita) Arctostaphylos imbrirata ssp imbricata Category 1 Endangered 1B (San Bruno Mountain manzanita) Arctcstapir•!os imbricc:ra ssr~ montaraensis Candidate 2 - 1B (Montara manzanita) Arctostaphylos pacifca Category 3B Endangered 1B (Pacific manzanita) SCROPHULARIACEAE: Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus Endangered Endangered 1B (Saltmarsh bird's beak) prt~~~ floribundas Category 2 - 1B (San Francisco owl's clover) APIACEAE: Sanicula maritima Category 2 Rare - (adobe sanicle) ASTERACEAE: Grindelia maritima Category 2 - - (San Francisco gumplant) Helianthella castenea Category 2 - 1B (Diablo helianthella) II-231 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1943 EXISTING CONDiT10NS REPORT BIOLOGIC RESOURCES Elating Status Taxon Federal State CLAPS lessingia gernwnonun var. grrmanonun Category 1 Endangered - (San Francisco lessingia) Pentachaeta be!lediflora Category 2 Endangered IB (white-rayed pentachaeta) Listing Status Categories Federal Endangered Taxa of special concern at the federal level. or Threatened = Federal Candidate 1 = Taxa for which the USFWS has sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Candidate 2 =Taxa for which existing information indicates that listing may be warranted, but for which substantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking. Federal Candidate 3B = Taxa that have proven to be more abundant than previousty thought. They have been withdrawn from candidary for Federal listing. California Rare, Designated species pursuant to Section 1904 (Native Plant Protection Endangered =Act of 1977), and Section 2072.7 (California Endangered Species Act of 1984). CLAPS List 1 =A) Plants prescmed extinct in California; B) plants about which information is needed. Diablo Helianthella (Helianthella castanea). The Diablo helianthella is a perennial herb with asemi-woody stem, which grows from 8 to 18 inches tall, and has a yellow composite flower. This member of the sunflower family blooms between April to May13. It occurs in grasslands, foothill woodlands, and chaparral of the San Francisco Bay region, and is a federal category candidate 2 and CLAPS list 1B species. There are three known occurrences of Diablo helanthella in the San Francisco South Quadrangle, but none of them is in the study area itself. One population occurs on the northern border of the study area, and while the CNDDB is not specific on the location of this population, it is probably located on San Bruno Mountain near Sierra Point. There is no woodland or chaparral habitat for the helianthella in the study area, and the grassland habitat that could support this species in the study area is highly disturbed and probably unsuitable for this species. 13 Munz, P.A. and D.D. Keck. 1973. A California Flora and Supplement. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. II-232 MAY 1993 E.~ST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING; CONDI110NS REPORT ~IOLOG(C RESOURCES Saltmarsh Bird's Beak (Corriylanthus maritimus sva. maritimus~. The Saltmarsh bird's beak is an 8 to 16 inch tall, annual plant with purple flowers blooming from May to October. It occurs in coastal salt marshes of California and Oregon. There are no known occurrences of this federal and State endangered, and CNPS list 1B species plant in the study area. However, it was identified by the CDFG as potentially occurring in the area, since Northern Coastal Salt Marshes in the area may be suitable habitat for the species. b. Sensitive Habitats. The San Francisco Bay and its associated wetlands provide valuable wildlife habitat for shellfish and other invertebrates, fish, ducks, wading birds, shorebirds, and small mammals. The Bay is the largest estuary along California's coastline, and the marshes associated with the Bay are part of the largest contiguous tidal marsh system on the Pacific Coast of North America. Varying degrees of soil salinity, combined with local topography, tidal inundation, and nutrient availability, contribute to a complex and varied system of marshland habitat, which supports diverse populations of plant and animal speciesla. Bay marshlands are an important link for migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway, which use Bay wetlands for resting and feeding. Migratory bird species include the snowy egret, great blue heron, and numerous species ~,f water fowl, ducks and geese. The salt marshes, particularly the pickleweed and cordgrass zones, have the potential to support cveral species listed under federal and State luw as endangered and threatened or that ha:~e otter protection. For all these reasons, remaining Bay marshlands and wetlands in the study area should be preserved. c. Wildlife. Five sensitive wildlife species were identified as likely to occur in the project area, based on records of sensitive animals compiled by the CNDDB and comments from a CDFG biologist. These species are discussed below and listed on Table 29. In addition, a review of literature of the South San Francisco region identified a total of 37 special status animals that are known to occur in the project vicinity or may be associated with the estuarine environment of the San Francisco Bay Area, and therefore could potentially occur in the project area. These species are not discussed in detail below, but are listed in Table 26. All sensitive wildlife species with potential to occur in the area are associated with wetland or estuarine habitats. If development occurs in or around such habitat, surveys for these species should be conducted in advance. la Dg,yl (Dames & Moore). 1991. Benicia-Martinez Bridge System Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. I~lovember. II-233 EAST OF l01 AREA PLAN EXISflNG CONDtI10NS REPORT BIOLOGIC RESOURCES Table 29 SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA' MAY 1993 Listing Status Species Federal State San Francisco forktail damselfly Category 2 - (Ischnurna gemina) San Francisco Garter Snake Endangered Endangered (Thannophis siralir tetratacnia) Sattmatsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis Category 2 Species of Special trichas sinosa) Concern California Clapper Rail Endangered Endangered (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) Salt marsh harvest mouse Endangered Endangered (Reitlvodontomys raviventris) Listing Status Categor^.es Federal Endangered Taxa of apecial concer:~ at the federal leval. or Threatened = Federal Candidate 2 =Taxa for which existing information indicates that listing may be warranted, but for which substantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking. aList of special status species based on records of sensitive animals compiled by the CNDDB, and comments from a CDFG biologist. San Francisco Forktail Damselfly (Ischnurna seminal. This federal candidate for Category 2 listing is associated with small seeps, shallow ponds and sluggish streams in the San Francisco Bay Area. Populations are discrete and are often separated from each other by several miles. The young are aquatic and predaceous. Most adults move tittle during there lives staying near aquatic vegetation and surrounding grasses and shrubsls No known populations of the damselfly occur in the study area. However, the Coastal Freshwater Marsh located at the northwestern portion of the study area has potentially suitable habitat for this species. 15 Hafernik, J.E. Jr. 1991. Invertebrate Survey of the Route of the Proposed Hickey Boulevard Extension, South Francisco, California. June 7. II-234 MAY 1993 EAST OE 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT BIOLOGIC RESOURCES San Francisco Garter Snake~Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). The State and federal endangered San Francisco garter snake is presently restricted to San Mateo County16 and inhabits dense vegetation that borders ponds and lakes. It is usually found in the vicinity of permanent water, although vernal ponds may be frequented in the spring. 'This snake is active throughout the year except during periods of cold weather. Its favorite food source are frogs. There are two known records for this federal category 2 for listing in the San Francisco South Quadrangle of which one is in the southwest corner of the study area in a wetland area dominated by low growing herbaceous vegetation. The Freshwater Marsh located at the northwestern portion of the study area also has potentially suitable habitat for this species. California Clapyer Rail (Rallus lonQirostris obsoletusl. The California clapper rail is a State and federal endangered species and typically inhabits tidal salt marshes broken up by tidal sloughs or creeks. It feeds on mollusks and forage on mud flats and along gently sloping banks of creeks, ditches, sloughs, or shorelines at low tides, and among the grasses in the marsh. Nests are usually in dense cover near water and built well above the high tide markl~. CNDDB records indicate that this species has occurred on small marshes near San Bn:no Point within the study area. The last CNDDB-recorded observation of the clapper rail was in 1975. Substantial development has occurred in the area since this time and the current presence of the species at this location is unknown. Suitable habitat for this species does occur along the tidal mudflats, tidal canals, and marshes located in the southern portion of the study area. Saltmarsh Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinosa). This bird inhabits swamps, marshes, and wet thickets and occurs along the coast of California and throughout the northern portion of the State. There are no known occurrences of this federal Category 2 for listing and California Species of Special Concern in the study area, but it was identified by CDFG as potentially occurring in the area. The Saline Emergent Wetland habitat that occurs in the study area may be suitable wintering habitat for the yellowthroat. 16 CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Data Base). 1992b. RAREFIND data base search for sensitive plants and animals of the San Francisco South USGS 7.5' quadrangle. December 28. 17 D&M (Dames Sc Moore). 1991. Benicia-Martinez Bridge System Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. November. T[-235 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTMG CONDITIONS REPORT BIOLOGIC RESOURCES MAY 1993 Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomvs raviventris). The salt marsh harvest mouse is a State and federal endangered species endemic to the Bay Area. It inhabits pickleweed-dominated salt marshes, although it has been found in upland habitats adjacent to marshes and in other wetland communities with little or no pickleweed18. There are no known occurrences of the species in the study area, but it was identified by CDFG as potentially occurring in the area. The Saline Emergent Wetland habitat that occurs in the study area may be suitable habitat for the harvest mouse. 18 ESA (Environmental Science Associates, Inc.). 1991b. New Benicia -Martinez Bridge project, Natural Environment Study, Final Report. September. II-236 Chapter 14 INFRASTRUCTURE ^ ^ The following chapter discusses the existing water, sewer, and communications systems in the East of 101 Area. The municipal systems described below do not serve the San Francisco International Airport. The Airport operates on a dual water system for both fire and domestic usage. In addition, they operate an industrial waste treatment plant and water quality control plant to treat all Airport waste. A. Water Supply 1. Existing Capacity The water supply for the East of : `.1 Area is provded by she Califorria Water Service Company's Peninsula District which obtains it's water from a purchasing agreement with the San Francisco Water Department and from ground water pumping. Their current contract with the San Francisco Water Department, which runs through the year 2009, entitles the California Water Service Company to 47,400 acre-feet of water per year, or 42.3 million gallons daily. Up to an additional 1,530 acre-feet per year can be pumped from goundwater. Thus the total supply of water available is 48,530 acre-feet per year or 43.3 million gallons daily. The District serves South San Francisco, San Carlos, San Mateo and the Bear Gulch area. There are no legal restrictions of the water allocation among these communities. South San Francisco water usage has decreased from 9,844 acre-feet in 1970 to 6,838 acre-feet in 1991. The average yearly usage has been 7,815 acre-feet for the past five years and 8,254 acre-feet for the past 10 years. The California Water Service Company projects their water demand for the year 2010 to be from a low of 37,300 acre-feet to a high of 41,800 acre-feet. Assuming the San Francisco Water Department contract allocation is not modified during the remaining contract period there is more than a ten percent cushion between the supply and the high projected demand. II-237 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT INFRASTRUCTURE A 1.5 million gallon reservoir (Reservoir 1) with a pump station (Station 6) is located at Point San Bruno in the planning area. The total water system consists of 12-inch water distribution lines in all major streets, as shown in Figure 45. Bioscience firms have not identified any special quality requirements needed from the water supply, however biotech manufacturers require large quantities of water. It would be possible for these firms to recycle water with the cooperation of the City. 2. Potential Improvements The City has been considering the possibility of cross connecting the 12-inch water supply at Marina Boulevard to that on Forbes Boulevard near the United Parcel site. This improvement appears to be possible, but may not be cost efficient since approximately 900 linear feet of pipe would be needed for this connection. The alignment of the installation would require crossing under existing pavement and a major storm drainage channel and climbing about ten to fifteen feet of hill. The pressure at Marina Boulevard might not improve significantly due to the friction loss and pressure head loss of th., new connection pipe. Further network study by California Water Service Company will be needed to identify the pressure improvement at Marina Boulevard due to this cross connection. In the current condition, the Marina Boulevard area does not experience low water pressure. California Water Service Company is considering the cross connection because of the liability associated with providing a loop system. The installation of the cross connection would only occur after the Gull Road, a planned street proposed by the City of South San Francisco and United Parcel, gets its approval. The Gull Road project is currently in the planning stages. B. Sanitary Sewer As shown in Figure 46, the Sanitary Sewer System in the planning area has an interconnecting network of gravity sewers, force mains and nine pump stations. Pump Stations 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 10 are all tributary to Pump Station 4 on Harbor Way. The wastewater is pumped from Station 4 through a 21-inch force main known as the Industrial Channel, to Pump Station 7, and then to the Treatment Plant at 195 Belle Air Road. II-238 ~' Pvc ~ ~ t ~ Pvc ~ J ' \ I ? ~~ r ~ i ~r' y~ ! I ~ v .<, ~ ~ ~ ~,~ , ~ ... ~' ~y~aa, . - 1 ~ y ~ ~ - ~ s.F.w.o.- ~ ~ ~' r ;; ~,.,~ ~ ~> F ~ ` ~ ~ AG sxs ~ ~ _ ~. _ 1 v ,. ~ _I _ l ` M1 4. i/ ~ .. ! ! ! , i~ u ~ ~ h ,~ ~~ ~ ~ 12' AC ~ i ~4 !' i ~`° V~ ~, 1-~~--....~1 n~n+r.r-rte '~. ~ F, 1 r , , ~ • ~ ~ ~/- 1g.,~ ~ rt -.vii. ~ t~ ~~'~ - ,e ll;,,~ J~ ~. _ / /~^ `'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .+ 1 RES. , ~ ___ ' ~~~, ~,~ ~ ~, ~~ -i ~, yrh % ~~ ~ ~ ' ~I-- 1 ` / ~' r'~' ~ ~, ~ ~ _ / ~ ~ 18' C~ ~ 19r AC _ bD I1X Sc! . ~ - a. ~ ' ~~ ~- -° ~~ - 1v . i i ~ 7 1~'~CI ~~ ,,~ ~I i , 'r~~~...~,=.. ~ ..,, .., ~ , ~ ~ ~ ,~.~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ (~ ~ ~j1 .'~~~ .. / ~ ~~~ %j ~~ ,. _ ., c; ~ ~ - ! , !, ~ ~ r~ , , ,, ~, ; I ~l i ~ , ~ _.~ . _. _ _ _ _ ~; 1 ~ 1 ~ i •: ~ ~ ~ i _ ~~ ~ _ 2'~c ' ~~ ! 1 ~ ~ ~ ll) ~~ 4 ~ .. J \ yak r ~' ~ 1 u ~ ~;,' ~„~' r , ; , ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~f ~, , '~S?~ ~I f ~! ~i ` ~ ~ ~ ~ C ', ~ ~' ~ ~ • ~°~ ~~ 1 ~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~~ ~'~Afc:. ~ ~ s~, ''~ ' : , / I J1 1: ' ~ ~~I ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ i 1 ~~ ;, ~ ~;, ;~ d ~ ~ '. A see u~u u rne! w.. 1 ~ ~ ~! II I r ~l ~ ~~ .~ i ~ ~'~ ~ 1 i~ i i ~~ ~ ~~..L: !~ 'i I I ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ',, . S C A L E 1'.1700' ssora---"~~a~es I~ EAST C7~ 1~7 AREA PLAN FIGURE 45 Existing Water Lines in the Study Area City of South San Francisco B R A U Y A N I) A S S O C I A T E S S C A l E I'-1,100' v sov ioao :txv Easy ~F 107 AREA i'LAN City of South San Francisco B R A U Y A N D A S S O C I A r••r.rrr •rr ••.r re•r^ •.erit.et• E 5 FIGURE 46 Cxisting Sanitary Sewers in the Study Area MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA P1AN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Table 30 AVERAGE DAILY SEWAGE FLOWS Million Gallons Daily (MGD) Year Sanitary Sewer Treatment Plant Industrial Channel (from pump station 4 to 7) 1987 8.5 N/A 1988 8.27 1.0 t 1988 8.31 1.05 1990 8.09 1.08 1991 7.03 1.03 1992 7.34 1.00 1. Wastewater Lines and Pump Stations The Industrial Channel takes all flow east of the Bayshore Freeway, except for a portior. of the South Airpoct Boulevard area. The current flow to the Industrial channel is aFpruximacely 1 million gallons daily. Fow data for the past we years s taken from recordings at the Treatn-~ent Plant and are s:lown in Table 30. The City is currently aware of reliability problems at Sanitary Pump Station 4, which serves as the main pumping station for the East of 101 Area. Proposed development of the Koll property, the Gateway Business Park, the Terrabay development and the Shearwater site raised issues about the adequacy of the pump's control and backup system in 1987 and 1988. The pump station contains two pumps which are able to handle fifty percent of the capacity of the pump station. If one should fail during flows above 25 million gallons daily, the pump capacity would not be sufficient. With future improvements, the City will require development impact fees for an upgrade of the current system, which will include replacement of the control system to correct the susceptibility of error in the current system. The City has determined that installation of an additional pump and pump controls will be required to serve future developments in the East of 101 Area. There are several points in the study area where portions of the sanitary sewer lines have sunk. The resulting concave sections reduce the hydraulic capacity of the line and may be subject to solids deposition, causing manholes to surcharge which will increase maintenance requirements. These conditions occur at East Harris from Harbor to Lawrence and in the 27-inch gravity main II-243 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Table 31 CONTRACTED SEWAGE CAPACITY Total Allocation Approarimate Current Usage Available Allocation Daily City 485,000 250,000 ?35,000 Colma 450,000 168,000 282,000 Total 935,000 418,000 517,000 at Harbor Way from East Grand to East Harris, and from Utah to Mitchell. Rehabilitation or replacement of sewer lines may be required to achieve the necessary capacity for future development. Previous studies have also shown a substantial amount of infiltration/inflow (I/I) in the Sanitary Sewer System. This increase in flow causes sewer lines to overflow during heavy rainfall. An I/I study would be required to identify the exact problem areas. Rehabilitation of the sewer system would be based on the results of this study. 2. Wastewater Treatment slant a. Plant Capacity. The cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno jointly own and operate the wastewater treatment plant, with South San Francisco, by agreement, as the administering agency. The plant was constructed in the early 1970s with a design capacity of 13 million gallons per day (mgd). More recent estimates indicate that the plant's capacity may be around 10 mgd, but no accurrate estimate of capacity is available. The City is currently performing a major plant refurbishing project that is scheduled to be completed in June 1993. The City plans to conduct a "stress" test on the plant beginning in June to determine the plant's operational capacity. The stress test may show that the plant's capacity is lower than its design capacity. Land use planning for the East of 101 Area will take into consideration the possible need to modify the treatment plant, and the resulting costs, environmental concerns and approvals. II-244 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PiAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Table 32 FUTURE SEWAGE TREATMENT DEMANDS Current Flows 7,340,000 gallons dairy F~tpected Increase If Drought Ends (30% of 1,200,000) 360,000 gallons daih~ Daly City Unused Allocation 235,000 gallons dairy Colma Unused Allocation 280,000 gallons daily Approved and Planned Residential Projects (Includes Terrabay, El Camino Corridor and other minor projects) (3,000 units x 300 gpd per unit) 900,000 gallons daily Approved Commerical Projects (93,000 sq. ft. x 100 gpd per 1,000 sq. ft.) 9,000 gallons daily Terrabay Hotel (400 rooms x 100 gpd per room) 40,000 gallons daily Terrabay Office (57,000 sq. ft. x 200 gpd per 1,000 sq. ft) 11,000 gallons daily !; TerraSay Restaurants (3 restaurants x 1,000 gpd) 3,000 gailons laity TOT:1L DEM.~YD 9,178,000 gallons daily b. Treatment Demand. South San Francisco and San Bruno have agreements with the City of Daly City and the Town of Colma to accept raw sewage for treatment, which are delineated Table 31. According to the Joint Sewer Agreement made January 22, 1947, between the City of South San Francisco and the City of San Bruno, each city is entitled to use up to fifty percent of the treatment plant capacity. Neither San Bruno nor South San Francisco have specific capacity rights. Current flow to the Treatment Plant is approximately 7.34 million gallons daily.l City records show that flows have dropped from approximately 8.5 million gallons daily to the current flows, due to both the recent drought and the closing of several major industries in the city in the last few years. Because the population and local industries have acquired new water conservation habits, the City does not anticipate that the flows will rise to the levels of 1 The City of South San Francisco, 1992 Annual Report to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board II-245 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT INFRASTRUCTURE earlier years following the termination of the drought, but an increase of approximately 30% of the previous savings can be expected. Existing and future demand for sewage treatment at the City's plant under average dry weather conditions is summarized in Table 32. The current flow of 7.3 million gallons daily (mgd), when added to expected increases at the end of the drought and unused allocations for Colma and Daly City, results in demands for 8.2 million gallons daily of treatment plant capacity. Additional flows from approved and currently planned developments could result in flows exceeding nine million gallons daily. If the results of the stress test indicate that the existing plant capacity is around 10 mgd, then plant improvements would be necessary to accommodate any signficant increase in average dry weather flows that might occur under the Area Plan. Moreover, the projections in Table 32 look only at average dry weather flows; they do not account for peaking on exceptional days or for wet weather, in which storm runoff infiltrates sewer lines and increases the demand for treatment. Both of these factors need to be considered in comparing treatment demands with plant capacity, and they could indicate an even greater need for increased plant capacity. Eiotech pharmaceutical manufacturing appears to create .ln especially large demand for both water and wastewater treatment. For example, Genentech currently estimates that it will need treatment capacity for approximately 700,000 gallons per day when its operations expand over the next few years, which is approximately 10 percent of the total current treatment demand in the treatment plant for the entire City. This high demand results because biotech manufacturing requires extremely pure water. Large quantities of water are used to purify water for the manufacturing process, and the "dirty" water is then disposed to the treatment plant. While this high water demand is not a problem in terms of water supply, it could create a problem if treatment plant capacity is limited. Other types of biotech industry, such as research and development, and other types of manufacturing besides pharmaceutical manufacturing, would not create such high water and sewage treatment demands. As development occurs in the East of 101 Area, and in other parts of South San Francisco and the treatment plant service area, water conservation and reuse might help to limit the demand for treatment capacity. Water recycling by large users, and treatment programs that would allow the reuse of water for irrigation, might be help to limit the amount of water being sent to the treatment plant. These possibilities will be studied further during the plan preparation process. r II-246 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PTAN EXIS'T'ING CONDITIONS REPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 3. Discharge Quality The California Regional Water Quality Control Board is proposing amendments to the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan which would establish a waste load allocation for several elements including copper for San Francisco Bay. Targeted businesses that produce large amounts of such elements in water discharge are industrial laundry businesses, large printing companies and electronic circuit board manufacturing companies. With these amendments, the City may be required to limit the discharge of these elements from businesses in the East of 101 Area. C. Hydrology and Storm Drainage The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is comprised of two drainage basins and 26 sub-drainage areas, as shown in Figure 47. The north basin drains toward the north and northeast into San Francisco Bay, with eleven subbasins. The south basin drains south into Colma Creek and the San Bruno Canal, with 15 subbasins. Colma Creek's watershed totals aperaximately 8,600 acres. Approximately 1,800 acres of San Bruno Mountain iies withi,-1 the watershed. This area is mostly natural and undeveloped. The remaining 6,800 acres of the watershed are heavily urbanized, both on the valley floor and along the steeply sloping Skyline Ridge. The average annual runoff is estimated to be between 4 inches (near the Bay) to 7.5 inches (near Colma). This runoff is directed to the creek through drainage channels and stormwater pipelines that follow the areas topographic contours. Colma Creek is a mostly concrete channel with some closed box culvert sections. While improvements, such as channel widening and bank stabilization, have reduced flooding, there is still periodic flooding along the creek. The volume of stormwater runoff that flows into Colma Creek has increased significantly due to development. This has caused higher and more prolonged peak rates of stream flow2. Existing drainage facilities in the study area are shown in Figure 48. The highlights of some drainage areas and their systems are described below: 2 BART -San Francisco Airport Extension AA/DEIS/DEIR, Volume 1, March 1992, by MTC, SamTrans, BART and FTA II-247 ~' '- 7 ~ ~~f r;;, ~ ,, ( ~. .. ~~~ h ~ df • ~` it i i.. ~,__ r r ~ ~ ,, i• '~ ~ '~+ ~-- ~ ,. I ,.::~:- . ~~ A ~ ,, ~ ~~ t t ~i~ r ~ ~~ •~ i ~~ r i /~ . ~` , ~ ~~ tit t~, ` W % f°~ 'E ~' ^ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ' ~~1 ~'. ~ ^ ~ ~ _ ~ j ~ h !j l~ ,A, t~ a ~ ~ ~•~ ~ Fj tt l{ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ 1 ~:. 7 I ~ ~ ~ i ~ ri'~ ~ e ~ • '----~ ~; ~. rf ~ti ~ i, . ~~ ~ ti .rl ~ / ~ ~ 16 :, ,; ~,~~ ~: ~ f I '; ~ ~~ ~ A ~ •SI C~NLNU LIf ~ ~ ~ ~ it7 /Y ~• ~• ' ~, r,, r ~ ,iy,~ • ~,~~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ t0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ _ .... • ~ _ ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~~ ~~_JI 1 •~.~ .. ~. ~ ~ a ~,,,_ !i, '~ ~' ~ it ~/ .~~r.. ~~~~~ (. ^ ~~ ~ il`~ i ~: ~ / ^ ~ C it ! I ~, ~/ I ~~( j~~ )' ~~ e R ;; i ~ ~ ~ E~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~5, ~ r , ,u, '`'^' z 4xu .~,. , l~ I ^ 6 r i,l i' II ~ I ~ ~ ~~~ ~ # 1 ~I j i ~ . ~~ ~ ~ - ~ _~ .~ ..~ ~\ 1' ~ i~ ~ i ~ ~ ',.1 i I G ~ III ~ ~ Ii ~ ~ ~. ~,; '~I ~ 1 ~ ~ ,;, ~ is ~•'~ .~ ~~ •,~~ ~ ~ I ~ I I >> a~ ~ ~ r ~ ! ~ la L,~~ ~ r - -Y -- u. ~._._._~._._._ ELN nN1IN I / , w.. i / i` i ` ii ' ~~ ~ i s c ~ t E r•.rroo• - --- ---- FIGURE 47 . ~--~~~ r~ ~° BAST ~r Study Area Watersheds AREA PLAN Cily of South San ~runcisco B R A D Y A N U A S S O C I A T E S f L • / / / / f • M / L . M / L C ~ / / • / C ^ I i / C l f ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 T ~t~l_`, ~ <' ! ~ ~ ,~ `~ ~ /~/ I _ _~ ._ / ~. ~ ~~~~ 1 ~~~ i., ~.. ;' i` ~~ ~ a ~ w i ( =i i iii l to ~ ~ ~ ~~''1~,. °~ J 1 ~ `i > „~~ . - ~ ,r ~' -,~~..,.~ ~., ~ , / „ ,~ ~ ~ ~. ~ .. ~~~y. ~. .~ i°r , // * '~'~ ~} `~J 11 ,,i ~~ ~~t`9Yogf. . ~ I I ~I/ I. ~' iw 's^'' ' 1 '~f~ ~ ~` .. ~ / iy z~ << ~ ,,~~~ ~, ~ ~, <Y 7 } /~ i ~ !a .. ' ~ ~.r / /~ y~ / J `/~ ~:, ~ „ ~ K,,.,, -~, ~'r~ ~ ~ ~ 1~, ~ ' i k~ w ~' ~~. ~ 8~ I ~ *~~ 1 1 ~~,, ~ ~ - , ~ i l ~ ¢~1 stn I( ~J~ 'Y /~ ~, ~ ~~ ~ !~ r 'I ~ RCP' ,; ~ ~t ~ ~r. ~' . ~ ' (• / d ~ ~, i i N I~ ~, ~ I d~,... p ~> 11 ~~ ~ ~~~~ 1 ~I ,~ r~ U l,'n ~"~ ~o ~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~1. ~rt50 3 /.' N ~ 1 ~ (~ ~~' ~ ~ ~ ! '' ~ ~~~ ~~ ,` ~~ ~ . ~~ I ~ ~`~ .. ~~ I r} `r' ,g~{ ~~ I~ f ~x ~ % 30*~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~? t ~ ~~1 RCP ~ _ ~'/ ~ f.: ~ ~, ~ 83253 I ' ~/ / ' "J~ ~.~ ~~1~y,''~~y~ ~~ FORCE ~M1N^, )~J , J~. „ ~„~ - RCP -- ~ SUMP PUMP?.J"`vy ~' 3, -~ ,_. ak ~~~ , ,~ CF - e r~/ ~~L gyp. 1 +a~ / O ~ ~ ~,S' J ~ ~ a "`~/ mil' ~ ~ ~ fh~ r I ^~ i _ ~ . _ _ ~ _.. ~, n ~ -i - ~ ''~ ~` R P .:, ~ RC '4R P 2a ~1 ~, `a A i I ~N ~ r II Uy ~ RCP I ~4+~~ ~ I JO" CP .,~ i RCP 2r ~~ ~) ~~ ~~',~ - FRCP ,~ ~ ~~ ,~ 1~` ~ ~ ~, ,.e~ `~.~ Mi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ `, ~" ~ _ , ... . ~u ~ ~= ,. . ~~ ~~ ~ . . 1I 11 I ``,, A I __ -_ .-1.'iiic-'~-_- - J-i.- 'I ..r.. ~,~. ~ 11 - 1~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ a dHUr~ ~ ~ ~i ~i f , \~1'1 ~ lY ',I ~ I ~ ~ l i ~ ~ 11 ,i ~~: ,~ ., Iy ~ ~ ._. ~! ~, ~ i ` ~ ~ ~„ ~ - ~ ~ ~;~~ ~... ;\_ Ii~rw~~r~r~~ ''~ r S C A L f 1'-1300' a soo ioao awv EAST OF 1~1 ~o AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco FIGURE 48 Existing Storm Drains in the Study Area R R A U Y A N U A S S O C I A T E S r~~wr •c• •w• •~ww~c~r• •~cw~r~c~• EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN tr4#`Y 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT INFRASTRUCTURE • Portions of sub-drainage areas 1 through 7 along Cotma Creek arm subject to tidal flooding during the 100-year event.3 Although many improvements have been made since the 1982 flooding, these areas still experience regular flooding problems when heavy rainfall and high tidal action combine. The existing drainage system can generally handle the 10-year storm runoff if high tide and rainfall do not occur simultaneously, but larger storms or storms occurring during high tides create flooding problems. • Sub-drainage area 10 drains into Colma Creek through two separate collection systems. The first system was constructed along Harbor Way and Mitchell Avenue in approximately 1958. This system originally served Harbor Way, East Harris Avenue, Mitchell Avenue, and alladjacent properties. Another drainage collection system was built on Harbor Way and Mitchell Avenue in 1988, primarily to serve the Point Grand development. During construction of this storm drain line, theEast Harris Avenue and Lawrence Avenue systems, with their drainage areas, were connected to the new Point Grand drainage system. The majority of this drainage area faces a flooding problem due to the combination of insufficient drainage capacity of the original Harbor Way system and high tidal conditions.° There is no simple or inexpensive so:ution to the flooding problems :;n Harbor Way north of the railroad cracks. adding ar. additiona~ inter-connection between the original Harbor Way system and the Point Grand system would reduce flooding occurrences, but would not completely solve flooding problems. • Sub-drainage area 11 drains to Kimball Way and a 54-inch outfall line. Sub-drainage area 12 drains to Haskins Way and a 48-inch outfall line. A 24-inch overflow line has been constructed to serve both area and allow these two drainage systems to balance out -during times of peak runoff, thereby reducing the possibility of serious flooding of any isolated areas within sub-drainage areas 11 and 12.5 No severe flooding problem has been reported during the past ten years within these two drainage areas. • Sub-drainage area 19 is comprised of approximately 45 acres of the North Gateway Specific Plan District and the entire Shearwater site. A portion of the Shealwater site is subject to tidal flooding during the 100- 3 Flood Insurance Rate Map, South San Francisco, September 2, 1981. 4 Reimer Associates, Harbor Way Storm Drainage, January 29, 1991 5 Hans R. Mulberg, Swenft Avenue Storm Drainage Study, June i, 1980 II-?52 Iygy 1993 FAST OF 101 AREA PI.rW EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT INFRASTRUCTURE year flooding event.6 Storm water currently drains to the San Francisco Bay through an existing channel and overland flow. A major storm drainage improvement facility would be required for the development of the area to accommodate the runoff from the Gateway area and the Shearwater site. These drainage problems should be corrected to facilitate further development in the study area. D. Communications Telephone service is provided to the City of South San Francisco by Pacific Bell. Pacific Bell is a State-wide franchised utility and will service all areas requiring telephone service in accordance to California Public Utility Commission rules and tariffs. Pacific Bell has facilities serving all areas east of the Bayshore Freeway, including aerial and underground lines along all streets and properties. Its major routes for serving this area are along Grand Avenue, Utah Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard, Airport Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard. Pacific Bell installs cross connecting boxes, known as interfaces, to utilize the telephone facilities within an area. Although Pacific Bell makes every reasonable effort to place these interfaces in unobtrusive areas, recent increases in service demand in the study area have resulted in the installation of a number of interfaces in highly visible locations adjacent to sidewalks. Due to size limitations, engineering guidelines, existing telephone facilities and economic considerations, the placement of these interfaces is often restricted to a limited area within the telephone network. The City is concerned about the large number of interfaces in the area and their visual effects, and hopes to work with Pacific Bell to plan for sufficient capacity and limit the need for more interfaces in the future. 6 Flood Insurance Rate Map, South San Francisco, September 2, 1981. II-253 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT INFRASTRUCTURE E. Gas and Electric Service This section provides a brief overview of gas and electric facilities in the area. Specifics as to the magnitude and approximate location of any proposed commercialrndustrial gas or electric loading are required to develop a more reliable gas and electric planning profile for this area. PG&E would require an engineering deposit as well as a lead time of at least three months for a planning profile study. 1. Gas Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has a 24-inch steel gas transmission line that runs parallel Highway 101 as shown on Figure 49. From this transmission main, known as Line 101, PG&E has tapped four district regulator stations, which are used to drop the pressure from the transmission lines to the distribution systems, within the study area. These stations have a normal operating pressure of 50 Pressure per Square Inch Gauge (PSIG). Thegas demand of the area is 422.2 thousand cubic feet per hour on an abnormal peak demand day, which will provide 42.1 PSIG at the low point of the system. If new developments similar to Genentech are constructed in the area, PG&E's current capacity is not adequate to provide the necessary service. PG&E would need to construct additional gas regulator stations for the new development. 2. Electric Figure 49 indicates the location of PG&E's substation in the study area. The substation, known as East Grand Substation, is separated into two banks, or sections. The first bank has a historical load of 65.24 megawatts, with a load growth of 1.96 megawatts per year. The proposed block load of Genentech is 4 megawatts, and Genentech's overall demand will be 12 megawatts. PG&E's projection for this bank is 71 megawatts for 1993. PG&E currently has a project to reconductor some facilities, which will bring up this bank's capacity to 87.63 megawatts. This will be completed by May 1993. The second bank at East Grand Substation has a historical load of 31.07 megawatts, with a load growth of 0.93 megawatts per year. The capacity of this bank is 39 megawatts. In order to serve Genentech's expanding load and other new large size developments, at least two additional circuits will need to be constructed. II-254 /~' S C A 1 E t'•IJ00' ~- ~~~~ p 30p IIAp' 20(17 EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAN City o~ South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A E S F[GURE 49 Majur Existing Gas and Electric Lines in the Study Area Chapter 15 MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES ^ ^ This chapter discusses the municipal and retail services currently available in the East of 101 Area. Current service locations, capacities, and expansion possibilities are discussed, as are the regulations and requirements of each service. Municipal services include fire and emergency medical services, police services, streets and infrastructure maintenance, schools and child care, and libraries. Retail services are also discussed to give an indication of what businesses are available to serve area employees. Utility and stormdrainage infrastructure is discussed in Chapter 14 of this report, and open space and recreation facilities are discussed in Chapter 16. A. Fire and Emergency Medical Serviced The South San Francisco Fire Department has primary jurisdiction over the majority of the East of 101 project area. 'The property of the San Francisco International Airport is maintained by the crash, Fre, and rescue (CFR) operations of the Airport and does not fall within the South San Francisco Fire Department's primary jurisdiction. Medical and fire services for the Sierra Point property in the City of South San Francisco are currently provided by the City of Brisbane. The Department has 69 fire lighters on its staff, which results in an approximate ratio of 1.5 fire fighters per 1000 residents. There are five fire stations in the City of South San Francisco. Station Number 2, located at the intersection of Harbor Way and Mitchell Avenue, serves the majority of the East of 101 project area, as shown in Figure 50. Fire Station Number 5 serves the north-western portion of the project area, approximately west of Eccles Avenue and Forbes Boulevard. This station is located west of the project area. The Department maintains a response time of four minutes to fire and medical emergencies. 1 Information for this section is based on personal communication with Jim Fitzpatrick, City of South San Francisco Fire Department, March 9, 1993. II-257 ~' on, March 9, 1993. S C A L E 1'.1800' v soo rono a~ao EAST OF 1~1 AREAPLAN City of South San Francisco B RAD~Y~ AND_~A S S OCI ATES FIGURE 50 Fire and Emergency Service Areas MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT MUNICIPAL AND Rf=TAIL SERVICES There is currently one rescue medical unit located at the main station at 33 Arroyo Drive. In addition, the City's fire engines will respond to medical emergencies. Twelve of the 69 fire fighters are classified as paramedics and are distributed throughout the five stations. The Fire Department uses the Cal Water Supply System for the East of 101 project area and the majority of the City of South San Francisco. This water supply meets the current needs of the Fire Department. Hazardous material incidents in the project area are responded to by the South San Francisco Fire Department, the California Highway Patrol, the Coast Guard, and the San Mateo County Environmental Health Division. Crash, fire, and rescue operations at the San Francisco International Airport maintain two facilities. The Airport handles approximately 2,300 calls per year and is supplemented by staff and equipment from San Mateo County.Z Three hospitals serve the South San Francisco area for emergency medical services. They are the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center at 1200 EI Camino Real in South San Francisco, the Peninsula Hospital located at 1753 E( ~;am;, o Real in Burlingame, and the Seton Medical Center located at 1900 Sullivan Aver.~,e in Daly Ciry. Thr Pc.^.insuia Hospital and Seton ~ledcal Center are locate' more than 5 miles from the study area, aad Kaiser Permanente is located less than two miles from the study area. According to the Fire Department, new residential and hotel uses in the East of 101 Area might require a sixth Ere station, an additional rescue medical unit, and six to nine additional paramedics and firefighters due to new 24-hour demand for emergency and fire services. Additional commercial uses in the area would probably not require the addition of another station. B. Police Services a. South San Francisco Police Department. The City of San Francisco Police Department has a total personnel of 115 persons with 75 sworn officers of which 51 are involved in street patrol activity. The current per capita ratio of officers is 1.38 per 1,000 people. With future development, the Department would not want to fall below a ratio of 1.35 officers per 1,000 residences. The Z San Francisco International Airport Final Draft Master Plan, DMJM, November, 1989. II-259 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES Department has 24 marked police units (17 patrol units, 2 Police Service Technician units, and S motorcycles). The department typically works afour-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and objectives. The East of 101 Area is within Beats One and Four. Each beat is typically staffed by cone-officer unit with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units available for backup and overlap. Average response times to serious felonies and priority one calls for the entire City of South San Francisco typically does not exceed three minutes. Response to all other calls does not exceed 15 minutes. The police facility is centrally located in the City at 33 Arroyo Drive, and response times to and from the majority of the East of 101 Area falls well within these average response ttmes. The undeveloped Siena Point area is typically not patrolled at this time. A serious concern of the Police Department is the lengthy response time of 5 to 13 minutes to and from Siena Point, which would be a problem if development occurred in that area without significant access improvements. Response times from this site back tc~ the main City limits are in excess of two to three times the acceptable limits for serious calls. It is difficult to evaluate the impact on police services that development of the East of 101 Area may cause. The number of new officers necessary to optimally serve the area without decreasing the level of service to existing residents and business people could range from zero, for industrial uses and some commercial, to 6 to 18 officers projected for residential development of 2,000 to 6,000 units. Potential future design scenarios may not be conducive to traditional police patrol, and it may be necessary to add foot patrols and/or bicycle patrols of waterfront pathways or other unusual developments. This would probably result in more man hours to patrol the area as compared to areas of comparable size in other sections of the City.3 b. San Francisco International Airport. The San Francisco International Airport property in the study area is patrolled by the Airport Police. The SFIA Police Department is a 200 member force composed of 140 sworn and 60 civilian staff. The Department maintains full operational capabilities with 3 Sergeant Ron Petrocchi, City of South San Francisco Police Department, personal correspondence, March 17, 1993. II-260 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDIT70NS PtEPORT MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL S1~RVICES records, internal affairs, tactical, bomb squad, narcotics, and traffic divisions. In addition, a detective department form San Mateo County is located w7thin the SFIA.4 C. Streets and Intrastructure Maintenance; The Public Works Department of the City of South San Francisco maintains the streets and infrastructure for the majority of the East of 101 Area. The City maintains a Pavement Management System which tracks all streets in the City for maintenance requirements based on a street's age, class and use. A Master Plan of improvements based on deflection testing and review of all the streets has also been developed by the department. In addition, the City responds to public complaints and maintenance calls. The San Mateo County Harbor District maintains the streets and paving the Oyster Point Marina through an exchange of services agreement with the City of South San Francisco. The City maintains parking lot lights and striping of streets within the Oyster Point Marina District. Sewers and storm dr:lins of the East 101 .Area are also maintained b;' the °r;blic V~ orls Depcrtn:Pnt. Different sections of the systems are cleaned and checked on a rotating basis every three, six, o: twelve months. In the study area, street sweeping occurs on all public streets once a day. D. Landscape ;Maintenance The Parks and Recreation Department currently administers landscape maintenance of islands, medians, and portions of the Bay Trail in the East of 101 Area. Maintenance areas include portions of Forbes Boulevard, East Grande Avenue, Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Grandview, Eccles Avenue, and South Airport Boulevard. Most of these areas are currently needing maintenance, which has not been possible due to budget constraints. The possibility of creating a Landscaping and Lighting Assessment 4 San Francisco International Airport Final Draft Master Plan, DMJM, November, 1989. 5 Information for this section is based on personal communication with Terry White, City o. South San Francisco Public Works Department, March 10, 1993. II-261 EAST OF 10t AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES District has been considered, and could become more of an issue as landscape in the area is increased.6 13. Schools The South San Francisco Unified School District serves the study area and has numerous facilities within the City of South San Francisco. Since the East of 101 Area has no residents, there are no existing schools in the area. The closest elementary schools to the area are the Martin Elementary School, with enrollment of approximately 400, and the Spruce Elementary School, with enrollment at approximately 560. Both of these elementary schools are within one mile of the study area and serve children in Kindergarten through Grade 5. The Parkway Heights Junior High School is located at 825 Parkway Avenue, approximately 1'/z miles from the study area, and has an enrollment of approximately 900 students. It serves Grades 6 through 8. South San Francisco High School is located approximately one mile from the study area at 400 B Street and has an approximate enrollment of 1,550 students. There was no information available on school capacity from the school district. Enrollment is generally projected to decrease throughout South San Francisco ever the coming year as fami;ies mature.? In addition, the South San Francisco Unified School District offers adult education at 825 Southwood Drive and a Children's Center at 375 Dorado Way, both of which are outside the study area. F. Child Care The only facility offering child care in the East of 101 project area is Genentech, whose facility is located at 850 Gateway Boulevard and is shown in Figure 51. The facility is for the exclusive use of Genentech employees and is subsidized approximately 50 percent by the company. It has been successful in improving employee moral and recruiting new employees. The child care facility is currently providing child care for approximately 250 children. Infant 6 Sharon Ranals, Superintendent of Recreation and Community Service, April 30, 1993. ~ Conrad Mezzetta, Supervisor, Attendance and Welfare, South San Francisco Unified School District, personal communication, March 9, 1993. i II-262 [~,,~... f.~#CC, END ,---- Res~s~aants .: ^ Dry Cleaners .. Port Office ~ Chdid Care -~ ^ * Basildng Services , ~- ~ ,. ~ ^ ~ ' ' M •- .: ,. y 7 _~ _ , .~; ~ ~ ~, - - - , .. ~ ~~; ~ .. y _ `a r ~.~. f' ~, .. r - - - ,- ,. 4~1 . - - ~ _.:... z.~~ ~ - o . _ `. _ :e .. ,. `J ;, ... ~ F_ ~~ - _- - - "r '~' -_ t _ -_ . ,0 -- . - ,. ~ - -- -. -- ~, ~, ; -- .., ~ ~, Q `~ , _~ -~ ~~- __.~-~ ~ _ ~ _ ~~1: "~ - ~ ,- ~ . _ -_ -`" 3 J S C A L E 7'.!800' o~,~ City of South San Francisco EAST OF 1~1 ax.Earr.,arr FIGURE 51 Municipal and Retail Services B R A D Y AND A S S U C I ATE S EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDlT10NS REPORT MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL. SERVICES MAY 1993 through Kindergarten care is provided and adrop-in service is available. The infant and toddler program is operating at capacity and there is currently a small waiting list s A number of business people in the area have stated there is a need for additional child care facilities in the area. G. Libraries The City of South San Francisco currently has two libraries. They are the West Orange Library located at 840 West Orange Avenue and the Grand Avenue Library, located at the Civic Center at 306 Walnut Avenue. Both libraries are members of the Peninsula Library System. The libraries offer services covering reference materials, local history files, interlibrary loans, computer and typewriters, story hours for children, reading clubs, and adult literacy tutoring. Since there are no residents currently living in the East of 101 Area, provision of library services is not a priority at this time, but could be important if residences were built. H. Post Office The main post office for the City of South San Francisco is located at 381 Airport Boulevard, in the East of 101 Area, as shown in Figure 51. The building and property are currently meeting the needs of the Postal Service and there are no plans to relocate or expand the facility. I. Retail Services and Banks The majority of the retail developments in the East of 101 Area are located along Highway 101. The large retail developments are the Price Club located on South Airport Boulevard north of the North Access Road, the Auto Parts Club, Office Depot and Levitz Furniture on Dubuque Avenue. Auto Parts Club is located at 124 Beacon Street. This development is a 35,000 square foot warehouse for a wholesale and retail auto parts facility. Office Depot is located in the Project 101 development on Dubuque Avenue, and is a major supplier of office supplies and furniture. B Sernnd Generation, Genentech, Inc., personal communication, March 30, 1993; James P. Panek, Senior Director of Engineering and Facilities, Genentech, Inc., personal communication, March 11, 1993. II-264 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING COND1TiONS REPORT Ml_'NICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES In addition, there are many smaller retail businesses, including building materials, automobile dealers, accessory stores, and smaller furniture and home furnishing stores. A large number of business goods and services are also available. The East of 101 Area generally lacks retail personal and convenience services, such as dry cleaners, that would serve employees in the area during their work days. There are just three dry cleaners scattered in the East of 101 Area, as shown in Figure 51, and many similar services and personal businesses are lacking. Currently, there are just two banking centers, Bank of America, located at 601 Gateway Boulevard, and Wells Fargo, located at 4(>v South Airport Boulevard. The Bank of America branch has a Versateller machine and can open new accounts. The Wells Fargo facility is a full service branch. Employees of the area have expressed a desire for more of these uses to facilitate convenience during lunch breaks and trips to and from work. Retail services are available to East of 101 employees in Downtown South San Francisco. Access is available to the downtown via the Grand Avenue overcrossing. Although this area is relatively close to the East of 101 Area, it can be perceived as inconvenient because of tae physical separation of the downtown by I-iighway 101 and thz rai±l oad. To encourage emrloyees to ur-?;ize downtown services, Genentech and down~own merchants are beginning ashort-term program of issuing "scrip" money, or vouchers, for use in downtown stores. Genentech will provide transportation to the downtown for a one to two week period for its employees, who will receive up to $20 of scrip paid for by Genentech for use in selected Downtown stores. Genentech and the downtown merchants hope this program will promote the use of the downtown as a service center for East of 101 employees, and that it will educate Genentech workers about the services available in the Downtown.9 J. Restaurants Employees in the East of 101 Area have also expressed a need for additional restaurants. The majority of the restaurants in the area are located along South Airport Boulevard, many within the hotels, and within the Oyster Point Business Park 9 Laura Leber, Genentech, personal communication, May 3, 1993. II-265 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES MAY 1993 and Marina. There are also a few additional restaurants scattered throughout the study area, as shown in Figure 51. Most of the restaurants are sit down style, and the area generally lacks inexpensive fast food lunch facilities. Because the area is a high employment center, these types of restaurants seem to be the most needed. II-266 Chapter 16 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES ^ This chapter describes the open space and recreation resources in the East of 101 study area. Existing and proposed open space and recreational opportunities will be identified. The open space and recreational resources described in this chapter are shown in Figure 52. Open space and recreation is significant because of the large number of people who work in the area. The Bay shore in the area provides a great opportunity for providing open space and recreational areas. In addition to the recreational amenities described in this chapter, the abandoned rail spurs could provide an opportunity or bike and pedestrian paths in the future. A. Harbor sad 'Marina Facilities Because of its location adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, the East of 101 project area contains several water-related recreational resources, including two marinas. The location of these marinas is desirable because of the proximity of the San Francisco Bay inlet. In addition, there is good accessibility zo navigable Bay waters with a channel less than '/4 mile long. ':Marinas further south have problems with accessibility because of the shallowness of the bay. The South San Francisco marinas have predictable wind conditions with average wind speed of 25 miles per hour all year, except in the winter months when wind levels decrease. These conditions are particularly desirable for sailboats. However, it is often chilly and foggy at the marinas, and weather conditions are often better farther south on the Peninsula. The marinas are used by residents throughout the bay area, with some patrons from out of the region and State. No boat rental services are available at either of the marinas. The Oyster Point Marina Park contains 571 slips and is maintained by the San Mateo County Harbor District. A fishing pier, boat launching ramps, and the II-267 LEGEND ' `' ~-- Existing Park Fac~ities ~, ~ < ~~' E~ ~'~ © San Francisco Bay Trail ~• ~ r ~:~ ® Parcourse _ ~ ~, L ~ ~ t = ~ _ Schoebe's Athletic Club ~---~ \: ~ '~~ r.. /. _, _ ~- ,.., ,- rye-•,•T .,~ - - - -~ `~, -_ •,---_--- ;; ~~ ,~ , _~.,~ ... ~- _. y ~i ~ ~ - yr -_ - -_ -- _ ---- \ . , _ "-~` • i ~ "- ,, ,;, _ . ~ .~ . _ , ~, _ _ ~ _~ S C A L E 1'.7800' a saa 7oav Sao' EAST OF 1 01 AR.EAPLAN FIGURE 52 Open Space and Recreation Resources City of South San Francisco B R A DAY ~~A N D ..A SAS O C IAA T E S MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES Oyster Point Park, which has a small beach, are available to the public on the 18.5 acre site. Summit Marine Bayliner is a boat dealer located within the Marina and also operates a convenience store and concessions stand. Fishing bait and supplies are available from a small store adjacent to the marina. The Oyster Point Marina maintains an occupancy of 70 percent. Ten percent of these boats are live-aboards. The Marina is currently analyzing the potential to raise the allocation to allow a greater percentage of live-aboards because of current demand.l The Oyster Point Business Park also maintains a private marina known as Oyster Cove Marina. It is located just west of the Oyster Point Marina Park and has 245 berths. Approximately 2.30 of the slips are occupied and ten percent of these boats are live-aboards. In addition, Ron Bankson Yachts and Boats is a boat brokerage located within the Oyster Cove Marina.2 B. San Francisco Bay Trail Bavfront public access is available via the San Francisco Bay. Trail in newly develoved shoreline areas. The ):end an6 tivatzr in~erface is a valuable amenity nor th.P uc~rking znvir~ttment of the East : ~~ 101 :-~rza. iJevelopment areas with Ba~~ Frail access inNude the Ouster Point ;viarina. Oyster Point Business Park, the ~amTrans property, Genentech, and the 1'~iodati and EdgEwater Business Parks. Only relatively recent developments have access to the shoreline, and vacant lands such as the Koll and Shearwater properties lack trails. It is the City's and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission's (BCDC) policy to continue to require linear park improvements of new developments in the East of 101 Area. The area within 100 feet of the mean high tide line and within BCDC jurisdiction must be landscaped and have access provided as part of any private or public developments. The existing developments of the Bay Trail currently have benches and access to fishing locations. The pier at the Oyster Point Marina and Point San Bruno near the Genentech development both offer fishing access. In addition, fishing is common along the trail in the Oyster Point Business Park. The Open Space Master Plan recommends the addition of picnicking facilities and fish cleaning t Marlie Scheutz, Oyster Point Marina, personal communication, March 30, 1993. 2 Carol Schoening, Oyster Cove Marina, personal communication, March 30, 1993. II-269 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES stations in conjunction with the trail. Such facilities are currently scarce in the planning area. The earlier public access improvements of Diodati and Edgewater Business Parks are in a state of disrepair and paths there are overgrown and narrow. The Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan identifies these areas as needing improvements. The Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan also recommends the development of a Haskins Way Trailhead Park. This amenity would be located at the cul-de-sac of Haskins Way. C. Colma Creek Linear Park The Open Space Master Plan recommends that Colma Creek be developed with a future pedestrian trail. Currently, it is possible to walk along Michell Avenue on a sidewalk adjacent to Colma Creek. However, the sidewalk is separated from the creek by a concrete wall and the creek is uninviting since it is culverted and has minimal vegetation. I)• Athletic Facilities and Cl~~bs Surrounding the Gateway property there is a parcourse exercising facility. The parcourse offers a series of 18 exercises to be completed in conjunction with a walking/jogging path. The course begins at Corporate Drive and terminates at Executive Drive. There is additional parcourse that has been started at the Genentech development, however, only two exercising stations exist. Schoeber's Athletic Club is a private athletic club located in the East of 101 area at 425 Eccles Avenue. It offers basketball and volleyball facilities, racquetball, aerobic exercise classes and training center, and Nautilus and free weights. The club's initiation fees range from $75 to $175, with a monthly fee of $60. In addition, the club caters to the area by offering corporate memberships. E. Parks and Recreation Department The City's Parks and Recreation Department does not provide recreation programs or playgrounds in the East of 101 Area, since there are currently no residences in the area. At recreation facilities in other parts of South San Francisco, the Department offers pre-school and after-school child care, an indoor swimming pool, two senior centers, daycare for frail elders, adult sports ,r-~- 270 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDiT10NS REPORT OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILfTIES leagues, youth shorts, recreation classes, special event facilities for rentals, tennis programs, picnic facilities, and playgrounds. Anew recreation building and indoor pool is planned for the Terrabay development, which would be closest major recreational facility to the East of 101 Area. Provision of these types of services within the area would be important if residences were built in the East of 101 Area. 271 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES MAY 1993 f- 272 Chapter 17 CLIMATEI This chapter assesses the climate in the study area. Temperature, wind and fog affect the overall desirability of the study area for various types of development, and they also influence air quality, which is examined in detail in Chapter 18. A. Geographic Setting The East of 101 study area is within the South San Francisco City limits situated on the San Francisco Bay. Located southeast from the San Bruno :Mountains, the ,r~c'.y area is Three miles foam San Francisco and approximately five milc~ rom the Pacit7c Ocean. The varying topography of the San Francisco Peninsula complicates weather patterns and creates changing microclimates throughout the study area. The climate is affected by local topographic features such as the San Bruno Mountains, the San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The City of South San Francisco and the East of 101 study area lie in the "San Bruno Gap", the major northwest-southeast trending break in the Coast Range between the San Bruno Mountains and the northern extension of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The study area lies close to the San Bruno Mountains at the northern edge of the gap. B. General Controls on Climate The area is effected by the Mediterranean climate associated with the San Francisco Bay Region. Atypical year includes wet, mild weather from November through March, and dry, mild to hot summers from June through t Information in this chapter is primarily taken from Climate Overview of Sierra Point by Mayacamas Weather Consultants, July LS, 1990, prepared for the Koll Company. II-273 EAST OF 101 AREA P1AN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDTI70NS REPORT CLIMATE October. Ninety percent of the annual rainfall occurs between October 1 and April 30. Temperature, humidity, wind, and precipitation are established by air coming from the Pacific Ocean. When air from the Pacific High pressure system passes across the cold water surface, it is chilled to condensation point, creating fog. Only where there are major breaks in the coastal range, such as the San Bruno Gap, does fog make inland progress. Average temperature increases and humidity decreases as distance from the coast increases. C. Temperature Patterns The temperature patterns in the area are also significantly affected by the topography in the Bay region. Temperatures in the San Francisco Bay region reflect the flow of Pacific air through the gaps along the coastal ridge. Warmest temperatures along the coast occur during September. The average ma~mum temperature in July is between 66° and 68°F, and the average minimum temperature in January is between 42° and 44°F. Adjusted for wind chill, these temperatures are 53° and 43° respectively. Within the study area, temperatures close to the bay edge are different from those in th.. rest of the area. In the winter months, there are slightly colder temperatures along the Bay than other portions of the area due to frequent easterly breezes flowing from the cold Bay waters.2 D. Precipitation Precipitation patterns in the study area are also strongly influenced by local topography in the San Francisco Bay Region. The study area receives between 16 and 20 inches of rain per year, which is generally lower than the average of the Bay Area. It is slightly rainier inland in the study area than along the Bay shore. Study area rainfall contrasts significantly from the precipitation on the western slopes of the San Bruno Mountains, which range between 24 and 26 inches per year. 2 Pericht, George T., April 1988, Climare of San Francisco, U.S. Department of Commerce (NOAH Technical Memorandum NWS WR-126). II-274 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDI'T'IONS REPORT CLIMATE E Wind and Fog Generally, the windy season in the San Francisco Bay region is during the summer. The prevailing wind from the Pacific Ocean is westerly or northwesterly. Topography plays an important role in creating strong wind channelling effects, since wind can rush through the San Bruno Gap from the ocean to the Bay. Within the study area, the channelling flow creates a westerly windflow in the northern section of the study area, with a northwesterly wind at the southern section of the study area. The channelling flow effects wind speed because air is forced to "pile up" on the windward side of the gap. The study area experiences strong wind, with gusts between 25 and 35 MPH, which is considered a strong breeze to a moderate gale. Winds in the study area can be unpleasant, particularly on summer afternoons. Winds are somewhat stronger in the southern portion of the study area than in the northern portion. The fog patterns in the Bay Area and the study area also indicate the influence of cnanneied flows caused by topography. This is illustrated by the :arorg inflow of fog through the S n Bruno Gap. The central portion o: the study area is generally the foggiest, since it lies directly in the center of the channelling flow. The northern-most portion of the study area is least affected by fog since it is shielded by the southeast tip of the San Bruno Mountains. Fog generally affects the study area in the summer months. II-275 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTWG CONDITIONS REPORT CLIMATE MAY 1993 II-276 Chapter 18 AIR QUALTIY Regional air quality is generally determined by climatological conditions, the topography of the air basin, and the type and amounts of pollutants emitted. The San Francisco Bay Area is subject to a combination of topographical and climatic factors that result in low potential for pollutant accumulation in areas such as they study area near the coast, and a high potential for accumulation in sheltered inland valleys. Chapter 17 summarizes available climatological data for South San Francisco, and discusses topographic features affecting air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. A. Existing Pollutant Concentrations Ar_tbient pollutan: concentration, standards have been developed at the State and federal levels for six major pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, suspended particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. Three of these six pollutants, CO, ozone and suspended particular matter, are of particular concern in the Bay Area, and are measured throughout the San Francisco Bay Area by the California Air Resources Board and by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Monitoring data from the Arkansas Street station in San Francisco, which is the closest monitoring station to the study area, are presented in Table 33, along with State and federal standards for CO, ozone, and suspended particulate matter. 1. Ozone Ozone is formed in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight by a series of chemical reactions involving oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and reactive organic gases (ROG). Because these reactions occur on a regional scale, ozone is considered a regional air pollutant. A primary constituent of smog, ozone causes eye and lung irritation, visibility reduction, and crop damage. Vehicular exhaust is the major source of ozone precursors in the San Francisco Bay II-277 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT AIR QUALITY MAY 1993 Table 33 POLLUTANT DATA SUMMARY FOR SAN FRANCISCO' FEDERAL STATE pOI,L~ANT STANDARD STANDARD 1989 1990 1991 CARBON MONOXIDE One-hour maximum concentration (ppm) 35 20.0 9.0 8.0 9.0 Number of federal std. violations 0 0 0 Number of state std. violations 0 0 0 Eight•hour maximum concentration (ppm) 9 9.0 7.0 5.6 6S Number of federal std. violations 0 0 0 Number of state std. violations 0 0 0 OZONE One-hour maximum concentration (ppm) 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.05 Number of federal std. violations 0 0 0 Number of state std. violations 0 0 0 pMto 24-hour maximum concentration (µg/m3) 150 50 101 165 109 Number of federal std. violations 0 1 0 Number of state std. violations 13 12 15 Annual Arithmetic Mean {µg/m3) 50 - 36.0 34.0 34.9 Annual Geometric Mean (µg/m3) - 30 31.6 27.8 29.7 Source: California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data (1989-1991). • Monitoring data were recorded at the Arkansas Street monitoring station in San Francisco. f^- II-278 MAY 1993 EAST OP 1Q1 AREA Pt.AN EXISTING CONDrriONS REPORT A1R QUALrTY Area. Ozone concentrations in the San Francisco Bay Area typically exceed State standards several times during the year, and have historically exceeded federal standards as well; thus, the air basin is considered anon-attainment area for ozone with respect to both State and federal standards.l However, Table 33 shows that neither the State nor the federal ozone standard was exceeded between 1989 and 1991 at the San Francisco monitoring station. Because ozone is a regional air pollutant, monitored concentrations at the San Francisco station are considered representative of ozone concentrations in the study area. 2. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide is an odorless, tasteless, colorless and relatively inert gas produced by incomplete combustion. High levels of CO can impair the transport of oxygen in the bloodstream and thereby aggravate cardiovascular disease and cause fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. CO standards exist for one-hour average concentrations as well as for eight-hour average concentrations to regulate both short-term and extended-term pollutant exposure. Vehicular CO emissions increase as average vehicle :speeds decrease, anal during ti~ehicle ac;,elerations and decelerations. Because of this, CO concentrations are high in urban areas where congestion and stop-and-go traffic are common, and CO is considered a local, or "hot-spot," pollutant. The San Francisco Bay Area is considered non-attainment for the State and federal CO eight-hour standards, and is an attainment area for both the State and federal one-hour standards. However, Table 33 shows that neither the State nor the federal eight-hour CO standard was violated between 1989 and 1991 at the San Francisco monitoring station. Measured maximum one-hour CO concentrations were between eight and nine ppm. Although the San Francisco monitoring station is the closest air pollutant monitoring station to the study area, it is distant enough that measured concentrations of local pollutants, particularly CO, may not be representative of concentrations in the study area, which is more than ten miles south. BAAQMD has generated background pollutant concentration isopleths to 1 The federal ozone standard has not been exceeded in the Bay Area within the past three years; BAAQMD is currentty seeking reclassification for the Bay Area with respect [o the federal ozone standard. II-279 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT AIR QUALrrY illustrate the distribution of pollutant accumulation around the Bay Areal. These isopleths show that background one-hour CO concentrations are estimated at between six and seven ppm near the study area; background eight- hour CO concentrations are between three and six ppm. 3. Particulate Matter Airborne particulate matter is generally composed of minute separate particles in the air such as dust, soot, aerosols, fumes, and mists. The particles of primary concern are inhalable particulates, or those of 10 microns in diameter or smaller (PMIO). Inhalable particulates include certain substances, such as sulfates and nitrates, which can cause lung damage directly, or can contain absorbed gases (such as chlorides or ammonium) that may be injurious to health. Particulates occur naturally in the atmosphere, generated by windblown dust or wildfires; manmade sources of particulates include agricultural operations, demolition and construction activities, and traffic generated fugitive emissions of entrained road dust. PMIO standards exist for 24-hour average concentrations and for annual mean concentration, to regulate both short-term and chronic pollutant exposure. State PMIO standards are violated regularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco Bay Area is considered to be anon-attainment area for the State 24-hour and annual geometric mean PMIO standards, but an attainment area with respect to the less stringent federal 24-hour and annual standards. Table 33 shows that 40 exceedances of the State 24-hour PMIa standard occurred between 1989 and 1991 at the San Francisco monitoring station. One exceedance of the federal PMIO standard was recorded during this period. 4. Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide (N02) is an indirect product of fuel combustion in industrial sources, motor vehicles, and other mobile sources (e.g., trains, airplanes, etc.). N02 concentrations in South San Francisco are well within State and federal standards, so they are not included in Table 33. 5. Sulfur Dioxide The major source of sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions is fuel burning equipment in which fuel oil and/or coal is consumed. Typical sources of S02 include 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area '91 Clean Air Plan, October 1991. II-280 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDTI70NS KEPORT AIR Qi_!ALrTY power plants and steam generators; high S02 concentrations generally occur in proximity to these sources. SOS concentrations in the Bay Area are well within State and federal standards, so they are not included in Table 33. 6. Lead Exposure to high airborne lead concentrations can impair circulation and nerve construction, and can cause behavioral and learning problems in children. Ambient lead concentration throughout California have dropped dramatically over the past ten years due to the widespread introduction of unleaded fuels. In the Bay Area, ambient lead concentrations are well below the State and federal concentration standards. B. Existing Emission Sources The California Air Resources Board maintains an emission inventory to determine the sources of air pollution within the State's air basins, and to determine the quantities of pollutants emitted. Inventoried pollutants include CO, NOx, SOr PMIO, RGG, and total organic gases (TOG). Mobile sources, :particularly at.tom~~biles, are a major source of CO and ozone precursor (NOX and ZOG) emissions in San Mateo County, accounting f,~r more than 91 percent of county-w-iee I~Ox emissions, 64 percent of county-wide ROG emissions, and 94 percent of CO emissions3. Businesses and uses that generate large amounts of traffic are the study area's most signicant contributors to air pollution. C. Regulatory Setting 1. Federal The 1977 federal Clean Air Act (CAA) required that air quality be protected from deterioration below levels that contribute to adverse effects on public health or welfare. To achieve this objective, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the six pollutants described above. Under federal law, areas in which the NAAQS were exceeded were designated as "non-attainment areas", and were 3 California Air Resources Board Technical Support Division, Emission Inventory 1989, August 1991. II-281 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT AIR QUALITY required to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPS) which outlined how the area intended to achieve attainment by a given deadline. The San Francisco Bay Area has been designated as anon-attainment area for the federal carbon monoxide and ozone standards; the applicable SIP for the San Francisco Bay Area is the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan (1982 Plan). The 1982 Plan describes measures to reduce emissions from both stationary and mobile sources of air pollution, reaching federal standards by 1987. The San Francisco Bay Area did not meet the 1987 deadline, and a revised SIP should be completed by the end of 1993. The 1982 Plan proposed to implement ten transportation control measures (TCMs) to reduce vehicular pollutant emissions, and recommended that cities and counties consider assorted land use measures which would encourage use of alternate forms of transportation. Due to the lapse of air quality planning at the federal level between 1987 (the year in which nonattainment areas were to reach federal standards) and 1990 (the year in which amendments to the federal CAA were signed), recent efforts to improve air quality in California, particularly through TCMs and land use measures, are largely driven by State legislation. 2. State California has adopted its own ambient standards for air pollutant concentrations, which are more stringent than the federal standards. The San Francisco Bay Area has been designated as anon-attainment area for the State carbon monoxide, ozone and PMIO standards. The 1988 California Clean Air Act required non-attainment areas to develop plans aimed at reducing emissions of nonattainment pollutants or their precursors by 5 percent per year. Alternatively, if an air district is unable to achieve a 5 percent per year reduction, the adoption of all feasible measures on an expeditious schedule is acceptable. Because the San Francisco Bay Area cannot achieve the 5 percent per year reductions required under the 1988 CCAA, the BAAQMD prepared the 1991 Clean Air Plan (1991 CAP) for the San Francisco Bay Area to implement all feasible measures. The 1991 CAP is intended to satisfy State standards, although it is likely that many elements of the 1991 CAP will also satisfy federal air quality planning requirements. The 1991 CAP outlines both stationary and mobile source control measures designed to bring the San Francisco Bay Area into attainment of State air quality standards. Mobile source control in the 1991 CAP consists of a TCM II-282 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA P[.AN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT AIR QUALITY program. Specific TCMs included in this program. include employer-based trip reduction requirements, an indirect source control program, zoning for high density development near transit stations, improved access to rail and ferries, and improved bicycle access/facilities. Each of these TCMs is described below, and should be considered in planning for the area. a. EmQloyer-based Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO). This rule will affect all worksites of 100 or more employees, requiring that by 1999 two of every three affected employees in areas such as South San Francisco commute to and from work by some means other than a single passenger vehicle. The TRO rule is currently in the first phases of implementation, as employers are surveying employee travel habits and submitting Trip Reduction Plans for BAAQMD review and approval. b. Indirect Source Control Proeram (ISC). BAAQMD will develop a program to encourage project locations and designs that minimize dependence on automobiles, and mitigate adverse air quality impacts. The District will delegate ISC powers to local government wherever local government will assume and fulfill the responsibilities entailed; BAAQMD's responsibility would then be to provide performance standards, guidance, and recommendations for cities and counties. BAAQMD does not have authccity over local land-use decisions. However, BAAQMD may provide incentives that foster regional development patterns beneficial to air quality. Such beneficial patterns would include: • Mixed land uses, i.e., residences, workplaces, and services located closely enough that private motorized transit between them would not be necessary. • Pedestrian oriented design, such as sidewalks, adequate crosswalks, and building entries near sidewalks rather than behind large parking lots. • Emphasis on infill development. • Residential and workplace densities sufficient enough to support cost- effective public transportation systems. The ISC program is scheduled for implementation in 1995. c. Zonin¢ for High Densities Near Transit Stations. Cities and counties will be encouraged to cooperate with transit agencies in planning for high density, mixed use cluster development near BART, Caltrain, and proposed light rail stations. This measure will be implemented in coordination with the II-283 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT AIR QUALITY Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and is contingent in part on securing funds for transit development. d. Improved Access to Rail and Ferries. This TCM will provide for significant improvements in rail and ferry access by increasing local and express feeder bus services to rail and ferry stations, improving bicycle access near these stations, increasing station parking, and developing private shuttles to employment centers. Implementation of this measure will also require cooperation and coordination with MTC. e. Improved Bicycle Access and Facilities. Bicycle improvements include expansion of existing regional bike routes to serve shopping areas, employment areas, and educational and cultural facilities; provision of adequate curb lane widths for bicycles on roadways; and incorporating bicycle access and facilities into the site design for new developments. Implementation of this measure will require coordination among BAAQMD, Caltrans, MTC, cities and counties, and employers, developers, and property managers. II-284 Chapter 19 WATER QUALITY Water quality is an important issue in the study area, since the area has a number of surface water bodies including The San Francisco Bay, Colma Creek, and several drainage areas. Also included in the project area is a groundwater aquifer used for domestic and commercial water supply in South San Francisco. A. Water Bodies 1. San Francisco Bay The San Francisco Bay is the major water body in the project area. T'he Bay system is the most extensive and significant estuary remaining o:s the Ca~ifornia coasts. It extends from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to San Jose. The San Francisco Bay is used extensively for shipping. Since the Bay is salt water, it is not used for municipal or agricultural water supply but is used for industrial water supply. The Bay is used for a variety of recreational activities, including boating, swimming, and wind surfing. There is some fishing in the area and the Bay provides a varied wildlife habitat. 2. Colma Creek Colma Creek is an urban stream that begins in the foothills at the northwestern end of San Bruno Mountain. The creek leaves the hills and flows through the valley between San Bruno Mountain on the east and Skyline Ridge on the west. The creek continues southeast to the wetlands and mudflats at the edge of the San Francisco Bay, just north of the San Francisco Airport. 1 San Francisco Bay Basin Region (2) Water Quality Control Plan, December 1986 (with amendments to 1993), Regional Water Quality Control Board. II-285 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1943 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT WATER QUALrrY Colma Creek provides flood control and drainage for the project area. It is not currently used for water supply. Limited recreational activities occur along the creek. 3. Drainage Channels There are two drainage channels within the project area. Drainage Channel 1 drains an area west of Highway 101 into Colma Creek Drainage. Channel 2, also known as Crystal Channel, drains an area north of the San Francisco International Airport (SETA) into the San Francisco Bay. The drainage channels in the project area are used for flood control and drainage but not water supply. 4. Groundwater The groundwater basin in the study area is part of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basing. The groundwater in the Colma Creek valley is used to imgate the area's many cemeteries, golf courses, and recreation areas. The groundwater also provides drinking water for Daly City and the California Water Services Company. The local basin consists of several aquifers of varying depths. The highest groundwater is generally found 5 to 30 fe.:t below ground surface. Groundwater used for domestic and commercial supplies is generally found 200 to 300 feet below ground level. At shallower depths the groundwater is generally non-potable.3 The groundwater tends to flow eastward towards the Bay, although in some areas it flows to the north (most likely due to a former slough or canal)4. Seventeen percent of South San Francisco's water supply comes from groundwater, which is extracted from eight wells located at Chestnut Avenue and Mission Road about one mile from the study area. There are no wells in the East of 101 Area. g San Francisco Bay Basin Region (2) Water Quality Control Plan, December 1986 (with amendments to 1993), Regional Water Quality Control Board 3 BART -San Francisco Airport Extension, AA/DEIS/DEIR, Volume 1, March 1992, by MTC, SamTrans, BART and ETA. 4 San Francisco International Airport Geotechnical Investigation, June 1991, Dames & Moore/Trans Pacific II-286 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT WATER QUAL.ri'Y B. Regional Water Quality Control Board Regulation The Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay Region) is responsible for managing water quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. The RWQCB has produced the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan, which discusses beneficial water uses which the Board will protect, water quality objectives needed to protect the designated beneficial water uses, and strategies and time schedules for achieving the water quality objectives. In the study area, the RWQCB has no specific concerns. The Board has concerns regarding metals in the Bay, but this is a Bay Area region-wide concern. RWQCB is concerned with stormwater runoff throughout the region and the high concentrations of metals often associated with stormwater. For new construction, the RWQCB would want to review the impacts the construction would have on runoff quantities and qualities. For new construction over 5 acres, the RWQCB could require retention basins for stormwater run-off or on-site treatment, sand filters or other treatment alternatives.5 Beneficial uses discussed in the plan include: • Water supply (municipal, domestic, agricultural, industrial, groundwater recharge, and `reshwater recharge). ?Navigation. • Water contact recreation. • Non-water cor_t::ct recreation. • Commercial and sport fishing. • Warm and cold fresh water habitat. • Wildlife habitat. • Preservation of rare and endangered species. • Marine habitat, fish migration and fish spawning. • Shellfish harvesting and estuarine habitat. The Plan discusses water quality objectives for each beneficial water use. Appendix G includes a summary of the objectives for inland surface waters which are designed to limit adverse affects to beneficial uses for creeks, bays, and other water bodies. Under the Basin Plan, the groundwater in the project area is also designated for use as water supply. The total dissolved solids are not to exceed ambient or 500 mg/1, whichever is lower, more than 10 percent of the time during one year. The nitrate (NO) shall not exceed 45 mg/l more than 10 percent of the 5 John Wilsonden, RWQCB, personal communication, April 15, 1993. II-287 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT WATER QUALITY time during one year. Objectives which apply to groundwater are discussed in Appendix G. The implementation section of the Basin Plan presents specific requirements for new and existing projects. These include point source control measures such as: • effluent limitations • effluent toxicity controls • discharge prohibitions • wetland fill limitations • load allocation to receiving water segments • solid and hazardous waste disposal regulations • leaking underground tanks and abandoned sites regulations • wet weather overflow limitations Nonpoint source control measures in the Basin Plan include: • agricultural wastewater management • animal confinement operations • irrigation operations policies • on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems policies • policy cn discretA sewerage facili~ies • individual system guidelines • dredging and disposal of dredge spoil limits • erosion and sediment control provisions • urban runoff management • vessel wastes and oil spills policies • wastewater reclamation and estuarine management These criteria are developed in order to maintain and improve the water quality for the San Francisco Bay region. Developments that create significant amounts of storm water runoff may be required to implement these mitigation measures to meet Basin Plan objectives. C. Existing Water Quality The existing water quality data within the project area were obtained from the following sources: • BART DEIR • California Water Service Company 1991 Annual Report • South San Francisco/San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant II-288 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT WATER QUALITY • Other agencies were also contacted, but did not have water quality data Important water quality parameters include solids, nutrients, organics, heavy metals, and oil and grease. 1. San Francisco Bay The South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Treatment Plant conducts limited testing in the Bay for dissolved oxygen percent saturation. For 1992, the dissolved oxygen percent saturation ranged between 102 and 120 percent. The RWQCB says the Bay water quality in the study area is relatively good, mostly because the Bay is well mixed in the area. The dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids, and BOD levels in the area are acceptable to the RWQCB. The water quality of the Bay could be of concern with future development of the East of 101 Area. Activities which could cause significant impacts to the Bay include filling of the Bay, construction activities directly adjacent to the Bay, and developments which discharge industrial waste and runoff. The*e have been problems with high coliform ccun'•s north of the area due to c~~mbined sewer overflows ~rcm t!~e City of San Francisco. RW(~CB is also concerned arith metals in the Bay, especially copper. :-Iowe~~e-, phis is a regional problem not j !st asse~iated with the project area. 2. Colma Creek All the streamflow in Colma Creek originates as stormwater runoff. Because most of the area is heavily urbanized, the runoff contains urban pollutants generated by residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation uses. These pollutants include oil and grease, heavy metals, fertilizers and pesticides, rubber particles, and debris. Although some of these pollutants percolate into the streambed, most of them flow into the San Francisco Bay.6 The RWQCB says urban creeks, such as Colma Creek, generally have acceptable water quality except for high concentrations of metals (copper, lead, zinc) and miscellaneous pollutants such as plastic bottles and other debris. 6 BART -San Francisco Airport Extension AA,DEIS/DEIR, Volume 1, March 1992, by MTC, Samtrans, BART and FTA. ~ Wilsonden, April 15, 1993. II-289 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT WATER OUALrrY 3. Drainage Channel There are currently no water quality data available for the two drainage channels within the project area. However, the water quality in the drainage channels is likely similar to Colma Creek. 4. Groundwater The domestic water supply for the area comes from the City of South San Francisco Water Department. About 82 percent of the water is provided by the San Francisco Water Department (imported surface water) and the remainder is provided by the California Water Service Company (CalWater). The CalWater water comes from deep water wells located near the intersection of Mission and Chestnut, west of the project area. Only shallow groundwater is recharged by surface runoff, the deeper groundwater used for the water supply does not appear to be affected by the surface water. Table 34 presents groundwater data for the CalWater wells located west of the project area. Also presented are the federal maximum contaminant limits (MCLs) for groundwater. CalWater meets all the MCLs except for nitrates and manganese. CalWater blends its water to reduce nitrates and manganese is only a secondary standard. Therefore, the groundwater generally has good quality. 5. South San Francisco/San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant The South San Francisco/San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant treats wastewater for South San Francisco (including the project area), San Bruno, and parts of Colma and Daly City8. The effluent from the plant is combined with effluent from other treatment plants in the area and discharged one mile off-shore of the project area. Table 35 and 36 present a summary of wastewater quality for the South San Francisco/San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant. Also included is wastewater quality for the combined discharge. 8 Ray Honan, City of South San Francisco Water Department, February 24, 1993 and March 18, 1993, personal communication. II-290 MAY 1993 D. NPDF.S Permit EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT WATER QUALITY Currently, the City is undergoing review for a NPDFS non-point source stormwater discharge permit. The Environmental Protection Agency has amended the Clean Water Act to require cities with more than 25,000 people to obtain this stormwater permit. Facilities such as parking lots and technological industries will be require to provide on-site treatment of their stormwater or provide for mitigation of the pollutant discharge into the City's stormwater system. These requirements, coupled with the required reduction in pollutant loading of copper to the Bay, may put a larger burden on the City and potential developers for treatment and discharge facilities. II-291 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT WATER QUALITY MAY 1993 Table 34 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY WATER QUALITY REPORT, 1991 Maximum South San Francisco Groundwatcr Parameter Units Contaminant Level (MCL) ~~ Average Turbidity NTU OS .15-.60 0.32 Coliform Bacteria % Test Positive 10 0-1.36 0.32 Organic Chemicals Total Trihalomethanes mg/L 0.10 N.D. Endrin mg/L 0.0002 N.D. Iandane mg/L 0.004 N.D. Methoxychlor mg/L 0.1 N.D. Toutaphene mg/L. 0.005 N.D. 2,¢D mg/L 0.1 N.D. 2,4-TP-Silvex mg/L 0.01 N.D. Atrazine mg/L 0.003 N.D. Bentazon mg/[. 0.0018 N.D. Benzene mg/L 0.01 N.D. Carbon Tetrachloride mg/1. 0.0005 N.D. lliboromochloropropane (DBCP) mg/L 0.002 N.D. 1,4-Dichiorobenzene mg/I. 0.005 N.D. 1,2-Dichlorcethane mg/L 0.0005 N.D. 1,1-Dichlorcethylene mg/L 0.006 N.D. 1,3•Dichloropropene mg/L 0.005 N.D. Ethylbenzene mg/L 0.680 N.D. Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) mg/1, 0.0002 N.D. Molinate mg/L 0.02 N.D. Monochlorobenzene mg/1. 0.030 N.D. Simazine mg/L 0.01 N.D. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorcethene mg/L 0.001 N.D. Tetrachlorcethylene (PCE) mg/L. 0.00.5 0-.0016 Thiobenrarb mg/L 0.07 N.D. 1,1,1-Trichlorcethane mg/L 0.200 N.D. 1,1,2-Trichlorcethane mg/L 0.032 K.D. Trichlorcethylene (TCE) mg/L 0.005 N.D. II-292 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDI770NS REPORT WATER QUALITY Maximum Sonth San Francisrn Groundv-ater Parameter Units Contaminant Level (MCL) ~~ Average Vuryl Chloride mg/L 0.0005 N.D. Xylenes mg/L 1.750 N.D. Cis-1,2-Dichlorcethylene mg/L 0.006 N.D. Trans-l,2- mg/L, Dichlorcethylene 0.01 N.D. 1,1-Dichlorcethane mg/L 0.005 N.D. 1,2-Dichloropropane mg/L 0.005 N.D. Dichloro- mg/L Difluoromethane (Freon 12) 1.0 N.D. Trichlorofluoromethane mg/L (Freon 11) 0.15 N.D. 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- mg/L Trifluoromethane (Freon 113) 1.2 N.D. Carbofuran mg/I- 0.018 N.D. I Glyphosate mg/L 0.7 K.D. Chlordane mg/L 0.0001 N.D. Heptachlor mg/L 0.00001 N.D. Heptachlor eprndde mg/L O.000Oi N.D. Di(2-(Ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/L 0.004 N.D. Inorganic Chemicals Aluminum mg/L 1 0-0.03 <0.02 Arsenic mg/L. 0.05 0-0.03 0 Barium mg/L 1 0-0.2 <0. i Cadmium mg/L 0.010 0 0 Chromium mg/L 0.05 0-0.03 <0.01 Fluoride mg/L # 1.4-2.4 0-0.2 02 Lead mg/1., 0.05 0-0.017 <0.005 Mercury mg/L 0.002 0 0 Nitrate (as NOS) mg/L 45 0-85' 30 Selenium mg/L. 0.01 0 0 Silver mg/L 0.05 ~ ~ Radioactivity Gross Alpha Activity pCi/L IS 0-2.5 1.0 Radium 226 &228 pCi/L 5 0 0 Combined II-293 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT WATER QUALITY MAY 1993 Ma~dmum South San Francisco Groundwater Parameter Units Contaminant Level (MCL) ~~ Average Uranium pCi/L, 20 0 0 Secondary Standards -Aesthetic Standards Estoblished by the State ojCalifornia, Department of Hedrh Services Color Units 15 1-8 5 Odor-Threshold Units 3 0 0 Chloride mg/L 500 83-156 124 ~p~r mg/L 1.0 0-0.08 0.05 Foaming Agents (MBAs) mg/L OS 0-0 0.0 Iron mg/L 0.3 0-0.09 0.05 Manganese mg/L 0.05 0-0.37 0.09 Sulfate mgJL 500 53-88 98 Z1nC mg/L 5.0 0-0.06 <0.05 Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 1000 517-771 607 Additional Constituents Ana lyzed pH Units No Standard 7.4-8.01 7.63 Hardness (CaCOg) mg/L 306-430 352 Sodium mg/L 58-113 75 Calcium mg/L 33-102 59 Potassium mglL 2.2-5.3 33 Magnesium mg/L 38-51 48 Source: Cal Water, 1991. N.D. =Not Detected. mg/L =milligrams per liter (parts per million}. pCi/L = pirn Curies per liter. # Fluoride Standard depends on temperature. These supplies are blended with the surface suppty to lower nitrate concentrations prior to distribution. Average nitrate in the blended water is 29 mg/L. II-294 MAY 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT WATER QL'.1LITY Table 35 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WATER QUALITY 1992 Parameter Unit Average f~age Flow mgd 7.34 6. % ~ to 9.15 BOD mg/L 26 20 to 30 Suspended Solids mg/L 23 18 to 30 Oil & Grease mg/L 2.09 0.3-t to 4.89 Table 36 SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER QUALITY COMBINED DISCHARGE° 1992 Parameter Unit Average ~~, mgd 20.3 I BOL mg/L. ._ 34.0 ~ Suspended Solids :r 2/L ~•0 Source: SSF.SB WW'I'P .Annual Report, :~)'_. Combined discharge includes wastewater from South San Franctsco/San Bruno Treatment Plant, San Francisco International Airport Treatment Plant, and other Treatment Plants. II-295 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDfT1ONS REPORT WATER QUALITY MAY 1993 r- II-296 Chapter 20 CULTURAL RESOURCES The following chapter presents the historical and cultural resources found in the East of l01 Area. The historic locations referenced in this chapter are shown in Figure 53, and Figures 54 and 55 show historic photos of the study area. A. Native American Settlement and Uset The East of 101 Area was at one time inhabited by Native American tribes who were speakers of the Ramaytush dialect of the Ohlone language. Native American archaeological sites are situated on terraces at the edge of the original bay or marshlands, and on terraces adjacent to watercourses. The project area includes portions which, prior to fill, were either marshlands or part of the Bay, and terraces which would have been at or near the Bay and marshlands. These characteristics make the East of 101 Area favorable for Native American inhabitance and prehistoric cultural resources. Through a records search completed by the California Archaeological Inventory, it was found that the project area contains one Native American archaeological site (CA-SMA-40}. This archeological site is a shell midden site consisting of the residue from Native Americans living in the area and processing shell for consumption and ornamentation. Approximately 20 percent of the project area has previously been studied for archaeological resources. Given the environmental factors in the area, including coastal proximity and the presence of creeks, the uninvestigated portions of the project area have a possibility of containing Native American resources. t Information for this section is taken from the Archeological Information Search for the East of 101 Area Plan, California Archaeological Inventory, April 1993. II-297 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES B. Historical Development2 The written history of the East of 101 Area began with the coming of Spanish- American settlers to the area in the early 1800s. The old Rancho Buri Buri, including the East of 101 Area, was originally owned by Jose Antonio Sanchez. The land was given to him in 1835 as a reward for his services as a soldier to Spain and then Mexico. When Sanchez died in 1843, he left his land to his wife and ten children who, within 25 years, had either sold or lost it through litigation and debt. Future owners and development of the land eventually led to the success of the livestock and meat industry in the South San Francisco area. In 1888, Gustavus Swift, a giant of the American meat packing industry, began looking for a suitable site in the San Francisco Bay Area for a meat packing plant. Western Meat established its business at Point San Bruno in 1894, bringing with it a booming community of employees, plants, and stockyards. Figure 54 includes a photograph of the packing company in 1917. Industries which followed Western Meat into South San Francisco included Steiger Terra Cotta Pottery Works (1894) and W.P. Fuller (1898). Portions of the original Fuller development still stand in the East of 101 Area. Figures 54 and 52 show the Steiger Terra Cotta Pottery Works and the W.P. Fuller developments in the historical era. When South San Francisco incorporated in 1908, it had a population of 1,989 and 14 major industries. Several additional industries moved into the area within the next few years, including Pacific Coast Steel (1909}, Shaw Batcher Steel Company (1913), American Marble and Mosiac Works (1914), Enterprise Foundry (1914), E. H. Edwards Wire Rope Co. (1916) and Growers Rice (1916). World War I brought even more people and industries. Shipyards went into full operation, with Pacific Coast Steel and Shaw-Batcher constructing submarines, gunboats, and other war vessels. The shipyard can be seen in Figure 55. As the Depression settled on South San Francisco, new industries continued to locate in the area. The original Western Meat Company was replaced with Swift and Company. The population of the City doubled during World War II, during which there were more than 46 major industries in the City. The postwar years also witnessed unparalleled growth. In 1955, the City embarked 2 Information for this section is taken from South San Francisco -A History, Linda Kauffman, 1976 ~.. II-298 .~ LEGENll i ~ O Shaw-Bacher/Westem Pipe and SteeUAmerican Bridge/ ~ ~ / U.S. Steel Cu. (1917-1983) © E.11. EJwards Wire Works ~'> / i. (1916-1981) ,~ © Muwal Engineering (19114-1949) -- ~ ~ , "~'" - ~~~~~ ~^, "' O Fontana Foods/Dubuque ~) ~-JI' Packing Co. (1922-1981) ~ ; j ~ _.. Y" ~ . '' ~~ a © Enterprise Foundry (1914-1960) i' `PW '~ ~- .- .' ~ ~ '~;~,. Pacific Coast SteeU \ - "" •^M:,,,,, / f ~ .. ~ ~ O Bethlehem Steel (1909-1977) ~, ~"""""~ti ~ f .j ~ <~~ O Metal &'I'hermit (1920-1962) ~~ ` ~'L''' ~ ~ O American liernarn Cu. ~ 1I ~,'`(~~ , ~_ . Growers Rice Milling Co. `~ '~~ .~~., ... ~ ~ ,- ~~ ...• ~- (1916-1929) ` ~. ~. ~- .' m ~ ~ _ _ -Q--? ~- -- . - - ; ~. ~ American Marble & Mosaic Cu./ Pacific ]u iter Steel Co. ; (1916-1945) ~' ~' /© / ' F Steiger'ferra Cotur (1900-191"!) ~~ %,' ,••' ® Unitul PaJcing Co. (1929-1958) t O °'~ ~' ~~~'~ ,~ •~• ® Virden, Amtour Packing Cu. ~ ~+ ~_~~ 'c -; (1917-1985) ``Ej ~ ir; ar„r,. ~ F• I'1 \ '~ ', Western Meal Cu./Swift & Cu. J l - _ ~ ~ * r' (1891-1968) ~. ' ' '~~ ® - 1, ~ ~-~Ic ~ ~ R< W.1? l~ullcr/1vller O'Brien Pauus ~ , ,; ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~` ~~~ ~?; (1898-presuri) i / ' ` + -~~. T ~,' ~ r, ;v ~ ~' _ ~ \ ~~ Marine Chemical Cu. ~ eal ce.eD .VT ` ~ ~ ~, i •-, f (1928-presenQ ' ~~ v ~ ` ~ ~` __ ' ~Di ~~ ; i I ~~: Wildberg Brothers Refinery ~ O _ :, ~ ~ ~' , Works (1920-1980) ~ ~~ ' ~ ._ ~` r,5. . ~ .; O ~' ~. - i / ~ / ~ ~ \J ~ I ~' = __ _:a psi ~i ; / ~i n / ~ / ~ ~ i ~s,A 1 x 1 i 4 „-. _,, --_,_ ~~ r-, l;''~,~ 'I ~ ~ ~ ~~ a f~~~~~ iii r ; ; ^ j ~ ~ ~ ~ . , e: ~~ e~ ~ I I _ 1~j 1~ ry r~y~ Y /~ fir, ~/1 ~ I I~ ~a~ ~~ ~% ~ 3 L 4~ os ,F,`' F ~E'X i ~~ P t` ~ F t ~,1`~~r ~ '~ ~ ~ '' I~~ ~ -~.a-~ -_t- 'I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ I Pl ,~'~ ~I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~j~~~ ~~- 1 r ~ ~ t. '~ ~~ ~' `, I . I, ~ , ~: i; , , `~ ~ ~ ! . ---,- - '~_~ ~ ~ .~ ~~" ~ ~ it ,, 3.b .MONO I6!!wu - -._ r .. Source: Vitxor heudale, llistoric Preservation Commission, City of South San Francisco. S C A L E 1'-1300' ___ °~ ' EAST O F 7 7 AREA PLAN City o f South San Francisco FIGURE 53 Historic Locations of Study Area Industries B K A D Y A N D A S S O C I A '(' L' S ILL M M .. .• M D L L M D. C L T• L• C~ I T. ~ T Source: "South San Francisco;' A History by Linda Kauffman, 1976. EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco FIGURE 54 Historic Photos of the Study Area B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S 54A. Western Meat Company (1894-1932), Swift and Company (1932-1968). Photo, 1922. 54B. Steiger Terra Coua Pottery Works (1894-1917). Photo, 1898. ~, SSA. W.P. Fuller (1898-present). The only historical buildings irnown to exist in the East of 101 Area_ Photo, 1898. i -~ SSB. ~t~~,;; :.,.:,:~: Source: "South San Francisco," A History by Iinda Kauffman, 1976. -1964). EAST OF ~o~ AREA PLAN - -~-~ -~- City of South San Francisco FIGU~tE 55 Historic Photos of the Study Area B R A D Y A ?i D A S S O C I A T E S MAY 1993 EAST' OF 101 AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES on one of the largest industrial expansion programs in the State with the development of previously unused marshlands. Most of the heavy industrial development in the East of 101 Area abandoned business in the late 1950s and early 1960s. A change in development occurred in these years, with newer developments emphasizing recreation, office and light industrial uses. These recent developments of the East of 101 Area included the Oyster Point Marina, which was established in 1962, and the Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes industrial complex, which was planned in 1963. C. W.P. Fuller Buildings3 The only historical buildings in the East of 101 Area are the W.P. Fuller Buildings located at 450 East Grand Avenue. The buildings were constructed in 1898 and are presently owned by the Fuller-O'Brien Corporation, who foresees demolition on the buildings in the near future. The company does not want to keep the land idle, and the existing buildings would cost too much to rehabilitate to safe and profitable conditions a The W.P. Fuller and Company Paint Plant was one of the most important industries to locate in South San Francisco. Fuller sailed around Cape Horn and arrived in San Francisco in 1849. However, instead of heading to the gold fields, like many immigrants, Fuller opened a store in Sacramento. In 1861, Fuller transferred his operations to San Francisco and began the W.P. Fuller and Company Lead and Color Works. When a fire destroyed the San Francisco plant in 1896, Fuller chose the site at Point San Bruno and built the largest paint and varnish works company on the West Coast. The plant was an important addition to the economy of South San Francisco. With the City just coming out of the serious depression of 1892-1895, the new industry was needed to employ residents and encourage new development. The Fuller Company not only produced paint and varnish, but also manufactured heavy glass mirrors and high grade lubricating oils and special paint supplies. Today, the Fuller site consists of the largest cluster of buildings remaining from the City's industrial past. The complex consists of numerous brick industrial 3 Information far the following section is taken from the State Department of Parks and Recreation's Historic Resources Inventory, 1986 4 Mark Allen, Vice-President of Fuller-O'Brien, personal communication, March 3, 1993 II-303 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN MAY 1993 EXIS'T'ING CONDITIONS REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES structures one to three stories tall and rectangular in plan. The oldest buildings are very Spartan in their design. Segmented arched windows and variated parapet lines provide the primary ornament. Long squared buttresses also add interest to the buildings. Window forms are simple, unadorned, and rectangular in shape. They are vertically oriented and double hung four over four. The most distinctive windows are recessed with plain block window heads over paired lights. Corrugated metal has been used both on smaller outbuildings and as covering on the older buildings. Roof lines are eithec flat or low gabled. Brick bands have been stepped out at the cornice line. The most architecturally stylish building is a four storied rectangular building constructed on a large rectangular plan and designed in an elegant example of streamline modern style. Multi-paned window bands alternate with plain plaster walls to give the building its modern look. Building conditions at the Fuller site range from deteriorated to very good. Though the buildings are not currently registered with the City, State or federal government, they are probably eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources since they are over 50 years old and are a unique indication of the manufacturing industry in South San Francisco. Because of this apparent eligibility, demolition of the buildings may require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). II-304 ;~.. :^~- r. .., ~°' efl C/: G a 7C v 0 -~ ..